>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to >stick you in the butt......
--------------------------- Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have handled them.
I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I am out of lock step with the majority.
>Mike Hendrix wrote: >> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:27:22 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> >> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:52:31 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>>> "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I'll bet that if you follow that link >>>>>>> I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes >>>>>>> almost a minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian. >>>>>> Bruce, will you please post that link again. Somehow, I missed it.
>>>>> Bruce >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> Thanks.
>>>> Now that I have taken the test -----
>>>> It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
>>>> Personal issues 70%
>>>> Economic issues 100%
>>>> Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep >>>> calling me a liberal.
>>>> Does that mean the test ain't for shit or does being a Republican mean >>>> you have to be a Jesus Weezing, Gay hating, Abortion nut, that is >>>> completely consumed by guns?
>>>> mike >>> None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the >>> people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless of >>> what they say.
>> bill, sometimes you offer sage advice, ----- really you do. Then >> sometimes you are completely out in space.
>Got an example of one of my orbital flights?
Yep,
" None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless of what they say."
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer > <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to >> stick you in the butt......
> --------------------------- > Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some > TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I > have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have > handled them.
> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I > do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking > (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with > stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- > however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a > chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they > stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. > I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I > am out of lock step with the majority.
> mike
Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org. LZ
>>> Bruce >> ------------------------------------ >> Thanks.
>> Now that I have taken the test -----
>> It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
>> Personal issues 70%
>> Economic issues 100%
>> Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep >> calling me a liberal.
>It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You have >made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more important to >you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
>Bruce
---------------------------------
You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
However, I do admit that the Jesus Weezers, gay bashers, gun nuts, moralists, pro lifers, world policeman supporters, nation builders etc., do get in my knickers. Those folks, waving the Republican banner, have chased me away from the party ----- although I am still registered as one of them.
Mike Hendrix wrote: > "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You >> have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more >> important to you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
>> Bruce > ---------------------------------
> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I > did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before the election.
The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the economy, you were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about the economy, you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:24:01 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> > wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:27:22 -0500, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> >>> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:52:31 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>>>> "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'll bet that if you follow that link >>>>>>>> I posted a couple days ago and take the test (10 questions, takes >>>>>>>> almost a minute), you will score as a Liberal, not a Libertarian. >>>>>>> Bruce, will you please post that link again. Somehow, I missed it.
>>>>>> Bruce >>>>> ------------------------------------ >>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> Now that I have taken the test -----
>>>>> It says I am a Libertarian with a bend to the right.
>>>>> Personal issues 70%
>>>>> Economic issues 100%
>>>>> Now, what does that mean since most folks (including you I think) keep >>>>> calling me a liberal.
>>>>> Does that mean the test ain't for shit or does being a Republican mean >>>>> you have to be a Jesus Weezing, Gay hating, Abortion nut, that is >>>>> completely consumed by guns?
>>>>> mike >>>> None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the >>>> people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless of >>>> what they say. >>> bill, sometimes you offer sage advice, ----- really you do. Then >>> sometimes you are completely out in space. >> Got an example of one of my orbital flights?
> Yep,
> " None of that stuff means squat. You are what you Vote for. And the > people you vote for are what their records say they are, regardless > of what they say."
> VBG
> mike
Explain where I ran up the gravity well with that.
<linus...@gmail.com> wrote: >Mike Hendrix wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer >> <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to >>> stick you in the butt......
>> --------------------------- >> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some >> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I >> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have >> handled them.
>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I >> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking >> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with >> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- >> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a >> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they >> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
Linus, the tax cuts in and of themselves did not "ruin" the economy it was the continued excessive spending on top of the tax cuts.
By itself the tax cuts would be GREAT ----- SUPER what ever term you like. Where Bushie and his Cabal screwed the pooch was the deficit spending on top of the tax cuts.
>I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, >Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats >of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and his group. There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers --------- they all need watching/regulating.
>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I >> am out of lock step with the majority.
>> mike
>Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that >you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information >from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org.
Linus, Bush and Cabal have gone down in the history books as the absolute worst administration in the history of this country. There was a time when I didn't think anyone could bump Jimmy Peanut but Bush proved me wrong. Obama may bump Bush but he hasn't yet. Give him some time he may yet bump Bushie into 2nd worst.
>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You >>> have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more >>> important to you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
>>> Bruce >> ---------------------------------
>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I >> did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the >economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a person >who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to realize that >0bama was a socialist several months before the election.
>The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that you >didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the economy, you >were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate your hatred. If you >cared, even a little bit, about the economy, you would have held your nose >and voted for McCain.
>Bruce
------------------------ No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and change their ways.
> The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and > his group. There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like > Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers > --------- they all need watching/regulating.
The only regulating banks need is a genuine capitalist system where the same people who take the risks pay for their mistakes. While many people will gamble with someone else's money, very few will take excessive risks with their own money. The bailouts simply exacerbated the problems, by letting them take risks without suffering any losses.
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:00:58 -0700, Lone Haranguer > <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer >>> <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back to >>>> stick you in the butt......
>>> --------------------------- >>> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some >>> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I >>> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have >>> handled them.
>>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I >>> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking >>> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with >>> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- >>> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a >>> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they >>> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently. >> Show us a diagram of how tax cuts ruined the economy.
> Linus, the tax cuts in and of themselves did not "ruin" the economy it > was the continued excessive spending on top of the tax cuts.
The Democrats voted for the spending and often proposed it.
Look it up.
We don't have excessive spending now? Obama has cost us millions of jobs....which we will probably never regain and which are FAR more damaging than some tax cuts for people who were already carrying more than their share of the load.
> By itself the tax cuts would be GREAT ----- SUPER what ever term you > like. Where Bushie and his Cabal screwed the pooch was the deficit > spending on top of the tax cuts.
Why don't you research how the Democrats voted on the spending bills? Are Democrats part of the Bush cabal?
>> I can show you one where Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, >> Franklin Raines and their fellow Democrats >> of ACORN stacked the dominoes and then sneeezed.
> The banks went down when regulations were removed by "da-hammer" and > his group.
The banks would have never made shaky loans without Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac, the CRAs and ACORN....ALL creations of Democrats.
There was no one watching the hen house. Bankers are like
> Politicians, Congress critters, preachers and military officers > --------- they all need watching/regulating.
Barney Frank told Congress Fanny Mae was in great shape when Bush tried to rein them in. Want to see that video again?
Try to stay attached to reality about who fought regulation.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-superv... A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >>> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I >>> am out of lock step with the majority.
>>> mike >> Whenever you use the term "Bush Cabal" or "Cheney Cabal" you reveal that >> you are an addicted Kool Aid drinker and get all your information >>from the Huffington Post and Moveon.org.
> Linus, Bush and Cabal have gone down in the history books as the > absolute worst administration in the history of this country. There > was a time when I didn't think anyone could bump Jimmy Peanut but Bush > proved me wrong. Obama may bump Bush but he hasn't yet. Give him > some time he may yet bump Bushie into 2nd worst.
Obama has already done irreparable harm. He's worn out his welcome. His election was a fluke but the idiots who voted for him are still whining about Bush. LZ
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. You >>>> have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues is more >>>> important to you than the 100% you score on economic issues.
>>>> Bruce >>> ---------------------------------
>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I >>> did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard. >> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the >> economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a person >> who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to realize that >> 0bama was a socialist several months before the election.
>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that you >> didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the economy, you >> were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate your hatred. If you >> cared, even a little bit, about the economy, you would have held your nose >> and voted for McCain.
>> Bruce > ------------------------ > No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was > acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had > been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was > delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and > change their ways.
> mike
That is so stupid it makes my head hurt. It's like shooting your horse 100 miles from civilization just because it farted.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:53:17 -0600, Mike Hendrix <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote:
>Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I >am out of lock step with the majority.
>mike
The problem with Paul is he looked like Parrot, sounded like Parrot and acted only as a spoiler. He has(had) some good ideas but... Oh, is the Bush Cabal worse than 0 and his hundreds of thugs from acorn and Seiu etc?
At least Bush's buddies were accountable to someone. 0's crooks are unknown and unaccountable. I will say, I bet 0 black legions are better and more experienced at shooting people than Cheney.
--
From earners to yearners. Obamanomics! From makers to takers. Obamanomics!
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer > <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back >> to stick you in the butt......
> --------------------------- > Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some > TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I > have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have > handled them.
> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I > do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking > (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with > stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- > however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a > chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they > stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. > I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I > am out of lock step with the majority.
> mike
Those tax cuts that you say stimulated the economy, did congress vote them in or did Bush suddenly have legislative powers? If anyone were to be blamed for stimulating the economy and over heating it, that should be Alan Greenspan. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it was his policy of increasing the money supply via lowering interest rates that allowed the money supply to expand to the point where homes costing more then $500k were the norm. Without that monetary expansion the housing bubble would not be possible. His predecessor Ken Bernanke continued that policy. We know the results of that policy. His penalty; a renewed appointment as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
When AIG went south in late 2008, the then President of the Federal Reserve Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG and gave them Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? Secratery of Treasury.
But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many things. A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge him harshly, but there are others who had far greater complicity.
Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual bash! Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be the Grand Bush Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens quite voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery platform to win elections.
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. >>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues >>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic >>>> issues.
>>>> Bruce >>> ---------------------------------
>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If >>> I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the >> economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a >> person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to >> realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before the >> election.
>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that >> you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the >> economy, you were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate >> your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about the economy, >> you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
>> Bruce > ------------------------ > No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was > acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had > been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was > delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and > change their ways.
> mike
Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" irrelevant. Unfortunately electing a Democratic President and having Democratic control of both houses will prove to be a lethal combination.
> Mike Hendrix wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer >> <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back >>> to stick you in the butt......
>> --------------------------- >> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some >> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I >> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have >> handled them.
>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I >> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking >> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with >> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- >> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a >> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they >> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I >> am out of lock step with the majority.
>> mike
> Those tax cuts that you say stimulated the economy, did congress vote them > in or did Bush suddenly have legislative powers? If anyone were to be > blamed for stimulating the economy and over heating it, that should be > Alan Greenspan. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it was his > policy of increasing the money supply via lowering interest rates that > allowed the money supply to expand to the point where homes costing more > then $500k were the norm. Without that monetary expansion the housing > bubble would not be possible. His predecessor Ken Bernanke continued that > policy. We know the results of that policy. His penalty; a renewed > appointment as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
> When AIG went south in late 2008, the then President of the Federal > Reserve Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG and > gave them Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? Secratery of > Treasury.
> But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many things. > A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge him harshly, > but there are others who had far greater complicity.
> Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual bash! > Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be the Grand Bush > Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
> The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens quite > voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery platform to > win elections.
> -- > Frank Howell
Not to nitpick here, but Greenspan was Bernanke's predecessor. Bernanke is Greenspan's successor.
> "Frank Howell" <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote in message > news:00b009b0$0$6700$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer >>> <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back >>>> to stick you in the butt......
>>> --------------------------- >>> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some >>> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I >>> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have >>> handled them.
>>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in >>> but I do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to >>> my liking (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so >>> "overboard" with stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama >>> has) -------- however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy >>> when they had a chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- >>> well they stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >>> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I >>> realize I am out of lock step with the majority.
>>> mike
>> Those tax cuts that you say stimulated the economy, did congress >> vote them in or did Bush suddenly have legislative powers? If anyone >> were to be blamed for stimulating the economy and over heating it, >> that should be Alan Greenspan. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve >> Board, it was his policy of increasing the money supply via lowering >> interest rates that allowed the money supply to expand to the point >> where homes costing more then $500k were the norm. Without that >> monetary expansion the housing bubble would not be possible. His >> predecessor Ken Bernanke continued that policy. We know the results >> of that policy. His penalty; a renewed appointment as Chairman of >> the Federal Reserve Board. When AIG went south in late 2008, the then >> President of the Federal >> Reserve Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG >> and gave them Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? >> Secratery of Treasury.
>> But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many >> things. A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge >> him harshly, but there are others who had far greater complicity.
>> Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual >> bash! Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be >> the Grand Bush Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
>> The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens >> quite voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery >> platform to win elections.
>> -- >> Frank Howell
> Not to nitpick here, but Greenspan was Bernanke's predecessor. Bernanke is > Greenspan's successor.
<fphow...@usermail.com> wrote: >Mike Hendrix wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:24:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer >> <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> Personally, I vote to send a message sometimes. With the >>>>> candidates/choices we have that is the only thing I can do.
>>> Was the message attached to an arrow? Because I think it came back >>> to stick you in the butt......
>> --------------------------- >> Jury is still out. While I am NOT happy with Obama he has had some >> TOUGH issues to deal with left him by the previous administration. I >> have to weigh how Obama handled them with how McCain would have >> handled them.
>> I prefer how Obama is handling DOD and the WARs Bushie got us in but I >> do think that McCain would have handled the economy more to my liking >> (might not have bailed out GM & might not have so "overboard" with >> stimulus and not bailed out the banks like Obama has) -------- >> however, Bush & Cabal really screwed up the economy when they had a >> chance ---- tax cuts to stimulate the economy ----- well they >> stimulated it into the unholy mess we are in currently.
>> Frankly, I do not see a candidate on the national stage that I like. >> I did like Ron Paul but sadly, very few other people did. I realize I >> am out of lock step with the majority.
>> mike
>Those tax cuts that you say stimulated the economy, did congress vote them >in or did Bush suddenly have legislative powers? If anyone were to be blamed >for stimulating the economy and over heating it, that should be Alan >Greenspan. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, it was his policy of >increasing the money supply via lowering interest rates that allowed the >money supply to expand to the point where homes costing more then $500k were >the norm. Without that monetary expansion the housing bubble would not be >possible. His predecessor Ken Bernanke continued that policy. We know the >results of that policy. His penalty; a renewed appointment as Chairman of >the Federal Reserve Board.
Frank, you make good points ------ and I do not disagree with any of them.
>When AIG went south in late 2008, the then President of the Federal Reserve >Bank Of New York, Tim Geithner negotiated the bailout of AIG and gave them >Par! Par when they were bankrupt? His reward? Secratery of Treasury.
Another good point and I do not disagree.
>But scratch all that and blame it on Bush! Bush was guilty of many things. > A long list to be sure, and the eye of eternity will judge him harshly, but >there are others who had far greater complicity.
I will agree with that --------------- BUT, Bush was driving the ship. The Captain is ALWAYS responsible for what happens on his watch.
>Maybe we could turn Bush into the National Pinata and have an annual bash! >Maybe the grandest of all lotteries to win the chance to be the Grand Bush >Basher? Ok, ok maybe snark gone wild.
I would be OK by me. VBG
>The status quo will only change when yours and I fellow citizens quite >voting for candidates who use legislative offices as a lottery platform to >win elections.
Shit, we would stop voting. Or are you seeing something that is escaping me?
<fphow...@usermail.com> wrote: >Mike Hendrix wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. >>>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues >>>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic >>>>> issues.
>>>>> Bruce >>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If >>>> I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the >>> economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a >>> person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to >>> realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before the >>> election.
>>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that >>> you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the >>> economy, you were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate >>> your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about the economy, >>> you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
>>> Bruce >> ------------------------ >> No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was >> acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had >> been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was >> delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and >> change their ways.
>> mike
>Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the >greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" irrelevant.
Totally correct.
>Unfortunately electing a Democratic President and having Democratic control >of both houses will prove to be a lethal combination.
You could be right. But, it could also be a God send. If they F' things up like they appear to be doing then they will be voted out at the first chance.
That would be a GOOD thing ------- if they were replaced with something much better. Now, that is unlikely but it could happen. It wasn't all that long ago that voters got pissed off and threw out the bad apples and replaced them with Newt Gingrich and a gang Hell bent on making "good" changes. Unfortunately, when they took their seat at the trough they started pigging out just like the bunch they had replaced. How sad that was.
But there is always hope that we can replace those free spenders and meddlers with some freedom loving tight wads.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:43:44 -0800, "Frank Howell" > <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:
>>Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. >>>>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues >>>>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic >>>>>> issues.
>>>>>> Bruce >>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If >>>>> I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>>>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the >>>> economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a >>>> person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to >>>> realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before the >>>> election.
>>>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that >>>> you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the >>>> economy, you were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate >>>> your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about the economy, >>>> you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
>>>> Bruce >>> ------------------------ >>> No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was >>> acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had >>> been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was >>> delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and >>> change their ways.
We have yet to see any concrete examples of this. At this point the Republicans are defining themselves in terms of what they're against instead of what they're in favor of.
>>> mike
>>Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the >>greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" >>irrelevant.
> Totally correct.
Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a much better position.
On Nov 8, 12:07 pm, "Technobarbarian" <Technobarbarian-
ztopz...@gmail.com> wrote: > "Mike Hendrix" <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote in message > > Totally correct.
> Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that > point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been > irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for > example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues > instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a > much better position.
McCain's statements (summer 2008) that the "economy was fundamentally sound", when "everyone" knew we were already in a recession hurt him. McCain having Phill Gramm (one of the author's of the deregulation that contributed to this mess) as his economic advisor hurt McCain even more. McCain picking an air-head for VP, with the "right" credentials was just the last nail in the coffin of his campaign.
If McCain had stood up to the spokesmen for the "right" and picked his first choice for VP (Lieberman) he probably would have won. If McCain's campaign had figured out what the rest of the country knew about the economy he probably would have won.
McCain was the best qualified of the candidates for President in 2008, hell, he was the best in 2000. I will always believe that if Rove et- al hadn't "Shift-Boated" him in the southern primaries the country would be a lot better off today.
> I will agree with that --------------- BUT, Bush was driving the ship.
> The Captain is ALWAYS responsible for what happens on his watch.
Just how did you expect him to reign in Barney Frank and the rest of the crooks in the Democratic party? Franklin Raines should have gone to jail but of course the Democrats rallied 'round him and protected him, just as they are now protecting Rangel.
I get the definite impression you don't have a clue as to what went on and only recycle what you read on Huffington Post. LZ
> >>>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. > >>>>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues > >>>>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic > >>>>>> issues.
> >>>>>> Bruce > >>>>> ---------------------------------
> >>>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If > >>>>> I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
> >>>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in the > >>>> economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And only a > >>>> person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have failed to > >>>> realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before the > >>>> election.
> >>>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong that > >>>> you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to the > >>>> economy, you were going to punish the entire country to demonstrate > >>>> your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about the economy, > >>>> you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
> >>>> Bruce > >>> ------------------------ > >>> No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was > >>> acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans had > >>> been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message was > >>> delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake up and > >>> change their ways.
> We have yet to see any concrete examples of this. At this point the > Republicans are defining themselves in terms of what they're against instead > of what they're in favor of.
> >>> mike
> >>Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the > >>greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" > >>irrelevant.
> > Totally correct.
> Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership at that > point instead of fumbling around and following along he wouldn't have been > irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his own fate. If, for > example, he had chosen a running mate who was strong on economic issues > instead of one who was strong on slogans and cliches he would have been in a > much better position.
> TB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That comment seems to be the popular Liberal Diatribe. But I dare say, the people of Alaska don't agree. Here below is recent mail from a friend: --------------------------------------------------------------- This was sent to me by an old high school buddy. We went to school from 3rd grade and graduated together. I tell you this because he retired from the South Dakota Fish and Game Dept. as the second in command. SD is a Democratic state and so by definition he is a Democrat but, also level headed. Dale.
Howdy All; The following story is written by an Alaskan fisherman about Sara Palin.
I’d trust this man’s writing instead of today’s media. ************************************************************* No matter where you fall in the wide spectrum of thought on Sarah Palin's ability and as a person, this really captures the essence of what she did as Governor of Alaska. I personally admire her if for no other reason than she sends the left into a blind paroxysm of pure HATRED toward her. It always makes me laugh when adults start foaming at the mouth for no good reason.
By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.
The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska. I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.
1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar. Each person that lives in Alaska gets between $1200-$2000 per year for living there. What do VA and CA Governors give you? Answer, a closed rest stop.
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force. (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.
5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started.. This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.
6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%.
I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Should of known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.
So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- "Strong on economic issues" enough for you TB? Sound like slogans and cliches?
People like you would be left in the weeds by the whirlwind if she did get into national office.
Dewie The Fisherman is waiting to hear from you and others about how any other Governor has taken care of "economic issues" like this.
An honest get things done woman polititian like this scares the shit out of you, huh? Meanwhile the Drive By Media and screeching liberal hate makes up all kinds of CRAP about her and her family that has absolutely NOTHING to do with performance on the job! Same kinda Blue Dress BS that was layed on Bill Clinton. Goose/Gander. Stop the BS and elect those that will get things done.
Mike Hendrix wrote: > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:43:44 -0800, "Frank Howell" > <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. >>>>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues >>>>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic >>>>>> issues.
>>>>>> Bruce >>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". >>>>> If I did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>>>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in >>>> the economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And >>>> only a person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have >>>> failed to realize that 0bama was a socialist several months before >>>> the election.
>>>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong >>>> that you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to >>>> the economy, you were going to punish the entire country to >>>> demonstrate your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about >>>> the economy, you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
>>>> Bruce >>> ------------------------ >>> No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was >>> acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans >>> had been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the medicine/message >>> was delivered in a manner that will cause the Republican Party wake >>> up and change their ways.
>>> mike
>> Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the >> greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" >> irrelevant.
> Totally correct.
>> Unfortunately electing a Democratic President and having Democratic >> control of both houses will prove to be a lethal combination.
> You could be right. But, it could also be a God send. If they F' > things up like they appear to be doing then they will be voted out at > the first chance.
> That would be a GOOD thing ------- if they were replaced with > something much better. Now, that is unlikely but it could happen. It > wasn't all that long ago that voters got pissed off and threw out the > bad apples and replaced them with Newt Gingrich and a gang Hell bent > on making "good" changes. Unfortunately, when they took their seat at > the trough they started pigging out just like the bunch they had > replaced. How sad that was.
> But there is always hope that we can replace those free spenders and > meddlers with some freedom loving tight wads.
> mike
Dang! Why didn't I think of that. Creative destruction. :-)
Even better, is to remove most of the Depts and other useless cabinets at the Federal level and let the States handle those functions that have any value. With so much money going to the Federal Government it's no wonder that it evolved to Master-Slave relationship. The Feds would let the states have money if they were obedient to Federal wims and mandates. Everything top down. At least at the state level most people have a much greater chance to affect change if they are unhappy with spending, policies, etc.
Technobarbarian wrote: > "Mike Hendrix" <mikehend...@isp.com> wrote in message > news:cs6ef55cchm5eqgkrpddc7aah00pkcqoau@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 08:43:44 -0800, "Frank Howell" >> <fphow...@usermail.com> wrote:
>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:22:01 -0700, "Bruce S" >>>> <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hendrix wrote: >>>>>> "Bruce S" bruce.sn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It means that you mostly pay lip service to Libertarian issues. >>>>>>> You have made the choice that the 70% you score on social issues >>>>>>> is more important to you than the 100% you score on economic >>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>>>> You are way, way wrong about that. It is the "Economy stupid". If I >>>>>> did not invent that slogan then I was in the vanguard.
>>>>> That is a lie on it's surface. If you had any interest at all in >>>>> the economy, you would not have voted for a known Socialist. And >>>>> only a person who was intentionally blind and stupid could have >>>>> failed to realize that 0bama was a socialist several months >>>>> before the election.
>>>>> The simple truth is that your hatred of Bush was (is) so strong >>>>> that you didn't give a damn what damage 0bama was going to do to >>>>> the economy, you were going to punish the entire country to >>>>> demonstrate your hatred. If you cared, even a little bit, about >>>>> the economy, you would have held your nose and voted for McCain.
>>>>> Bruce >>>> ------------------------ >>>> No way. That would have sent a signal that "more of the same" was >>>> acceptable. A message needed to be sent that what the Republicans >>>> had been doing was not acceptable. Hopefully, the >>>> medicine/message was delivered in a manner that will cause the >>>> Republican Party wake up and change their ways.
> We have yet to see any concrete examples of this. At this point > the Republicans are defining themselves in terms of what they're > against instead of what they're in favor of.
>>>> mike
>>> Well I have to agree with you. When the economy tanked, that was the >>> greatest gift Obama could receive. It made McCain and the "War" >>> irrelevant.
>> Totally correct.
> Not completely true. If McCain had demonstrated some leadership > at that point instead of fumbling around and following along he > wouldn't have been irrelevant. He has a lot of responsibility for his > own fate. If, for example, he had chosen a running mate who was > strong on economic issues instead of one who was strong on slogans > and cliches he would have been in a much better position.
> TB
You mean like President Obaman choose Biden? You gots to be kidden! The outcome would have been the same. In the context of the time, nothing could have taken the taint off the Republicans except a loss.
|
