"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called
for this bill. It was Republican administration officials, including
all of their Treasury and economic advisors. It was the
Republican-appointed Fed Chairman. It was the House minority leader.
It was Bush himself.

Get it?

It was the Democrats who saw this as an opportunity to grab a hold of
Wall Street, by the balls, and use it as their personal bank account
to fund their pet projects.

There wasn't a single direction on the use of the funds.
Not one.
There was strict oversight but NO earmarking.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com



Do a little research.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...07321604674409


THats an editorial you morin.

--

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:32:42 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Vic Smith" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:49:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called
for
this
bill. It was Republican administration officials, including all of
their
Treasury and economic advisors. It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman. It was the House minority leader. It was Bush himself.

Get it?

It was the Democrats who saw this as an opportunity to grab a hold of
Wall Street, by the balls, and use it as their personal bank account to
fund their pet projects.

It's funny to see the Dems jump into bed with the Wall Street fat
cats. What you said has a lot of truth in it.

How in the hell would you know? Anybody who would say that probably
doesn't
even know where Wall Street is, let alone what it does.

Sorry. Paulson is the very definition of Wall Street fat cat. $45

And from what i understand he votes strictly along the repub line

million last year salary at Goldman Sachs. Had to sell his stock in
that company to go work for the gov. $500 million.

Why the po boy I hop his luck improves soon--perhaps theres a casino nearby
?

The lefty Dems are kissing both his ass cheeks.

Yup Bush appointed him just because of that...

But once they fork over $900 billion or whatever of fed money to him,
they'll put him and his buddies on a gov leash.

Sorry not enough votes, so is this still a partisan issue or not ?

The Dems will own Wall Street when there's any argument about "Free
Enterprise" and "Free Market Capitalism" versus gov management.

Except its not the dems that were calling for a free ride here....


Anybody who can't see that is deluding himself or blinded by partisan
blinkers.

Not enough repubs tsk tsk...perhaps if they had acted before I had lost
~250K in my 401K or at least offewrewd ma a bailout but...wasnt meant to
be.slow painful death is my wish

It just makes sense from the Dem side. Personally, I have no problem
with it. Looks like the "conservatives" don't want it to happen
though. Good for them too.



problem here is there is a huge disconnect.

So soory dude but IM a conservative democrat, and I feel a great deal pain
for any conservative that is still stubbornly clinging onto the republican
ticket... talk about being bentover and butt ****ed multiple times.

So suggest take the above straight to your ****ing bank if you wanna buy any
my products--tell them you want a goddamned interest free loan for at least
30 days and longer if you decide your cash might give better returns
elsewhere...because I no longer accept net 30 nor do I accept credit cards
of any form.

--

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:42:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Republicans Are Sissies" wrote in message
...

Did you see McCain read his statement on the tube Ed?
He said he'd worked his tail off but that Obama had torpedoed the
deal. LOL

I did, and it made me want to puke.

He looked a little green around the gills himself.
I think he realizes he's stepped in it good.
They didn't poll even a majority of their own party.

Someone will notice that tommorow or Thursday and make a point of it.

Thursday!
I can't wait but I think Palin, with the bar resting right on the ground,
migh be OK.
All she has to do is keep her head from exploding and it's a win for her.
That will be tough but they will probably tighten that up doo thing and weld
it together.
LOL
I'd go with 12L14 at least.

Debates are rarely won by either side. The victor is the one who loses
least.

Bob Brock wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:04:12 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:49:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called for this
bill. It was Republican administration officials, including all of their
Treasury and economic advisors. It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman. It was the House minority leader. It was Bush himself.

Get it?
It was the Democrats who saw this as an opportunity to grab a hold of
Wall Street, by the balls, and use it as their personal bank account to
fund their pet projects.
It's funny to see the Dems jump into bed with the Wall Street fat
cats. What you said has a lot of truth in it. When Wall Street
comes running to the guv for help, the guv becomes their mama.
The left wing Dems would love having Wall Street by the balls.
Anytime opposition talks about the "Free Enterprise" system now
in opposing a guv project, the lefties will just say, "Shush up honey,
don't talk that way to your mama."
And they'd be right.

--Vic

You might want to go back and see who introduced the legislation. I'm
pretty sure that it was the Executive Branch that drew up the blank
check and said we have to do it now.

Do you understand the word opportunity? The Democrats take every
opportunity that comes their way to load up any bill regardless of who
introduced it with their pet projects.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:37:41 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman.

IIRC He's sitting on a US$ 500,000,000 golden parachute himself.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:53:25 -0400, BAR wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:04:12 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:49:56 -0400, BAR wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called for this
bill. It was Republican administration officials, including all of their
Treasury and economic advisors. It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman. It was the House minority leader. It was Bush himself.

Get it?
It was the Democrats who saw this as an opportunity to grab a hold of
Wall Street, by the balls, and use it as their personal bank account to
fund their pet projects.
It's funny to see the Dems jump into bed with the Wall Street fat
cats. What you said has a lot of truth in it. When Wall Street
comes running to the guv for help, the guv becomes their mama.
The left wing Dems would love having Wall Street by the balls.
Anytime opposition talks about the "Free Enterprise" system now
in opposing a guv project, the lefties will just say, "Shush up honey,
don't talk that way to your mama."
And they'd be right.

--Vic

You might want to go back and see who introduced the legislation. I'm
pretty sure that it was the Executive Branch that drew up the blank
check and said we have to do it now.

Do you understand the word opportunity? The Democrats take every
opportunity that comes their way to load up any bill regardless of who
introduced it with their pet projects.

Do you have a cite where they did so in this particular bill?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Republicans Are Sissies" wrote in message
.. .

Yes, the republicans are blaming house speaker Nancy Pelosi for the
failure of the Bailout to pass. Why? Because she made a partisan
speech.

We can't have people voting for a bill if there have been any
partisan speeches. The devastation of listening to a partisan speech
on the floor of the house was just too much for the delicate
sensibilities of the sissies on the right. So they were forced to
vote no against the bill, regardless of whether it was good for the
economy.

As Nancy Pelosi walked from the lectern the republicans all started
handing her their balls since they would not be needing them anymore.

How many democrats voted against the bill? Were they offended by
Nancy too?

A Bill brought to the Congress by a Republican President by his Secretary
of
the Treasury got more support from Democrats than Republicans.
I didn't think it was a good bill but to have it fail for twelve votes
that
should have been forthcoming from Republican ranks isn't due to Nancy
Pelosi's remarks. It is another failure by George Bush and John McCain
lead
effectively.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, the republicans voting their conscience while Nancy Pelosi tried
to cover for the dems who voted with the coming election in mind is
the problem? No. It's just more dishonest voodo like when Pelosi told
her legions to go ahead and "say" they were in favor of drilling, all
the while with a wink and a nod, promising to make sure they never had
to cast that vote.. No, Nancy was only trying to cover the spread, and
it didn't work. I bet if you look, you will find the dems who voted no
were up for re-election this term and could not risk voting a party
line...

Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called for
this bill. It was Republican administration officials, including all of
their Treasury and economic advisors. It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman. It was the House minority leader. It was Bush himself.

Get it?

--
Ed Huntress


What did the dems pad the bill with?

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

What did the dems pad the bill with?


Doesn't matter really. I think Pelosi wanted the bill to fail to look bad
for McCain. My thoughts on the bill.


I think the failure to pass was a good thing. This whole bill has been
rushed to the floor. 110 pages. How many Representatives actually read
the bill and understood what it said? How did the $800,000,000,000 number
come about? Look at the changes in the last 48 hours. 20% to groups that
seem to help the poor. Removed at the last minute. Bunch of money to
states and cities. Removed at the last minute. We got the energy
deregulation disaster in California the same exact way this bill was being
pushed. Last minute, bill coming off the cop machine as it was being
voted on. Totally FUBAR. The world will not end of it takes a week longer
to pass this bill. The financial system will not melt down anymore in the
next week. What will happen if we take $800,000,000,000 or whatever out of
the economy? Will you be able to get a loan to pay for the overpriced
books and tuition for you kids and grandkids? Maybe change the capital
gains to not tax inflation growth money. The government has pushed
borrowing,, etc. If people tried to save, they taxed the money and gave an
economic stimulus check to everyone. The government just keeps printing
money. Our economy has been based on credit for the last 30 years, and the
piper has to be paid. The bail-out-bucks are just going to postpone the
inevitable unless we change the give it to me now attitude.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

What did the dems pad the bill with?


Doesn't matter really. I think Pelosi wanted the bill to fail to look bad
for McCain. My thoughts on the bill.



Good point. I wondered about her motives.

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
news

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 7:17 pm, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
"Republicans Are Sissies" wrote in message
.. .

Yes, the republicans are blaming house speaker Nancy Pelosi for the
failure of the Bailout to pass. Why? Because she made a partisan
speech.

We can't have people voting for a bill if there have been any
partisan speeches. The devastation of listening to a partisan speech
on the floor of the house was just too much for the delicate
sensibilities of the sissies on the right. So they were forced to
vote no against the bill, regardless of whether it was good for the
economy.

As Nancy Pelosi walked from the lectern the republicans all started
handing her their balls since they would not be needing them anymore.

How many democrats voted against the bill? Were they offended by
Nancy too?

A Bill brought to the Congress by a Republican President by his
Secretary of
the Treasury got more support from Democrats than Republicans.
I didn't think it was a good bill but to have it fail for twelve votes
that
should have been forthcoming from Republican ranks isn't due to Nancy
Pelosi's remarks. It is another failure by George Bush and John McCain
lead
effectively.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, the republicans voting their conscience while Nancy Pelosi tried
to cover for the dems who voted with the coming election in mind is
the problem? No. It's just more dishonest voodo like when Pelosi told
her legions to go ahead and "say" they were in favor of drilling, all
the while with a wink and a nod, promising to make sure they never had
to cast that vote.. No, Nancy was only trying to cover the spread, and
it didn't work. I bet if you look, you will find the dems who voted no
were up for re-election this term and could not risk voting a party
line...

Hey, jackass: It was Bush and the Republican leadership who called for
this bill. It was Republican administration officials, including all of
their Treasury and economic advisors. It was the Republican-appointed Fed
Chairman. It was the House minority leader. It was Bush himself.

Get it?

--
Ed Huntress


What did the dems pad the bill with?

If you think they "padded" it, why don't you tell us? The full text of the
bill is available online. Take a look.

--
Ed Huntress