"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term.
The longer term is next.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:18:44 -0500, hpeer wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:51:36 -0500, Marty wrote:

Jon, I think he must be really great, President for only 40 days and
already decisions made by 10 years of Republican Congresses and 8
years of Republican Presidency are his fault! Now that's talent!

More interesting is how all of these guys got into financial trouble
in only 40 days. That's talent also.

That said, this really isn't the right place.


In order to fervently believe what we want to believe we have to
desperately ignore what we have to ignore in order to think that the
Congress has been controlled by Republicans for the last four years.
Whatever you do, *don't* actually check this easily checked fact
anywhere, like, say, he

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Instead, use blinding strategies like maybe ridicule this **** out of
this post so you can continue to blame who you've been blaming, instead
of learning anything new. After all, we wouldn't all want to be
supporting a large increase in the same thing we've been doing for the
last four years, would we? That would be insane!

Steph

The problem is that Congress has been ruled by POLITICIANS, whatever
their ilk. People whose only goal is to get reelected. No fish monger
ever cried "Bad fish for sale!"

The problem is the people who perfumed over the stink figuring they were
going to get a piece of the profit.

People vote for who tells them what they want to hear. Forget the 2000
election. Who voted for W in 2004? The People! Idiots.

So don't blame Bush now, and don't blame Obama in 2012. They are merely
characters in a play - speaking their lines - written by "We The People."

Rant off.

In fact, while I don't remember exactly what Obama said during the
primary and the campaign the overwhelming recollection I have is that
he intended to "bring the boys home" right now! Of course, once
elected "right now" isn't exactly "this instance" it is "sometime next
year", "the year after", "well, maybe in a while".

He was reported on the news, over here, as saying that he is going to
balance the budget by "cutting government expenditures and taxing rich
people" which seems a little misleading coming, as it did, just after
the reporting that it was "the biggest bail-out in history".

My impression is that Obama, to give him all the credit due was simply
the better "politician". and I suppose deserves to be President.

On the other hand, I have the sneaking suspicion that it may not make
much difference what party is in power as if the boat has a big hole
in it all you can do is bail.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


He said 16 mos. It's now going to be 19, plus longer for core troops. I
think he's following the advise he's being given by the generals and
following his campaign promise as best he can.

I don't think what he's attempting to do is misleading, although it may not
be intuitive. The short term needs to be dealt with in the, um, short term.
The longer term is next.


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:46:33 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:30:13 -0700, slide
wrote:

Stephen Trapani wrote:


So the fire is the massive deficit and spending of the Republicans who
have been out of power in Congress for years and the now quadrupling of
the deficit and spending, by the Democrats, is the water on the fire? Is
that how your analogy works?



PLEASE!!! Stop making sense. You will give the Believers a headache!!!!

Don't you know the MESSIAH now that He is here in our midst? You must
BELIEVE. No thinking allowed.


You Sir, are Wrong! You are allowed to think.... But it must be
"right thinking".

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


That would be "left thinking" duhh... lol


I'm a conservative :-(

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:25:57 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:


I have wondered about the "Democrats" shouting at the "Republicans"
about the "Bush" finances when the drive to allow poor people to
borrow money to buy housing seems hardly a "Republican" philosophy,
rather more lie the wild eyed liberal sector of the Democrats.

Do you seriously think "poor people" piled up $trillions in debt?
Laughable.
And I can't count the times GWB mentioned "home ownership" as proof
"the fundamentals of the economy are sound."
I really think you're out of touch.
It took both Rep and Dem dickwads to get the economy in this mess.
And the people who voted for them.
What's nice about democracy is "the people" get exactly what they
deserve.
I like it.

--Vic


No, poor folks didn't pile up all that debt. But Fanny May
underwriting poorly secured mortgages certainly sent a signal to the
loaning companies that practically anyone should be able to get a
mortgage.

This, by the way, was pointed out by the GAO some time ago (years) and
if I'm not mistakes the head of the agency was dismissed or had to
resign due to the policy.

So, yes. The idea that poor people who wouldn't qualify for a loan
under any sensible evaluation plan should be able to buy a house does
sound like a left of center Democratic idea. On the other hand letting
the lending agencies leverage their business to a ridicules level
sounds more like a Republican move.

My suspicions are that as a general statement, "politicians will
always do everything they can to get reelected" is probably a valid
premise.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:46:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I have wondered about the "Democrats"

Wrong group, unless you mean "the cruising Democrats".

:-)


Don't understand all these shades of meaning when y'all talk about
politics as in my formative years there were really two main versions
and a few wild eyed groups who didn't attract much notice.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Oh brother!

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 21:46:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:49:34 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

I have wondered about the "Democrats"

Wrong group, unless you mean "the cruising Democrats".

:-)


Don't understand all these shades of meaning when y'all talk about
politics as in my formative years there were really two main versions
and a few wild eyed groups who didn't attract much notice.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

I'm a conservative :-(

The more truly conservative you are, the more upset you should be over what
the Republican party became and what it did to the country.

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:36:32 -0500, "Aragorn"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

I'm a conservative :-(

The more truly conservative you are, the more upset you should be over what
the Republican party became and what it did to the country.


As I have protested several times I moved out of the U.S. years ago
and have only a casual interest in politics but I do wonder about the
Republicans. Given Bush's obvious unpopularity with many Americans I
would have thought that they (the Republicans) would have spent
several years developing a candidate that *might* win.

It appeared to many foreigners as though they just ignored the whole
situation until they woke up one morning and "My God! The primary
starts today!"

But, maybe I've got it wrong. After all who had heard of Obama?


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 21:49:23 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:


As I said, I really didn't pay much attention and it was only a
impression I was left with.

But good on him if he can get out of that mess. Of course, there is
another 70,000 tip-toeing off to Afghanistan but apparently we are
getting out of Iraq... well, except for some that will be left to
ensure peace, aid the locals, or whatever.

I do wonder about the Afghan thing though. It is my certain, sure,
recollection that a number of people have gone over there to teach 'em
"what is what". None successfully, but they went. the Brits even went
twice if my memory serves me.

There is that quote about "those who refuse to read history are doomed
to repeat it".


First, Obama is just another dishonest misdirecting politician in the
mold of Clinton. His claim that he'll get US 'combat troops' out of Iraq
by X date only means he'll switch their title from combat troops to
something else - probably 'peace keepers'. So we'll remain in the morass
indefinitely but change the names we're in the morass under.

Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local
community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members
travel there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin
trade, being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and
Taliban as well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It
makes Iraq look like a well organized peaceful kingdom.

We cannot fix these places. We can only ruin our economy further while
leaving our dead and wounded soldiers on the field of battle. Obama is
just Bush sporting even less fiscal responsibility. He's disgusting.

"slide" wrote in message
...
Afghanistan is scary and dangerous. I am plugged into an Afghan local
community which has close ties to the home nation and whose members travel
there regularly. The place is a mess - kept afloat by the heroin trade,
being fought over by the Russians, Pakistanis, al Qeada, and Taliban as
well as the US and the US backed government in Kabul. It makes Iraq look
like a well organized peaceful kingdom.


I think you are probably right on this, although you have missed out in your
narrative the fact that the British have been trying to sort this country
out for about 150 years and are still fighting there..
What used to be called the 'Northwest frontier' in the time when
pre-partitioned India was part of the 'British Raj' is littered with
cemeteries of British soldiers who died there around about 1870 trying to
produce some sort of order out of the place.
Still the same at present therefore and I am not optimistic that anything so
deeply ingrained is about to change in the foreseeable future.