| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
It Really Is Clinton III
|
It Really Is Clinton III
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:41:48 -0500, BAR wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...lk&refer=home# "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! |
It Really Is Clinton III
BAR wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...lk&refer=home# Most working Americans would gladly trade the last eight years of one horrific Republican disaster after another for the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. |
It Really Is Clinton III
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...lk&refer=home# "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." |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0800, 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...lk&refer=home# "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." You don't think Obama's serious? |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Jan 8, 7:13*pm, hk wrote:
BAR wrote: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aiptix3lk&refe... Most working Americans would gladly trade the last eight years of one horrific Republican disaster after another for the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. Of course the numbers clearly show the economy fell apart after the Democrats took over, and Frank, Kerry, and Obama got a lot of money from Freddie and Fannie. In the order of who got most money in Washington from Fannie and Freddie: Chris Dodd Barak Obama John Kerry... and what do you know, after plenty of warning, nothing was done to stop the insane madness of Freddie and Fannie.. But go ahead, keep making it up as you go along.. JPS will cuddle with you tonight... |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Jan 8, 8:25*pm, John H wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0800, 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." You don't think Obama's serious?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He is afraid if he doesn't do what the Clintons tell him to do, he will be another victim of Arkansas Suicide... |
It Really Is Clinton III
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 Really Is Clinton III
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. |
It Really Is Clinton III
John H wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:39:44 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, John H wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0800, 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." You don't think Obama's serious?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He is afraid if he doesn't do what the Clintons tell him to do, he will be another victim of Arkansas Suicide... I'm thinking he's the one who got fooled. ~~snark~~ Obama isn't equipped to play politics on the national and international stage. He is being handled. |
It Really Is Clinton III
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. |
It Really Is Clinton III
BAR wrote:
John H wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:39:44 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 8, 8:25 pm, John H wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:58:40 -0800, 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." You don't think Obama's serious?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - He is afraid if he doesn't do what the Clintons tell him to do, he will be another victim of Arkansas Suicide... I'm thinking he's the one who got fooled. ~~snark~~ Obama isn't equipped to play politics on the national and international stage. He is being handled. snerk The boy who is handled is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney's ventriloquist dummy. |
It Really Is Clinton III
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. Get those old uniforms out of the closet. |
It Really Is Clinton III
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. |
It Really Is Clinton III
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. |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Jan 8, 10:59*pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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... |
It Really Is Clinton III
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 |
It Really Is Clinton III
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 |
It Really Is Clinton III
wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:59 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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... There's nothing more preposterous politically in here than your constant slamming of the Clinton Administration for its minor transgressions and President Bill's uncontrollable zipper in the face of your willingness to give the Bush Administration a "pass" on the last eight years of horror it has inflicted on this country. 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. None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past eight years with anything but revulsion. |
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
hk wrote:
wrote: On Jan 8, 10:59 pm, 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.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - 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... There's nothing more preposterous politically in here than your constant slamming of the Clinton Administration for its minor transgressions and President Bill's uncontrollable zipper in the face of your willingness to give the Bush Administration a "pass" on the last eight years of horror it has inflicted on this country. 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. 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. |
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. |
It Really Is Clinton III
Eisboch wrote:
"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 think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street. Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime." The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent "subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn, along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing opportunities to lower income buyers. |
It Really Is Clinton III
"hk" wrote in message m... I think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street. The social engineering (and I said it was well intentioned) is what enabled the greed of the financial institutions. (notice I didn't say "lending"). And then the government failed to exercise the required oversight for a social program it initiated. I don't blame local banks. They were simply complying with the law and taking advantage of the opportunity to issue more mortgages including the high risk ones because they could sell them off and wash their hands of them. Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime." I bought my first house with a VA "backed" loan when I was released from the Navy. The VA basically guarentees the amount of a typical down payment, or part of it, based on the rational that someone exiting the military and trying to buy a house did not have years of civilian level income behind him/her from which to save the down payment. You *still* had to otherwise qualify for the loan under the standards of the time, meaning credit rating, income, etc. to indicate your ability to repay and be approved. Not quite the same as the sub-prime loans starting in the 90's where all you had to do was consume oxygen and sign your name to get a loan. The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent "subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn, along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing opportunities to lower income buyers. Both. Chicken and Egg. A fact that cannot be argued is that many of the loans were issued with full knowledge that the probability of default was 100 percent. Eisboch |
It Really Is Clinton III
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "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 think you are overstating the social engineering part here, and not even mentioning the major causative effect, the greed of lending institutions and their co-conspirators on wall street. The social engineering part was the primary driver of Congress' threat to the lending industry to make more loans to those who were marginally qualified, unqualified and completely and totally unqualified. This opened up lending to those who couldn't handle their own finances across the entire spectrum of haves and have nots. Keep in mind that since WW II this country has promoted low-cost lending methods to help lower income households buy a home. I'm sure you recall practically nothing down VA loans and minimimal down FHA loans. By thge standards of those days, many of those loans were "sub prime." Within the last 20 years the lending market was cracked open wide, very wide and just about anybody who was breathing and had a pay stub was getting a lone whether they were getting a pay stub next week or not. Risk analysis was thrown out the window with the Congress opening the window and holding one side of the manual. The packaging, selling, repackaging and reselling of the more recent "subprime" loans was a major factor in the recent financial downturn, along with the greed of all the others who were players. I see what happened more as a result of unregulated markets than expanding housing opportunities to lower income buyers. The banks were stupid, they wanted as many of these loans off of their books as possible. But, then they saw that others were making buckets of money from these "packaged" sub prime loans and they started to get in on the act. 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. |
It Really Is Clinton III
BAR wrote:
20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else. |
It Really Is Clinton III
hk wrote:
BAR wrote: 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else. Sadly no. But, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd all had a hand in loosening the rules which contributed to the problem we find ourselves in today. McCain and Bush saw the problem coming and tried to arrest and turn it around but, they were thwarted by Frank and Dodd. The public and Congressional record supports me. |
It Really Is Clinton III
BAR wrote:
hk wrote: BAR wrote: 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else. Sadly no. But, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd all had a hand in loosening the rules which contributed to the problem we find ourselves in today. McCain and Bush saw the problem coming and tried to arrest and turn it around but, they were thwarted by Frank and Dodd. The public and Congressional record supports me. You're hilarious. Really. |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Jan 9, 8:41*pm, BAR wrote:
hk wrote: BAR wrote: 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else. Sadly no. But, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd all had a hand in loosening the rules which contributed to the problem we find ourselves in today. McCain and Bush saw the problem coming and tried to arrest and turn it around but, they were thwarted by Frank and Dodd. The public and Congressional record supports me. Top three recipients of election bribes from Fannie and Freddie: Dodd Obama Kerry... Frank was way up there too, but our do nothing Dodd is laughing all the way to the bank.. |
It Really Is Clinton III
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:08 -0500, BAR wrote:
20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Damn conservatives, always wanting government to regulate everything. ;-) From my seat, it wasn't the CRA or the sub-prime loans that did this economy in. It was the stupid actions of the banks and investment houses in their dealings with sub-prime loans. Lehman Brothers was leveraged somewhere @ 33 to 1. That's just downright dumb. Remember "redlining"? It was a racist, and illegal, policy of grouping entire neighborhoods as "out-of-bounds" for loans. That was what the CRA was intended to alleviate. What a concept, banks doing their jobs loaning money without regards to race, religion, or gender. |
It Really Is Clinton III
"hk" wrote in message m... BAR wrote: hk wrote: BAR wrote: 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Ahh, but you don't make the rules for this or anything else. Sadly no. But, Carter, Clinton, Frank and Dodd all had a hand in loosening the rules which contributed to the problem we find ourselves in today. McCain and Bush saw the problem coming and tried to arrest and turn it around but, they were thwarted by Frank and Dodd. The public and Congressional record supports me. You're hilarious. Really. He's also correct. Not quite that straightforward, but the point is that it was basically another "giveaway" program that backfired. Now, according to Obama, the solution is more giveaway programs. Handing out money will not solve the mess we are in just as creating artificial jobs won't. (FDR's programs didn't work either ... it took a war to escape the Depression). There are two basic solution options. The first will take time and most Democrats, especially those on the far left won't like it. The second is to throw in the towel and become another European style socialist republic. Eisboch |
It Really Is Clinton III
wrote in message t... On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:53:08 -0500, BAR wrote: 20% cash down. If you don't have 20% down get a second job. If you have to wait 15 or 20 years to buy a hose then that is what you have to do. You do not have a right to buy a house regardless what Barney Frank or Chris Dodd have to say. Damn conservatives, always wanting government to regulate everything. ;-) From my seat, it wasn't the CRA or the sub-prime loans that did this economy in. It was the stupid actions of the banks and investment houses in their dealings with sub-prime loans. Lehman Brothers was leveraged somewhere @ 33 to 1. That's just downright dumb. Remember "redlining"? It was a racist, and illegal, policy of grouping entire neighborhoods as "out-of-bounds" for loans. That was what the CRA was intended to alleviate. What a concept, banks doing their jobs loaning money without regards to race, religion, or gender. That was the intent, but what it produced was Equal Opportunity Lending, regardless of the ability to repay, race, religion or gender and it encompasses everybody. You say sub-prime loans didn't do the economy in, but acknowledge it was the stupid actions of banks and investment houses in their dealings with sub-prime loans. So, sub-prime loans really are at the heart of the problem. What if the lending banks had not had the option to sell them off to the investment houses? The answer, pure and simple, is that the loans would never have been made to begin with. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:56 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com