On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:19:37 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Aragorn wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote

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!


Everyone would agree that breaking out the windows of your house, spraying
it with high powered hoses, and then dragging the hoses inside and spraying
everything would be a really stupid thing to do. If the house is on fire
though, it's suddenly a very different judgement. The Republicans had an 8
year drunken party, broke out all the windows, turned on all the bathtubs
and sinks flooding the place. They finally managed to set the house on fire
and now they are all pointing and moaning because a Democaratic president is
spraying water on it.

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?

Stephen


Jesus man! Don't, whatever you do, interject logic, or the ability to
use the Internet to research facts - for example which party formed a
majority of the congress for what periods - into a political argument.

The Wigs blame the Tories while the Tories blackguard the Wigs.... all
while the public stands blindly by.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Jesus man! Don't, whatever you do, interject logic, or the ability to
use the Internet to research facts - for example which party formed a
majority of the congress for what periods - into a political argument.


Yes, it used to be difficult to know who reads newspapers or watches TV.
All you need to know now is party affilliation. Creationism has become one
of the right's more credible platform planks.

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:43:30 -0500, "Aragorn"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Jesus man! Don't, whatever you do, interject logic, or the ability to
use the Internet to research facts - for example which party formed a
majority of the congress for what periods - into a political argument.


Yes, it used to be difficult to know who reads newspapers or watches TV.
All you need to know now is party affilliation. Creationism has become one
of the right's more credible platform planks.


I haven't been the US for about 30 years so the politics are somewhat
of a mystery to me although I tend toward the conservative side of the
equation simply because if it worked once it ought to work again, but
the emotions evidenced on this site seem exaggerated out of all
proportion to the political system as I knew it when I did live "back
there". Are things really so emotional, or is it only the denizens of
this site that make it appear so?

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Are things really so emotional, or is it only the denizens of this site
that make it appear so?

Things used to be that emotional. However, years of rule by a party that
made creating such emotionalism and division a cornerstone of its plan for
looting the society has so discredited it that the predominant emotion is
shock and despair. However, you go to the waterfronts and backwoods and you
still find people who believe the earth is flat, God created the earth in 7
days 4000 years ago, and a democratic congress with a razor thin majority
and no ability to override a presidential veto created this mess in just two
years.

Of course, this group has a larger proportion of wacko's than the general
population. Why, we even have people creating sock puppets to accuse
themselves of being child molesters. How much crazier can it get than that?

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 10:24:51 -0500, "Aragorn"
wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote

Are things really so emotional, or is it only the denizens of this site
that make it appear so?

Things used to be that emotional. However, years of rule by a party that
made creating such emotionalism and division a cornerstone of its plan for
looting the society has so discredited it that the predominant emotion is
shock and despair. However, you go to the waterfronts and backwoods and you
still find people who believe the earth is flat, God created the earth in 7
days 4000 years ago, and a democratic congress with a razor thin majority
and no ability to override a presidential veto created this mess in just two
years.

Of course, this group has a larger proportion of wacko's than the general
population. Why, we even have people creating sock puppets to accuse
themselves of being child molesters. How much crazier can it get than that?

I suspect that one of the "liberals" will spring out of the woodwork
and stamp all over this conversation but before they do;

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.

But then again, "history is written by the winners".


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

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

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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


I have to agree. There was definitely a "perfect storm" of liberals wanting
home ownership to be expanded and right-wingers wanting little or no
regulation and/or oversight. There was also the conservative element that
is, was, and will always be morally opposed to any gov't involvement in the
financial sector. But, to blame poor people is an easy out, and it's not
even close to the truth.


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

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 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".

:-)

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)