On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:58:45 -0400, Demon Buddha
puked:

lab~rat :-) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:35:01 -0400, queenie
puked:

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.
I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO

But the Democrats, in this case, have crafted policies that save and
benefit big business and have proposed taxes that hurt small business
along with little in the stimulus for them.

So in essence, it's more of the same, except they are going out of
their way to hurt the group of businesses that employ the largest
number of people in the US.

In addition, they are continuing the concept of "trickle down" by
either giving huge sums of cash or outright taking over large
businesses hoping that it will trickle down into the economy.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

In the final analysis, republicans and democrats work the precise same
agenda. The difference is that they tell different lies. As to which
one ultimately "wins" (assuming one of them does), that will only
determine whether we become outwardly socialist or fascist, which in
terms of the pleasantness of our daily lives will be six of one or half
dozen of the other. As the old Wendy's ads used to say "one choice is
no choice".

If these elites are not beaten down - beaten unto death, we are all
****ed. So I will once again suggest that all ideologues on each side
of the argument proceed to remove their heads from their rectums as
rapidly as possible - forget this left/right nonsense, learn to
recognize the real threat, get over themselves and get to thinking
correctly about what should and should not be happening.

I agree 100%. The problem isn't the Ds or the Rs, it's the people in
Washington.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
puked:

On Oct 13, 10:18Êam, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Ê Ê Ê ÊUm... not likely. ÊRunaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. Ê ÊThey both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

Ê Ê Ê ÊI terms of principle, I fully agree. ÊIn terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. ÊThough my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. ÊObama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. ÊI can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. ÊAmazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! ÊJeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Well, from my perspective, that's two positives opposed to one
negative. At this point, if it would cost less out of my pocket for
people to have abortions, I'd be for it.

In fact, as I've said before, I think all women are entitled to ONE
abortion. During said abortion, their reproductive organs are ripped
out with the baby.

There is merit to that plan saving me money in the long run...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

wf3h wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote :


And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--
as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.
Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.

And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed

That isn't the point. The point, which GG obscured with his emotional
response, was that OUR money should not be funding ANYTHING in foreign
lands. We've flushed countless trillions of dollars down the chute
since the end of WWII in other countries, most of which have thanked our
largess with an overwhelming "**** you". I say let them all find their
own ways. Let them die for all I care. Time for the USA to be about
and for the USA and nobody else. Screw the rest of the world.

"queenie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!


And was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before he was sworn in as
president. He won't make it to eight years.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:18:12 GMT, "Morton Davis"
wrote this crap:



And was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before he was sworn in as
president. He won't make it to eight years.


He was never sworn in as president. He messed the oath of office
twice.






Vote for Palin-Ahhnold in 2012.




My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."

On Oct 12, 12:23*pm, Demon Buddha wrote:
Dinosaur_Sr wrote:
This sort of thing has happened before, and will happen again. the US
is not the Soviet Union.

* * * * Getting more like it by the minute these days. *Do not make the fatal
error if believing that it cannot happen here. *It can, and by slices,
it is.

* This will not cause the collapse of US

society. We have had the recession and deflation...still going through
the deflationary phase.

* * * * This is no recession - it is depression. *Mild at the moment, but there
are events on the horizon that are almost certain to come before long
that will turn the wick up a notch or two on our currently unwelcome
conditions. *Just one example would be the coming wave of mortgage
foreclosures. *That should be spread over the coming year or two. *Based
on my reading, it stands to be a damned sight worse than the first wave.

* * * * And what about the likelihood of hyperinflation? *While it would be
nice to be able to pay off the mortgage after only 20 minutes after
taking that job at McDonalds, the other side effects may not be so pleasant.

On Oct 12, 6:19*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
queenie wrote :

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. * Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. *JMO

Try posting after you get your brain back from the cleaners.

If you really think the Democrats are for the little guy in anything other
than name only you are a complete fool.

788 billion dollar "stimulus". Did big business get that or was it
distributed to the poor and needy?

Maybe you think nationalized health care is to help the porr and needy. Ask
your Congressman for specfics, he won;t have any. It was written by special
interests and not one single Congressdroid has the least freaking idea what's
in the bill.

If they don't know what's in the bill, how can they know is for those in
need?

The poor have been screwed more by social engineering than anyone
else. Millions of poor people qualify for medicaid but aren't singed
up...you think this would be a good issue for organizations like
ACORN, right? Nope! And they plan to cut funds to medicaid/medicare to
pay for the health care boondoggle they are planning...you really
think they are going to screw over a key constituency, seniors, who
vote, for the sake of poor people, who don't vote?
As it is, poor people can go to emergency rooms for care...but after?
I seriously doubt it.

"Morton Davis" wrote in news:8g5Bm.90856$la3.84369
@attbi_s22:


"queenie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny
mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge
tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence,
avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by
such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!


And was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before he was sworn in as
president.

Perhaps. He was inaugurated as president two weeks before the
nominations closed.


He won't make it to eight years.

Another perhaps. It will depend on the economy recovering, the national
debt, taxes, Afghanistan, terrorism status, etc.. not the Nobel Prize.



--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

On TV, they show how detergents take out bloodstains. A pretty
violent image. I think if you've got a Tshirt full of bloodstains,
maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem. Maybe you should get rid
of the body before you do the wash and get some different friends.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:50:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

"Morton Davis" wrote in news:8g5Bm.90856$la3.84369
@attbi_s22:


"queenie" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny
mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge
tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence,
avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by
such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!


And was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize before he was sworn in as
president.

Perhaps. He was inaugurated as president two weeks before the
nominations closed.


He won't make it to eight years.

Another perhaps. It will depend on the economy recovering, the national
debt, taxes, Afghanistan, terrorism status, etc.. not the Nobel Prize.

Even if all of the above goes well, it will really depend on how much
the Republican noise machine can convince the American sheep that they
really still have it bad because of Obama's policies.

I can see it now. Fox News and the Republican noise machine will
scream, "The economy has recovered, you have health insurance, the
national debt has declined, we are not at war and unemployment is at
5% BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY TAXES ON JUICE BOXES!!!!!!" Damn those
Democrats!

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:50:32 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

He won't make it to eight years.

Another perhaps. It will depend on the economy recovering, the national
debt, taxes, Afghanistan, terrorism status, etc.. not the Nobel Prize.

Not to mention whomever his competition for the job is.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison