2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On Sun, 15 May 2011 22:45:42 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


yeah i know. your reader's digest view of history is quite comforting
to all children

Now I get it, you are a stoner.. Only a stoned stupid fan of Jon Stewart
would write a sentence like that.

you read the large print size.

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:22:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 14/05/2011 11:37 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:56:39 -0400, wrote:

Yet the democratic senate came up with a fin reg bill that left most
of the abuses like too big to fail in place. Maybe it was because they
took more money from Wall Street than the republicans did.

actually the dems didnt. in the last election, 80% of wall street
money went to the GOP


BTW 2008 was even more of a slam dunk for the democrats. I suppose
that is why the bailout went the way it did

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008

Wow, great list. Shows the union corruption.

amount of money unions took out of the US economy in the last 3 years:

zero

amount wall street did?

10 trillion.

and yet the right hates unions.

go figure

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 11:32 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:11:21 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

As for Obama, he is far more vulnerable from the left than he is from
the right.That is why the right has to come up with such stupid stuff
to oppose him like the birther bull****.
A guy like Bernie Sanders could seriously hurt him in a primary if he
tried. The dems are just happy to keep their name on the white house,
even if the guy there is a big business republican in democrat
clothing.

Bernie Sanders isn't going to challenge Obama for the nomination.
Period.

The "right" comes up with the birther **** because the base of the GOP
is composed of racist leftovers from the Southern Strategy days. The
righties down at the bottom of the intellectual scale are easy to
manipulate by the Trumps, the Palins, et cetera. Look at who the
birthers *here* have been...the intellectual ciphers who couldn't get
into an open admissions community college.


I just picked Sanders because he seems to be the moral left of your
party. I am not sure who else would qualify. That was my point. When
you have neocons like Hillary and Schumer in leadership positions it
is hard to tell the difference between democrats and republicans if
you don't look at the superficial diversions.
Obama has even ducked the guns and god issues so you are really only
left with abortion and gays. They may bring out emotional responses on
both sides but nobody is going to say either of them is what brought
down the republic.
I think the real power brokers are so happy with the way things are
going they are not really interested in beating Obama so they keep
sending clowns like Trump and Palin to the front of the pack.
That is why I say he may be the most vulnerable from the left ... if
the left actually wanted change.

In that regard you might actually find someone from the Libertarian
side of the world who could rally the people who want to see something
change. I really think the debt is going to shrink the size and scope
of government so you will not have that one to fight about.
In social issues you are probably closer to Ron Paul than you are to
most democrats and he is on the kooky side of libertarian. Even with
that Chris Matthews says he agrees with the Paul foreign policy.


There's no way I could support libertarians like the Pauls who oppose
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it places human rights ahead of
property rights. And, while I find Ron Paul charming if uninformed on
many significant issues, I think his son Rand is bat**** crazy, and
totally without charm.

Further, I favor a single payer system.

So, which libertarian should I support?

:)

Why don't you just say you are a selfish envious ******* that believes
everyone should have nothing because you have nothing and botched your life.

Or, can we Obamasize government and Obama-debt so my grandkids can pay
for my sorry ass with interest.

You don't want your kids to have a chance at economic freedom because
you worship government like a god. Hey, maybe you want to submit to
statism, you should have gone to an Islamic country.

Try Ron Paul, give the children a chance at life without government
taking 60% of their check for losers that can't manage their lives.
Time to let darwin teach some lessons.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 10:25 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600,
wrote:

The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the
vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just
want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out.
We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them
and they don't like it.

Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them.

Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem.

I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of
concrete. It will read.

"Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore
your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground
zero."

Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause
trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread
American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture.

The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the
other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world
without giving us a second thought.
We are fighting their birth rate and we will never kill them all.
The taliban are against the drug trade, if that is your issue. The
drugs come from the people we support.

Agreed. But once US laves, taliban will be back in inside of 30 days
from the last regiment leaving.

We could kill them all trivially. But it is best to let them do it to
themselves. Strike up a covert war with Iran or something, last time
that happened they killed off a million or so, Muslim against Muslim,
and wounded/crippled some 2 million more.

Best way to fight Islamic fundi-crack heads is to get them to fight each
other. Like Iran/Iraq war. Harvard conflict management principle here,
get them to hate each other and they will hate you less.

Then they will pump oil so they can buy firearms. Strike a covert deal
with the Russians. Russian sell to Iran, US sells to Iraq and win-win.
Do the same for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Best part, in the end they will not blame the US or Canada for the massacre.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 9:55 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:33:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:09:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:24:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 06:48:25 -0400, wrote:

I gave you the numbers for 2101 and your assertion that the GOP got
80% was bull****. It was about even.



SEVENTY PERCENT TO THE GOP

that's a shift.

gee...you're wrong

as usual

It wasn't "80%" was it?
It wasn't even 70%, it was 68

but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

HAHAHAH

FIRST you said MOST money went to the DEMS

THEN you backpedaled and said it was about EVEN

and NOW you're all upset over 70 vs 80??

ROFLMAO!!!


They switched their money from the dems because the dems were solidly
in the bag for them It was the gop fighting the bailouts.

the gop fighting the bailouts???

HENRY PAULSON AUTHORED THEM!!

paulson was BUSH'S TREASURY SECRETARY

and the bailouts were NECESSARY because the RIGHT ensured that we
SOCIALIZED the RISK while PRIVATIZING reward in order to keep this
bull**** MYTH of the 'american dream' alive

you simply can't understand it, can you? it blows your head off your
shoulders to think YOU have screwed america


I hear you lefties bitching about money going to the top and CEO pay
and bonuses but the financial industry has most of the millionaires
and they made huge bonuses on the federal bailout money we gave them.
Right now it is the right fighting the bailouts.

lefties??

i believe in CAPITALISM. a WELL REGULATED FREE MARKET

YOU RIGHT WINGERS believe in PLUTOCRACY

and YES they made BILLIONS. because when OBAMA said this was IMMORAL
the RIGHT said it was SOCIALISM to even TALK about CEO salaries JUST
like the RIGHT was OFFENDED when obama slammed BP. the RIGHT DEFENDED
OIL COMPANIES.


As for Obama, he is far more vulnerable from the left than he is from
the right.That is why the right has to come

WRONG. there is NO LEFT in america.

up with such stupid stuff
to oppose him like the birther bull****.
A guy like Bernie Sanders could seriously hurt him in a primary if he
tried. The dems are just happy to keep their name on the white house,
even if the guy there is a big business republican in democrat
clothing.

HAHAHAHA bernie sanders...you should have been a stand up comic!

you right wingers turned this country over to wall street THEN got
offended when they BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY

In a weak half assed way yes. But will admit, it was a BS spinless
effort. When I heard they were arguaing about just $60 billion on a
$1.6 trillion deficit, I just laughed at the stupidity.

Bottom line, DC is corrupted. Unless a stong set of leaders come in, I
don't see anything but the sewer for USA economics. Like Pearl Haror,
everyone is in denial and/or asleep at the wheel. Looks like the
leasons of reality have to strike before the dumb****s learn their
lesson. Simple lesson too, no prosperity in debt.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 11:17 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:55:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:33:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:09:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 10:24:00 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 06:48:25 -0400, wrote:

I gave you the numbers for 2101 and your assertion that the GOP got
80% was bull****. It was about even.


SEVENTY PERCENT TO THE GOP

that's a shift.

gee...you're wrong

as usual
It wasn't "80%" was it?
It wasn't even 70%, it was 68

but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
HAHAHAH

FIRST you said MOST money went to the DEMS

THEN you backpedaled and said it was about EVEN

and NOW you're all upset over 70 vs 80??

ROFLMAO!!!

No I am talking about 68 vs 80

They switched their money from the dems because the dems were solidly
in the bag for them It was the gop fighting the bailouts.
the gop fighting the bailouts???

HENRY PAULSON AUTHORED THEM!!

paulson was BUSH'S TREASURY SECRETARY

and the bailouts were NECESSARY because the RIGHT ensured that we
SOCIALIZED the RISK while PRIVATIZING reward in order to keep this
bull**** MYTH of the 'american dream' alive

you simply can't understand it, can you? it blows your head off your
shoulders to think YOU have screwed america

The bailouts were opposed by most on the right, in spite of Bush
proposing them. It is also interesting that Goldman (Paulsons old
company) gave 75% of their money to the democrats in 2008.
That may have shaded the decision of who to throw over the side.
Lehman probably should have upped their bribe. $1.3 million won't
attract much attention these days (what they gave Democrats in 08)

I hear you lefties bitching about money going to the top and CEO pay
and bonuses but the financial industry has most of the millionaires
and they made huge bonuses on the federal bailout money we gave them.
Right now it is the right fighting the bailouts.
lefties??

i believe in CAPITALISM. a WELL REGULATED FREE MARKET

YOU RIGHT WINGERS believe in PLUTOCRACY

and YES they made BILLIONS. because when OBAMA said this was IMMORAL
the RIGHT said it was SOCIALISM to even TALK about CEO salaries JUST
like the RIGHT was OFFENDED when obama slammed BP. the RIGHT DEFENDED
OIL COMPANIES.

Changing the subject again? (oil) That is usually a sign that you
lost.

Obama said it was immoral but he did go along with banks borrowing
government money at 0.3% and then lending it out to credit card
customers at up to 29.9% interest instead of doing the business loans
they were supposed to be making with the money. It is no wonder they
are making record profits..
As for Obama, he is far more vulnerable from the left than he is from
the right.That is why the right has to come
WRONG. there is NO LEFT in america.

up with such stupid stuff
to oppose him like the birther bull****.
A guy like Bernie Sanders could seriously hurt him in a primary if he
tried. The dems are just happy to keep their name on the white house,
even if the guy there is a big business republican in democrat
clothing.
HAHAHAHA bernie sanders...you should have been a stand up comic!

you right wingers turned this country over to wall street THEN got
offended when they BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY

If there are no liberals in the democratic party, why are you a
democrat?


That's a really stupid question, Gregg. The Democratic Party is more
moderate than I like. The Republicans are in the far outer space regions
of right-wing lunacy.

Freak, the new GOP are pussies. Only a $60 billion cut and they call
that progress on deficit reduction?

Pussy liberals everywhere.
--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 8:52 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sun, 15 May 2011 15:09:46 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 13:17:55 -0400,
wrote:
If there are no liberals in the democratic party, why are you a
democrat?


That's a really stupid question, Gregg. The Democratic Party is more
moderate than I like. The Republicans are in the far outer space regions
of right-wing lunacy.

... at least the ones they put on TV.
Some of that is just a TV drama.
Most of the politicians on both sides are simply too boring for TV and
not particularly radical in any way.
Do you ever watch Cspan?

C-Span is not much different than rec.boats. Democrats and Republicans saying the same thing over
and over again.

Still better than MSNBC.. I saw a "fair" panel today. It was Chris
(dribble) Matthews, David (creepy) Corn, and Rachael (the human steroid)
Maddow... I can't even imagine anybody being so stupid to even think
they could be considered a "news" channel. Oh, and when Harry comes back
with his usual deflection about Fox or whatever, remember, Harry Krause
says a lot of stuff:

for a good laugh, "The Legacy of Harry Krause":

http://tinyurl.com/69j97tn

;)

Hey, with harryk's recent BS, you could add to that list.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 9:36 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:22:40 -0600,
wrote:

On 14/05/2011 11:37 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:56:39 -0400, wrote:

Yet the democratic senate came up with a fin reg bill that left most
of the abuses like too big to fail in place. Maybe it was because they
took more money from Wall Street than the republicans did.

actually the dems didnt. in the last election, 80% of wall street
money went to the GOP


BTW 2008 was even more of a slam dunk for the democrats. I suppose
that is why the bailout went the way it did

http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpictur...Rep&Cycle=2008

Wow, great list. Shows the union corruption.

amount of money unions took out of the US economy in the last 3 years:

zero

Bull****. GM bailouts, Carlyle GM pension bailouts....long on
corruption. No reason a non-union worker in Montana unrelated to
corrupt auto should be saddled with corrupt auto debts.

Immoral union slugs, I will not buy a UAW/CAW product again, the auto
companies should look a the brand damages the unions have caused an tell
the workers, decertify or get fired.

amount wall street did?

10 trillion.

and yet the right hates unions.

go figure


--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On 15/05/2011 11:20 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2011 12:55:23 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


either the taliban agree NEVER to ally with al qaida and other enemies
again, or we destroy them

YOU want to appease them

tell it to czechoslovakia

You say the right has done all this. Look at the facts. In the last
forty years, most of the time the democrats have had control of at least
two of the three (congress, senate, oval office), and sometimes all
three, the "right" has never had that. I do clearly remember Pelosi
though calling herself the leader of the "do nothing congress" making
sure that even though the right had been voted in, their hands were tied
with investigations and other bull****...

let's see..the GOP had TOTAL control of congress under bush. result?

a depression.

the economy grows FASTER under DEMS than it does under the GOP:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

Actually, again you are full of ****. The economy was doing ok until
the congress of 2006 when the dimwitts started printing too much money.

In essence, government caused the depression by overspending and not
paying fair interest rates on borrowed money. In a nutshell, DC started
counterfeiting its own currency.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
 

On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:19:20 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 16:09:52 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 15:06:40 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 13:17:27 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2011 13:13:48 -0400, wrote:


the system is broken because it serves the interest of the powerful to
have it that way. if there are no controls then it's impossible to put
any checks and balances on the 'supply side' fundamentalist right wing

and they're fine with that.

The entitlement system is broke because of demographics, no more no
less.

partially true. the collapse of our economy, engineered by the right,
is the real reason we're broke

SS/Medicare would be broke, no matter what happened to the economy.
There simply are not enough workers coming onto the bottom of the
pyramid to support an 83 million person peak.

This is completely untrue. Neither is broke and this is just a right
wing talking point without merit.



You started out with 35 or 40 payers per retiree in 1935 and people
were only expected to collect for a couple of years if they lived that
long. Now we have 3 workers per retiree and they will collect for 18
years.
It is simply unsustainable. The whole concept of a trust fund is
fantasy, invented in 1939 to fund the build up for WWII.

what's also unsustainable is the massive increase in healthcare costs
we face, again, engineered by the 'free market' fundamentalism of the
right.
Health care cost is part of it but simply having 40 million medicare
recipients is unsustainable and that will double in a decade.

It's only unsustainable if no action is taken. Action is being
proposed and the situation will turn around. More fear mongering isn't
part of the solution.

BTW did you see how Geithner is extending the debt ceiling? He is
taking money from the federal pension program. I am surprised nobody
is raising hell about that.

we have no choice but to extend the ceiling. our debt wouldnt be
serviceable if we didnt

The debt will be unserviceable when the interest rate doubles too and
that is far more than likely.

It is not "more likely." There's no credible evidence that interest
rates will be doubling any time soon.