|
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500, (Gray Ghost) wrote: jps wrote in news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote: Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give it to the wealthiest 1%. That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and most of them don't pay income tax. The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome). Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because they pay more in taxes than anyone else. And they need the money more than anyone else. It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or invested to obtain it. What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot. What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have radically different views on parity. Evidently so. Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier products and services, how do you figure? If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government. Another tinkle down economist heard from. Have you heard it doesn't work? No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best. I'm a small business owner You don't sound like one. That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like. and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and individuals who need to stay afloat. Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign. That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who leave the value in the company at the end of the year. Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be able to hire more employees? or fewer? If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you think that's going to make a difference for me? What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business owners are among the top 1%? As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top 1%" that you seem to have a raging hard-on for. The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts. They didn't need them. As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million middle class taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight back into the economy, not into savings. You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever. And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush cuts you're bitching about. Did I say they were? Trickle down has been around since Regan's supply siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and it's bull**** now. I doesn't trickle down. The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need more money. Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose their homes and livelyhoods. Get a ****ing clue. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're going to start reporting news? -- Nom=de=Plume |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote:
In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're going to start reporting news? Hell no! There's no profit in telling the truth. Ailes and Murdoch are on exactly the same page. How might they profit by distorting news in the WSJ? Their court case confirmed they can legally tell employees to lie!!! Arrr matey!!! |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're going to start reporting news? I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along. Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're going to start reporting news? I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along. Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol Yes, Fox "news" knows all about lying! Question: Do you self-identify as a Republican or something else? -- Nom=de=Plume |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
thunder wrote in
t: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. I wouldn't the poster. He has been asked for a cite from the case or from a reputable newssource. He has not provided either. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:21:30 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:40:33 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:56:50 -0500, thunder wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. If it occurred, then it's a damn shame FOX is following in the footsteps of NBC,CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They're going to start reporting news? I believe the subject was about lying. You'd have to follow along. Oh, I almost forgot....lol lol Yes, Fox "news" knows all about lying! Question: Do you self-identify as a Republican or something else? Are you saying your eyes are blue? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:46 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote: thunder wrote in et: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:50:56 -0700, jps wrote: The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask their employees to lie. The court agreed. It seems immoral to me, for any company to ask their employees to lie, let alone a news company. But then, who ever said laws were moral. I wouldn't the poster. He has been asked for a cite from the case or from a reputable newssource. He has not provided either. You haven't bothered letting anyone in on the fact that the Weekly Standard is way left of your requirement for a reputable news source. It's have to be White Workers Party Weekly to be reputable enough for The (head in the) Sandman. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". And I think if Bush stayed in Afghanistan and didn't veer off to Iraq, there might not be any war going on now. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer. The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!! |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout"
wrote: RD (The Sandman) wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
"Gray Ghost" wrote in message
. 97.142... "Clave" wrote in news:fvOdnQFn4oHVMkLXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com: "RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message ... ... You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie... Are you denying it? My you are a agitator aren't you? ...snip more game-playing... Honestly, you people are worse than little children. A R E Y O U D E N Y I N G I T ? Jim |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
... "Clave" wrote in news:fvOdnQFn4oHVMkLXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com: "RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message ... ... You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie... Are you denying it? I'm waiting for you to cite the actual case instead of blogs. Either do it or you will be ignored. Tacit concession accepted. Jim |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK puked:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:22 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie puked: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:13:31 -0400, "lab~rat :-)" wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie puked: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@4a x.com: That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one. Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he can to fix things. He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things. You don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when you inherit a deficit and fix anything. First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package. It hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations to the bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to get it responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and home buying. I would target small businesses instead of using trickle down economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations. I would keep taxes low until the recession started heading up. Health care would be off the table until we got a handle on Afghanistan and the economy. That's for starters. I'd vote for you. I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and probably a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press with witness of my misbehavior and sins. OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me... Wouldn't hurt you in my esteem. People experimenting with substances - especially when they're younger - doesn't seem to me to be a good measure of their adult judgment. Except, that is, if *they* experiment and then once in the seat of power, decide that it's okay to punish others who do the same thing. In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. And I don't care if a candidate enjoys sex. I don't care if they're married or single. Or divorced. And (I'm sure we'll part ways here) I don't care if they're gay, either. How does religion sit with ya? -- lab~rat :-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:19:23 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:45 GMT, KK wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:02:22 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:48 GMT, KK wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:38:48 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:18:58 -0500, (Gray Ghost) wrote: jps wrote in news:valud5thjtqeip36977gdd8c5smk8am1et@ 4ax.com: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:19 GMT, KK wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:01:58 -0700, jps wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:36:16 GMT, KK wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:12:25 -0700, jps wrote: Yeah, that was the money Bush insisted was ours and proceeded to give it to the wealthiest 1%. That's a lie. 70% of people in the second-lowest quintile benefited from the cuts. Even 16% of those in the *lowest* 20% benefited - and most of them don't pay income tax. The share of total federal taxes paid by the 80-99th percentile of earners *increased* by half a percent (you're welcome). Those in the top 1% had the greatest absolute benefit, yes - because they pay more in taxes than anyone else. And they need the money more than anyone else. It's astounding that you place no significance whatsoever on the fact that it's theirs in the first place. They've worked or risked or invested to obtain it. What's astounding is that folks like you don't recognize the middle class is getting wiped out while the wealthy increase their lot. What you don't recognize is fair play or perhaps we just have radically different views on parity. Evidently so. Since the "rich" need a comsumption oriented middle class to buy thier products and services, how do you figure? If anyone is destroying the middle class it's the government. Another tinkle down economist heard from. Have you heard it doesn't work? No? Then I guess poor people start the businesses that create jobs, and companies with the least profit hire the most and pay the best. I'm a small business owner You don't sound like one. That's likely because you don't really know what we sound like. and I'm likely to create jobs if the economy recovers. I'm all in favor of helping small business and individuals who need to stay afloat. Most small business owners file under their personal tax returns and are most likely to get ****ed by the tax increases on those "rich" people making $200K + that he specifically targeted in his campaign. That's not necessarily true. Many of us are straight C corps who leave the value in the company at the end of the year. And many - or most - aren't. And one year of $250K isn't "wealthy" everywhere. Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be able to hire more employees? or fewer? If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you think that's going to make a difference for me? Sure - if you need $45000 in the bank to justify a hire and you have $41000. What about $50K of your $2500000 in gross earnings? What's that got to do with trickle down? Do you think small business owners are among the top 1%? As I showed you (again), those tax cuts did not only benefit the "top 1%" that you seem to have a raging hard-on for. The top 1% took the majority of those tax cuts. First, having less confiscated from you isn't "taking". And again, you're either an idiot or dishonest if you're comparing absolute dollars. Should it have been an across-the-board cut *except* for the rich? The top 1% pays a third of tax receipts. They didn't need them. Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you feel to others' property is disgusting. As Warren Buffet proposed, they should have given 1 million middle class taxpayers $1000 each. The money would have gone straight back into the economy, not into savings. And it would have disappeared afer that. A one-time shot does nothing; a rate reduction increases investment. You trickle down idiots don't bloody get it, nor will you ever. Says the ignoramus who thinks that leaving those who create, those who hire, and those who invest with less money won't decrease those behaviors. You're the one who "doesn't get" the obvious. And the term "trickle down", as you know, was coined long before the Bush cuts you're bitching about. Did I say they were? When you brought it up in context of the Bush tax cuts, then yes, you did. Trickle down has been around since Regan's supply siders convinced him of the theory. It was bull**** then and it's bull**** now. Whenever the phrase originated, its effects predate it. That lower taxes increase consumption, investment, and employment is not "bull****". I doesn't trickle down. The middle class is getting slammed and you idiots think the rich need more money. "don't steal more from them" doesn't equal "they don't need more". Meanwhile the disparity between rich and poor grows and more lose their homes and livelyhoods. Get a ****ing clue. People losing their homes are people who bet their "livelyhoods" (get a dictionary) and bit off more than they could chew. That's not the fault of 'the rich'. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:32 -0400, queenie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. That's about enough that stupid bleat you've adopted. It doesn't take time to *not* force through "emergency" billions (trillons?) that won't be spent for years. It doesn't take time to keep to a promise to make bills available to the public before signing them. It doesn't take time to *not* dismiss the question I referred to above. And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:43:39 -0400, queenie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout" wrote: RD (The Sandman) wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO. Zzzzz. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:42:33 -0400, queenie wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in m: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". And I think if Bush stayed in Afghanistan and didn't veer off to Iraq, there might not be any war going on now. You're probably right. I'm with you on that one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. Oops, you lost me. He even gave a tax credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer. As low regard as I have for SUVs, better a Hummer driver have the money than a government agency. The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!! He can't fix ANYTHING in ten months. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:43:39 -0400, queenie
puked: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout" wrote: RD (The Sandman) wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO. If it were, it would be better for the country than being what they really are, the party of pretending to say NO, but actually stuffing the stimulus with their pet projects, taking money from insurance and health care professionals (just like the Dems) and going along with health care, etc. They're just as bad as your Democrats. -- lab~rat :-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:19:23 -0700, jps puked:
Think real hard: if the government takes more of your money, will you be able to hire more employees? or fewer? If government takes another $5K of my $250K in gross earnings, you think that's going to make a difference for me? It would for me. -- lab~rat :-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:43:05 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK puked: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:22 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie puked: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:13:31 -0400, "lab~rat :-)" wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie puked: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@4 ax.com: That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one. Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he can to fix things. He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things. You don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when you inherit a deficit and fix anything. First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package. It hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations to the bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to get it responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and home buying. I would target small businesses instead of using trickle down economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations. I would keep taxes low until the recession started heading up. Health care would be off the table until we got a handle on Afghanistan and the economy. That's for starters. I'd vote for you. I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and probably a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press with witness of my misbehavior and sins. OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me... Wouldn't hurt you in my esteem. People experimenting with substances - especially when they're younger - doesn't seem to me to be a good measure of their adult judgment. Except, that is, if *they* experiment and then once in the seat of power, decide that it's okay to punish others who do the same thing. In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. And I don't care if a candidate enjoys sex. I don't care if they're married or single. Or divorced. And (I'm sure we'll part ways here) I don't care if they're gay, either. How does religion sit with ya? Hmm. There's a line somewhere but I'm not sure how to define it. It depends on a few things. How loony a religion it is, for one thing. And maybe this is wrong, but to me cultural tradition makes up somewhat for looniness, because raising a child in a certain religion skips that whole critical analysis thing. I was raised Catholic but didn't think to question it until I was nine or ten. I'm good friends with an Orthodox Jewish guy whose entire environment was immersed in religion so much so that questioning it would be like a fish thinking about living out of the water. So - I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, ever. Someone whose philosophy of life depends on a science-fiction-sounding religion created by a bad science fiction writer who announced that he wanted to create a religion, and which requires huge payments of its members to study its works, is someone completely lacking in reason and unbased in reality. Two members of semi-loony religions have been viable candidates recently - Romney and Lieberman. And sorry, Big Lovers, but Mormonism is *this* (holding my fingers very close together) close to Scientology. The slightest research into Joseph Smith's life of bull****tery and the insultingly stupid story that led to his religion would leave no reasonable person with any doubt of its culty silliness. Orthodox Judaism is a little different - Abraham's God is the same as Jesus', the same as Mohammed's. In that sense, it's basic required suspension-of-all-reason is the same as "mainstream" religions. The difference, and source of its weirdness, is that its adherents pay far too much attention (IMO, of course) to a group of alive-but-ancient men whose interpretations of even more ancient books (which, though passed by word of mouth for centuries from place to place and language to language, are scrutinized for numerologist baloney depending on the placement and arrangement of characters in the text, making Nostradamus dummies look like Stephen Hawking) are held as the word of God, with the result that they aren't allowed to turn on a light or push an elevator button on Saturday. They also can't directly request that someone else do it, but can stand near someone and wonder aloud "If only someone would turn on my light, I could read my book". I think that's all goofy - and if an Orthodox president won't ride in Air Force One or push The Button on Saturday, he's out. But other than that, to eliminate them would be to eliminate all Xtians, Jews, and Muslims. I'm mostly okay with that, but it wouldn't leave any candidates anyone else would vote for. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
Clave wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message ... "Clave" wrote in news:fvOdnQFn4oHVMkLXnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com: "RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message ... ... You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to lie... Are you denying it? I'm waiting for you to cite the actual case instead of blogs. Either do it or you will be ignored. Tacit concession accepted. Jim stinking bivalve exposed. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
"Scout" wrote in
: RD (The Sandman) wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. Bingo! It is needed but not the way it appears to be going. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout" wrote: RD (The Sandman) wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO. Still getting your talking points from the Daily Kos? -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in m: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". How quickly you forget all the talk from Democrats about Afghanistan being the right war. And I think if Bush stayed in Afghanistan and didn't veer off to Iraq, there might not be any war going on now. Perhaps, but one doesn't really know. The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate, financial houses and many CEOs. All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer. With errors from both sides of the aisle. After all, the biggest collapse in real estate financing was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae....under oversight from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the House and Senate Finance Committee chairmen respectively. The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!! And not all of them are due to Bush. Until folks understand that there were errors in regulation and oversight from both sides of the aisle, we will never fully recover. All people will be too busy trying to place blame on the other side. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:09:37 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout" wrote: And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO. Still getting your talking points from the Daily Kos? Is that a site you think I'd be interested in? As far as the Party of No is concerned, what have they done for you? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:13:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in : On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. But Obama never said war with Iraq was the right thing. Now he's stuck with it. He's been in office ten months and people are bitching like he's been in office for years. Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". How quickly you forget all the talk from Democrats about Afghanistan being the right war. What is it with you and the war in Afghanistan? Oh, you want to remind everybody that Bush took his eye off Afghanistan and went to Iraq and that's why so many soldiers have died unnecessarily. All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer. With errors from both sides of the aisle. After all, the biggest collapse in real estate financing was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae....under oversight from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the House and Senate Finance Committee chairmen respectively. The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!! And not all of them are due to Bush. Until folks understand that there were errors in regulation and oversight from both sides of the aisle, we will never fully recover. All people will be too busy trying to place blame on the other side. Republican had control of all three branches of government for six years. They blew it big time and now they want to distract from that by blaming Obama for not getting anything accomplished in less than a year. That is why the Republicans, the Party of No, is determined to see that Obama fails while they gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:26 GMT, KK wrote:
And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy. You're a real asshole, KK. You always have to resort to name calling. I'm beginning to despise you. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:55:54 -0400, queenie
wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:26 GMT, KK wrote: And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy. You're a real asshole, KK. You always have to resort to name calling. I'm beginning to despise you. Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:
Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you feel to others' property is disgusting. You are an idiot. We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry. Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal measure. You greedy sons of bitches that never learned to share are the problem. Voting against your own interests with the fantasy that you'll be taxed at an extraordinary rate someday. Not gonna happen silly ass. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal
wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:55:54 -0400, queenie wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:26 GMT, KK wrote: And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy. You're a real asshole, KK. You always have to resort to name calling. I'm beginning to despise you. Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. Oh, did Obama admit to faults? Geez, what a giant step forward from our last president. He should get another Nobel. The not GW Bush Nobel Prize. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:27:29 -0700, jps wrote:
And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy. You're a real asshole, KK. You always have to resort to name calling. I'm beginning to despise you. Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. Oh, did Obama admit to faults? Geez, what a giant step forward from our last president. Reading comprehension problem? Where in the above 3 lines did I intimate that Obammy "admit" to anything? He should get another Nobel. The not GW Bush Nobel Prize. He already got that one. BTW, the reason the eurotrash socialists gave him the "piece" prize was for not stopping the AIG bailout. If he had, then the euros wouldn't have gotten about $120 billion in "insurance" that AIG had sold for "derivatives". Most of that going to eurotrash banks owned/controlled by states and their cronys. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal
wrote: Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. Most mainstream media is owned by big corporations so it's no surprise that they'd want to defend Faux News. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:27:47 -0400, queenie
wrote: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal wrote: Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. Most mainstream media is owned by big corporations so it's no surprise that they'd want to defend Faux News. Really? SO corporations exist to "share the wealth"??? If this was mere corporatism, then it would make sense for them to SUPPORT excluding one of the partners. Ideally, ONE corporation would be the mouthpiece for Obammy. I say that the news media finally remembered the Nixon administration and how the "enemies" list worked. They realized THEY could end up on it if they EVER dissed Obammy. |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:09:37 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in m: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:27:41 -0400, "Scout" wrote: And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush. That's for damn sure. After all, the Republican party is the Party of NO Still getting your talking points from the Daily Kos? Is that a site you think I'd be interested in? As far as the Party of No is concerned, what have they done for you? I am not a member of it so why should they do anything for me? -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:13:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in m: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" wrote: queenie wrote in m: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK wrote: In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past (unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so- clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug offenders. He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come first. Geez!! Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right one. But Obama never said war with Iraq was the right thing. I didn't claim that he did. Now he's stuck with it. A war which is winding down, particularly since the surge. He's been in office ten months and people are bitching like he's been in office for years. He promised to close Guantanamo, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc.. within a year. He is not even close to doing either. He was aware of the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, public opinion, and the goals of his own party when he decided to run. Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes". How quickly you forget all the talk from Democrats about Afghanistan being the right war. What is it with you and the war in Afghanistan? Oh, you want to remind everybody that Bush took his eye off Afghanistan and went to Iraq and that's why so many soldiers have died unnecessarily. Nope, I wish for Democrats to keep in mind that this was their war. This was the war that Pelosi and company said was the right war and the one that Bush should have been waging. Well, now, they have their wish. Afghanistan is their war. All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer. With errors from both sides of the aisle. After all, the biggest collapse in real estate financing was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae....under oversight from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the House and Senate Finance Committee chairmen respectively. The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking months!!! And not all of them are due to Bush. Until folks understand that there were errors in regulation and oversight from both sides of the aisle, we will never fully recover. All people will be too busy trying to place blame on the other side. Republican had control of all three branches of government for six years. They blew it big time and now they want to distract from that by blaming Obama for not getting anything accomplished in less than a year. That is why the Republicans, the Party of No, is determined to see that Obama fails while they gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted. Bush's administration was a failure although I believe that history will show him to be a better president than most think.....Obama's appears to be headed that way. The problem I have is the next few generations slowly watching their country go broke trying to fix problems that belong to both sides of the aisle while spending more time blaming Bush than doing much of anything. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
queenie wrote in
: On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal wrote: Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies" list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out. Most mainstream media is owned by big corporations so it's no surprise that they'd want to defend Faux News. Nope, freedom of the press is the reason they defend FOX news. The administration should not be in the business of trying to direct news outlets. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com