|
Obama and Hitler
"H the K" wrote in message ... On 10/23/09 3:13 AM, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? Actually, I think it is BiliousBill who used to be a Democrat...unless he and McKee underwent a vulcan mind meld. McKee always "impressed" me as one of the "I've got mine, so screw everyone else" Repubs. And you impress me as **** the rest of you, I want yours. When was the last time you helped a charity by working for them and not expecting a pay check? |
Obama and Hitler
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 22, 9:36 pm, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents.- guess billy doesnt follow the news. the polls show the american public wants us to get out of afghanistan...obama sent more troops...something bush didn't have the balls to do, all the while dick sucker cheney whimpers that obama's making him look bad. He has not figured out the majority want that, and he is still trying to please his procurers. |
Obama and Hitler
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. 60% do not pay taxes, and they do not want to pay for insurance either. |
Obama and Hitler
"wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 23, 12:25 am, "Bill McKee" wrote: He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. he left a balanced budget which is more than the GOP can say The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. gee you'd think that a GOP president and a GOP congress would have fixed it...they had all the power. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. as was the war in iraq when bush fired gen. shinseki for asking for more troops.... .. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. we have the most expensive and least efficient healthcare in the world. socialized medicine seems to work in countries like the UK, france, germany and canada. but the american right, wedded to the failed idea of 'efficient markets' tells fairy tales about the economy (see the recent article by MIT prof. simon johnson in the 'new republic') Reply: The last 2 years of Bush they had more spending than the former years. And was not a GOP controlled Congress. |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. 60% do not pay taxes, and they do not want to pay for insurance either. Uh, maybe because the opposition has been shut down by the bat wielding forces of Obama? |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/23/09 4:49 PM, Bill McKee wrote:
"H the wrote in message ... On 10/23/09 3:13 AM, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? Actually, I think it is BiliousBill who used to be a Democrat...unless he and McKee underwent a vulcan mind meld. McKee always "impressed" me as one of the "I've got mine, so screw everyone else" Repubs. And you impress me as **** the rest of you, I want yours. When was the last time you helped a charity by working for them and not expecting a pay check? I have no interest in "yours." |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:48:31 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote: "jps" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? I amn not a current Dem, as they are so far to the left, is impossible to be one. Also am not Repub as they are too far to the right. More Libertarian view, but staying a registered Dem, allows me some say in trying to get the Dem's more to the middle. More Fiscal Conservative, and keep the social liberal. You on the other hand want the Government to take care of you cradle to grave. I'm a payer into the system, not a payee. I'm a small business owner who keeps paychecks coming to my employees, who also pay taxes and mortgages and insurance companies. I want the government to create the best infrastructure possible for the money. Roads and bridges, public institutions to take care of our military, elderly and infirmed, a level playing field for primary, secondary and higher education. I'd like to see government make certain we have a fairly compensated workforce that can afford the necessities in life and give them opportunities to do well if they work hard. I'd like to see the end of tax breaks for those who take jobs overseas in search of cheap labor. I'd like to see a tax structure that doesn't penalize the wrong people. I'd like to see less disparity between the haves and the have nots. I'd like to see our government put its citizens first, like most other civilized nations. |
Obama and Hitler
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. 60% do not pay taxes, and they do not want to pay for insurance either. Uh, maybe because the opposition has been shut down by the bat wielding forces of Obama? I thought it was Hillary! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:47:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "wf3h" wrote in message ... On Oct 22, 11:50 pm, Tosk wrote: Scrrrrreeeeeech.. Hold on there. Some polls have been taken out of context by the minority media, but 70% of the people do not want "the public option". nope. just the reverse: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5098517.shtml clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government- sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902451.html A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers has rebounded from its summertime lows and wins clear majority support from the public. try again. 60% do not pay taxes, and they do not want to pay for insurance either. Uh, maybe because the opposition has been shut down by the bat wielding forces of Obama? I thought it was Hillary! 60% don't pay taxes. Geez, I wonder why. Could it be that they don't make enough money to exist? Middle class jobs pay taxes. We need more of them to stay in the US. |
Obama and Hitler
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. I'll be damned if you don't sound just like the maggot Krause. lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
"H the K" wrote in message m... On 10/23/09 4:49 PM, Bill McKee wrote: "H the wrote in message ... On 10/23/09 3:13 AM, jps wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:25:55 -0700, "Bill McKee" wrote: He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. And you've had so many years on the planet and governed millions in that time, taking into account all factors, contingencies and predictions and you'd do a better job. It's damned funny that I never heard you bitch so succinctly during Bush's presidency. Come on Bill, you haven't been a Dem in decades. Isn't time to stop fooling yourself? Actually, I think it is BiliousBill who used to be a Democrat...unless he and McKee underwent a vulcan mind meld. McKee always "impressed" me as one of the "I've got mine, so screw everyone else" Repubs. And you impress me as **** the rest of you, I want yours. When was the last time you helped a charity by working for them and not expecting a pay check? I have no interest in "yours." Yes you do. You are a gimmie person. |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Wow. You are such a smart person! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Wow. You are such a smart person! Hey Bill. This coming from the smart and pretty, outspoken, slightly overweight, Iclandic goddess with mousy brown hair down to her shoulders, you should be flattered. |
Obama and Hitler
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:52:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message om... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Wow. You are such a smart person! Finally said something truthful. lol lol |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message m... *Is a test* of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Ah ha! Giving yourself away Swill... re "Is a test" |
Obama and Hitler
"Jim" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Wow. You are such a smart person! Hey Bill. This coming from the smart and pretty, outspoken, slightly overweight, Iclandic goddess with mousy brown hair down to her shoulders, you should be flattered. Funny and fairly accurate except about the "slightly overweight" and "mousy brown hair" goddess. I'm not overweight and my hair is black (well, mostly). -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Jim" wrote in message ... nom=de=plume wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message ... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:51:17 -0400, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:42:40 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:44:22 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:32:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Politicians lost their will. I agree. That would be Nixon, since LBJ escalated. Thus, we lost the war. Facts not bull**** of any kind. Just like the Crusade we are on now, That war was not going to be won. Neither conflict is currently a crusade. That's from a different administration. It's unclear what the outcome is going to be in either place. I bet your average Iraqi or Afghani can't tell the difference, nor can the GIs who are getting blown up by road side bombs or in mountain ambushes. This is a war of necessity. It is necessary that we *win* this war. So saith the messiah. What happens if he decides to leave? Will we have *lost*? This is the messiah of change and he has demonstrated it is easy to change his mind on things. A couple CNN polls seems to do the trick. I think we are going to declare victory, cut and run ... at least I hope so. What's wrong with changing your mind about something? If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in charge. -- Nom=de=Plume There is no problem with his changing his mind. Unless it is because a CNN poll says he should change his stance. We did not hire him to be an arbitrator of popularity. He needs to learn the "Buck Stops Here" part of the Presidency. I agree. What makes you think he's being an arbiter of popularity? -- Nom=de=Plume He is being like Clinton. Following the polls. CNN, etc poll says people prefer this, then O seems to follow along. Clinton should have made the hard decisions instead of the popular decisions and he would have gone in to the books as one of the great Presidents. And, you know this because? Which polls do you think he's following? Perhaps you're talking about the "public option" that 70ish % of the population supports? Yup, he's following the polls! Which hard decisions didn't Clinton make? Ummm... let's see.. Bosnia, Somalia, gay in the military, a balanced budget, a surplus.... During his worst nightmare aka Monica he retained high public support. I guess he was just following the polls. -- Nom=de=Plume He did not leave a surplus! The National debt did not go down. The dot.com bubble just poured more money in to the coffers than they could spend right away. Lots of that money was committed to future spending, which is hurting us now. Same thing with California. So much extra cash that the budget has doubled in the last 8 years before now, and lots of that money was committed as if the gobs of extra money was a permanent source. Bosnia was and is a disaster. Still an ongoing disaster, and was a European problem. Did not concern us. Somalia. He refused the heavy tanks, etc that were requested. Black Hawk down was a disaster because of no heavy armor. Why didn't Clinton authorize gays in the military, instead of pushing under the rug? Man up Clinton. Make a ruling. Just like Truman ruled the military was desegregated. Make the ruling. As to gays destroying the military. Seems to work ok in the UK and some other European countries. Clinton was extremely lucky on the financial front. It was already starting to crash, before the election. And Gore accelerated the meltdown with his election claims. Clinton should have fired Greenspan or at least had looked at the overheated market. But Clintons choice of advisors was lacking a lot of knowledge. Barrack is listening to some polls on the healthcare. Those who think they should have free healthcare. Same ones who thought he was going to pay their mortgage and put gas in the tank. Too many problems just now to tackle healthcare. Man Up. Tell the country we need health care, and we will take a year or two and get it correct. Not a 1000 page bill no one is allowed to read, or have 15 minutes to look at it and vote. Direct the justice Department to prosecute any body who was in charge of Naked Shorts and uncovered short sales on Wall Street, and force them to return all profits and 10x punitive damages. Including Paulson's buddies. Fire the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac officials, not give them a $2 mega buck signing bonus. He is listening the polls (slanted polls) and doing leadership that way. He is not stupid, he is also not an Einstein, but he is naive as hell. You might want to trim your rants or at least break them up into intelligible paragraphs. Too much jumble for me to even try to respond to without wasting lots of time. Believe what you want. It's a free country (expecting another rant any second.....). He presented you with a lot of food for thought and you complain that he didn't make a neat little finger sandwich out of it. If I were him I'd let you go hungry rather than trying to spoon feed you. Not really. Mostly just rants about Clinton, intermixed with a bunch of nonsense. Why don't you feed yourself... seems like you need some intellectual nutrients. -- Nom=de=Plume Can not help it if you are reading comprehension challenged. Can not help it if you don't know how to write... perhaps take a writing class at a local JC. -- Nom=de=Plume Is a test of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Wow. You are such a smart person! -- Nom=de=Plume Yes I am. |
Obama and Hitler
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message m... *Is a test* of your reading comprehension. Maybe you should take a class at the local JC. Ah ha! Giving yourself away Swill... re "Is a test" You could not pass a test. |
Obama and Hitler
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote:
It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic |
Obama and Hitler
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. |
Obama and Hitler
"jps" wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/25/09 3:36 PM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. Hell's bells, move to SW Florida, and buy yourself a million dollar house for 15 cents on the dollar...probably find one lightly used that formerly was owned by a dentist with a hugely upside down mortgage! |
Obama and Hitler
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:40:52 -0400, H the K
wrote: On 10/25/09 3:36 PM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. Hell's bells, move to SW Florida, and buy yourself a million dollar house for 15 cents on the dollar...probably find one lightly used that formerly was owned by a dentist with a hugely upside down mortgage! Whatever happened to him? Was he shamed away from rec.boats? |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. I just re-financed my mortgage, last spring from 6.25 to 4.5. I took the 30 year loan I will be living her another 10 years and will then move. I have no desire to pay off this mortgage as long as I am earning an income. |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/25/09 4:07 PM, jps wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:40:52 -0400, H the K wrote: On 10/25/09 3:36 PM, Don White wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. Hell's bells, move to SW Florida, and buy yourself a million dollar house for 15 cents on the dollar...probably find one lightly used that formerly was owned by a dentist with a hugely upside down mortgage! Whatever happened to him? Was he shamed away from rec.boats? Dunno...he just...disappeared. Maybe he ran off with skipper. |
Obama and Hitler
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:28 -0300, "Don White"
wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. I have always paid cash for everything, including houses. Casady |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/25/09 7:11 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:28 -0300, "Don White" wrote: wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. I have always paid cash for everything, including houses. Casady Classy house you have there... http://tinyurl.com/ykzcp5j |
Obama and Hitler
"Richard Casady" wrote in message
... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:36:28 -0300, "Don White" wrote: "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. -- Nom=de=Plume Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. I have always paid cash for everything, including houses. Casady That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's nothing wrong with an affordable loan. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... "jps" wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:42:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:06:52 -0700, jps wrote: It was the 3, 5 and 7 year adjustable rate mortgages that screwed most of those mortgage holders. Those were institutionally pushed on customers (suckers) in the same way tulips bulbs were sold. Dangerous if you're in over your head, as most were with home price inflated, and the job market ready to fail. OTOH I re-fied from a 7% 15-year to a 3% ARM about 7 years ago. The ARM saw a max of 6.5% and is currently 4%. --Vic Your luck will hold for a little while yet. I'm looking at 15 year now. Rates are extraordinary. I just re-fi'd from a nice, fixed rate 30 yr to an even better fixed 15 on all my properties. My main mortgage increased by $150/mo, but it's 15 instead of 30 yrs. Also, I make an extra payment every yr, so that means it'll pay off sooner. I just re-financed my mortgage, last spring from 6.25 to 4.5. I took the 30 year loan I will be living her another 10 years and will then move. I have no desire to pay off this mortgage as long as I am earning an income. I certainly understand. I don't plan on leaving or selling my primary house. It's just too nice. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. -- Nom=de=Plume Nope, they postponed the complete disaster, and increased the intensity of the disaster. Most of that Trillion bucks went to increase bonus money and pay off campaign supporters and European governments who invested via greed. It has not gone to make jobs, Give loans to buy affordable homes. It has been wasted as a stimulus and stabilizing the financial markets. Friday the 100th bank of the year failed. Goldman-sacks failing would have been good for the country. Thy have been one of the major creators of functional bubbles and disasters for 90 years. |
Obama and Hitler
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m... "nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. -- Nom=de=Plume Nope, they postponed the complete disaster, and increased the intensity of the disaster. Most of that Trillion bucks went to increase bonus money and pay off campaign supporters and European governments who invested via greed. It has not gone to make jobs, Give loans to buy affordable homes. It has been wasted as a stimulus and stabilizing the financial markets. Friday the 100th bank of the year failed. Goldman-sacks failing would have been good for the country. Thy have been one of the major creators of functional bubbles and disasters for 90 years. It's certainly possible that it postponed a disaster, but the point is to fix the system, now that the edge is no longer in sight. If the gov't had done nothing, we would be now in the midst of another Great Depression, and the last time this happened, a WW got us all the way out. Bank failures are bad, but they're a resolveable issue, as long as there is a reserve and as long as there's stability. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior. |
Obama and Hitler
On 10/27/09 9:36 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... wrote in message . .. In , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior. Wow...Bertie is...a spartan! |
Obama and Hitler
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. In article , says... "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... One of the important things he did w/ the $$ was stablize the market and restore some confidence. In a sense, the financial system is built and sustained by confidence (not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is). If the giants went down, we would have seen what happened when Lehman Bros. failed only on steroids. The market should have been left alone to work and weed out the weak. Bad businesses shouldn't be bailed out. Bad managers shouldn't be bailed out. The market decides who should survive and who should fail. The government shouldn't be involved in these decisions. Yes, well, that's easy to say, but the reality of it is lots and lots of suffering. It's never worked right and even completely fascist dictators didn't have the political stomach for it. Pain, physical or mental, often has a direct effect on behavior. I have no idea what that means or what you're trying to say. While the statement you made is factually accurate, it's got nothing much to do with the discussion. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Obama and Hitler
In article ,
says... Almost makes me wish i had a mortgage again. In my day I had signed up for 11.25% back in the mid '70s. When I sold that house and moved back into the city I lucked out at around 6% This house has been paid for almost 10 years now. I have always paid cash for everything, including houses. Casady That's fine if it doesn't drain your liquidity to a dangerous level. There's nothing wrong with an affordable loan. For once we agree. How fast can you pull $250,000 out of your house or $50,000? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com