BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)
-   -   Yeah, I know "plonk" (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/103065-yeah-i-know-plonk.html)

Gordon February 28th 09 03:41 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT .

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE STILL FACTORIES .

HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .

HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT .

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY
OF THE BREAD LINE I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY .

OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES,

MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME,

SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF
HIS TERM .

FROM HENCE FORTH WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS
OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD .

BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE . BUT
I WISH I WAS A DOG.... ............AND OBAMA A TREE .



Capt. JG February 28th 09 04:18 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Gordon" wrote in message
m...

OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT .

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE STILL FACTORIES .

HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .

HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT .

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY
OF THE BREAD LINE I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY .

OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES,

MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME,

SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS
TERM .

FROM HENCE FORTH WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS
OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD .

BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE . BUT I
WISH I WAS A DOG.... ............AND OBAMA A TREE .




I don't get it. Is this Sarah Palin humor?

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




Marty[_2_] February 28th 09 04:51 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
Capt. JG wrote:
"Gordon" wrote in message
m...
OBAMA IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT .

HE LEADETH ME BESIDE STILL FACTORIES .

HE RESTORETH MY FAITH IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY .

HE GUIDETH ME IN THE PATH OF UNEMPLOYMENT .

YEA, THOUGH I WALK THRU THE VALLEY
OF THE BREAD LINE I SHALL NOT GO HUNGRY .

OBAMA HAS ANOINTED MY INCOME WITH TAXES,

MY EXPENSES RUNNETH OVER MY INCOME,

SURELY, POVERTY AND HARD LIVING WILL FOLLOW ME ALL THE DAYS OF HIS
TERM .

FROM HENCE FORTH WE WILL LIVE ALL THE DAYS
OF OUR LIVES IN A RENTED HOME WITH AN OVERSEAS LANDLORD .

BUT I AM GLAD I AM AN AMERICAN, I AM GLAD THAT I AM FREE . BUT I
WISH I WAS A DOG.... ............AND OBAMA A TREE .




I don't get it. Is this Sarah Palin humor?


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!

Cheers
Martin

Wayne.B February 28th 09 07:09 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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.


Stephen Trapani February 28th 09 07:52 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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!

Stephen

Aragorn February 28th 09 08:38 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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.

Did any body see Jinal brains? That's the best these discredited
nincompoops have to offer?






Stephen Trapani March 1st 09 12:19 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 1st 09 01:10 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Aragorn March 1st 09 12:43 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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.




Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 1st 09 03:06 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Aragorn[_2_] March 1st 09 03:24 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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?




HPEER March 1st 09 04:18 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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.




slide[_2_] March 1st 09 06:30 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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.

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 12:49 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 01:00 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 01:03 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Vic Smith March 2nd 09 01:25 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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

Wayne.B March 2nd 09 02:46 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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".

:-)


Capt. JG March 2nd 09 05:46 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 05:46 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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

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




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 05:49 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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




Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 07:53 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 07:54 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 08:04 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 08:15 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

Two meter troll March 2nd 09 08:26 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)


Aragorn[_2_] March 2nd 09 10:36 AM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"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.




Bruce in Bangkok[_13_] March 2nd 09 12:55 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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)

slide[_2_] March 2nd 09 03:23 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
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.

Edgar March 2nd 09 05:54 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"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.




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 06:43 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)



I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to my
own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

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




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 06:46 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
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)



Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason. If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


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




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 06:47 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"slide" wrote in message
...
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.



Sounds like you're pretty bitter about your buddies losing the election. You
should probably get over it. Obama has been in for a month. Bush was on
vacation for the first eight months.


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




[email protected] March 2nd 09 08:05 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"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.


Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK

[email protected] March 2nd 09 08:07 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"Capt. JG" wrote:
Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason.


Not so much a "war" as chasing & killing bad guys.


.... If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.

DSK

Capt. JG March 2nd 09 09:11 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
wrote in message
...

"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.


Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK



More likely it's out of political necessity. Steele and the others don't
want to be out in the wilderness any longer than necessary.

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




Capt. JG March 2nd 09 09:16 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote:
Afganistan is a different war for a different and most would argue for
legitimate reason.


Not so much a "war" as chasing & killing bad guys.


.... If we had started and stopped there, we'd be in a lot
better place IMHO, but in any case, we have to try. I think the best
model
is to build up their infrastructure (as the Romans did) and that'll help
stablize the country.


It wasn't the Romans, it was Alexander and his successors.

DSK



Besides encouraging the marrying of foreigners, he mostly just fought a lot,
although he did build some road/shipyard/etc. I believe the Romans actually
built the infrastructure.

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




KLC Lewis March 2nd 09 10:55 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to
my own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

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


Me three. I've been told that makes me a Libertarian. I used to think so,
too, but too many Libertarians who "represent the Party" are downright
loony-tunes. They complain about the "sheeple," then expect their own flock
to follow them in lockstep.

So instead I consider myself a "Cooperativist."

"Can't we all just get along?" Saint Rodney King of the Many Blows



KLC Lewis March 2nd 09 10:58 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 

wrote in message
...

"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.


Well, it tells a lot that Rush Limbaugh is "the face and voice of the
Republican Party."

However it looks like somebody is finally growing the balls to tell
him to shut up and get to the back of the bus.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...eele.limbaugh/

DSK


If the Crushed Lintball can't drive the bus, he doesn't want to be on it at
all. Personally, I do not believe for a minute that he is actually a
"conservative." I believe he simply found "being a conservative" to be one
hell of a cash cow, and started milking for all she was worth. What he
actually believes in is the Almighty Dollar.



Capt. JG March 2nd 09 11:10 PM

Yeah, I know "plonk"
 
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

I am too when it comes to fiscal policy. Certainly true when it comes to
my own finances. I'm liberal on social issues.

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


Me three. I've been told that makes me a Libertarian. I used to think so,
too, but too many Libertarians who "represent the Party" are downright
loony-tunes. They complain about the "sheeple," then expect their own
flock to follow them in lockstep.

So instead I consider myself a "Cooperativist."

"Can't we all just get along?" Saint Rodney King of the Many Blows


Sort of like Ron Paul. I like the guy, don't get me wrong. But, if we were
stupid enough to implement his ideas, there would be a lot of continuing
suffering.

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





All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com