|
It Really Is Clinton III
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:
I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse. Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree with on everything. -- "The superfluous, a very necessary thing." Voltaire |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 02:48:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 10:59 pm, hk wrote: Pffffttt. It's your party that goes off the wall when you don't get your own way... The way you all have treated the office, since the Clintons trashed it on the way out last to the present has just been disgusting, it's a dem thing... ----------------------------------- I watched in amusement as the Congress critters went through their gyrations regarding the appointment of Burris to replace Obama. At first Reid and his band of liars stated that under "no circumstances" would Burris be seated. Even Obama publically stated that he agreed with the Senate leader's decision not to seat Burris. 24 hours later, they all (including Obama) welcomed Burris with open arms with all the usual photo ops. I still have high hopes for the new administration, but actions like this make me thing it will just be business as usual in Washington DC. Eisboch Reid is Daschle revisited. There's no soul in there, just calculation. I wish men with conviction could make it to these offices but the funding strips them of most ability to move independently. I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse. jps Wow, jips, you almost had me fooled for a bit! |
It Really Is Clinton III
hk wrote:
BAR wrote: hk wrote: BAR wrote: Frogwatch wrote: On Jan 8, 8:58 pm, wrote: On Jan 8, 7:58 pm, jps wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:04:45 -0500, John H wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:41:48 -0500, BAR wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aiptix3lk&refe... "He has instructed his advisers 'to make sure that we are proceeding on projects and investments based on national priorities and not based on politics,' he told a news conference on Nov. 26. There, by golly. That's my kind of politician. One who does what's good for the country, not what's good for him! Perhaps you'd rather put "food on your family." I'm guessing you got "fooled again." Uh, like you know, uh, like, like, you know. I, um, like, you know...... I uh, never really did like, you know, anything, uh, but live off the uh, you know, uh, family money, you know... It is time to use force to end this government because they are no longer acting in the interests of the people. Dodd, Frank, Kerry, Pelosi and Obama need to be hung. Cheat on your taxes and starve em out. The Declaration of Independence set the precedent. Nothing personal, but I think the right-wing scum should go for it...a full insurrection, with small arms. Perhaps the righties could take over a bit of Texas or Alabama. Those of us who remain in the United States would be delighted to air-drop in cheap beer, cold cuts, ammo, crank, and slightly defective condoms. I figure the Mexicans will do the proper clean up on the insurrectionists in about a month. If not, a half-dozen disgrunted Iraqis will perform clean-up. You missed the point, completely. Get those old uniforms out of the closet. Passed mine off to a younger generation. No, I didn't. But a tax-withholding revolt won't do what I want. An armed, violent revolt by the right would. Again, you missed the point. |
It Really Is Clinton III
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote: I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse. Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree with on everything. -- Why so binary? Why do you have to disagree with a politician/party on "everything" to disagree with that politician or his/her party? Isn't it enough to disagree on many major issues? |
It Really Is Clinton III
BAR wrote:
Clinton's only concern while in office what what the country could do for him and for his legacy. GW Bush on the other hand made the hard decisions. Decisions that didn't take polls, didn't take focus groups. Decisions that took into account the safety and security of the citizens of the USA. I don't agree with everything Bush did but he didn't have an eye on what would be inscribed on the wall at the entrance to his library. Yeah....Bush made decisions...the wrong decisions. As for what will be inscribed on the plaque at the entrance to his library, I suggest "No Written Materials Inside these Walls.? There's no question Clinton was a flawed man in the White House, but he sure as hell did not bring this country to the brink of destruction in so many ways as Bush has. You blind ignorant twit. None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past eight years with anything but revulsion. Only the radical left wing ideologues, such as yourself, will look back on the last 8 years with revulsion. That would include about 70% of the country. |
It Really Is Clinton III
hk wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote: On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote: I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse. Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree with on everything. -- Why so binary? Why do you have to disagree with a politician/party on "everything" to disagree with that politician or his/her party? Isn't it enough to disagree on many major issues? That political party is hell bent on destroying the country. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You can tax behavior to effect change but, when you get the expected change in behavior you can't complain about reduced tax revenues. What happens when taxes consume 100% of peoples earnings? This is the road we are headed down and it is only a generation and a half away. Oh, and what about the Canadians? They are extremely upset with us. They want to know where the are going to go to get immediate health care when we go to a national health care system like them. |
It Really Is Clinton III
hk wrote:
BAR wrote: Clinton's only concern while in office what what the country could do for him and for his legacy. GW Bush on the other hand made the hard decisions. Decisions that didn't take polls, didn't take focus groups. Decisions that took into account the safety and security of the citizens of the USA. I don't agree with everything Bush did but he didn't have an eye on what would be inscribed on the wall at the entrance to his library. Yeah....Bush made decisions...the wrong decisions. As for what will be inscribed on the plaque at the entrance to his library, I suggest "No Written Materials Inside these Walls.? There's no question Clinton was a flawed man in the White House, but he sure as hell did not bring this country to the brink of destruction in so many ways as Bush has. You blind ignorant twit. None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past eight years with anything but revulsion. Only the radical left wing ideologues, such as yourself, will look back on the last 8 years with revulsion. That would include about 70% of the country. Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand. |
It Really Is Clinton III
"BAR" wrote in message ... Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand. It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's roots back in the mid 1990's. A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage lending. Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their participation was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans. Enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work, can't work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be encouraged to buy it. But many were, and now everybody pays. "Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody regardless of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly favored what became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest about government oversight and a return to tougher lending practices. Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but that's not how I feel. I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony economics, particularly those who sincerely thought it was an opportunity that they would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are also many who realized, "screw it, what do I have to lose?" Eisboch |
It Really Is Clinton III
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message ... Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand. It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's roots back in the mid 1990's. A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage lending. Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their participation was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans. Enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work, can't work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be encouraged to buy it. But many were, and now everybody pays. "Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody regardless of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly favored what became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest about government oversight and a return to tougher lending practices. Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but that's not how I feel. I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony economics, particularly those who sincerely thought it was an opportunity that they would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are also many who realized, "screw it, what do I have to lose?" Eisboch I wonder if those policies caused a larger than normal demand...driving the housing prices way up. I still remember NOYB down in Naples, with his ideas of paying interest only on his mortgage in the hope that he'd make big profits on the rapidly escalating home values. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com