Obamas Little Blue Book

Jeff Findley wrote:
Please. The Bush Administration was deflecting attention from everything
not related to terrorism (which included the Iraq war) since 9/11.
Remember, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"? Just where did
*that* little gem come from, eh?


I think it was Chauncey Gardiner who said that.
He also said there will be growth in the Spring. :-D

Pat

On Jan 27, 8:19 am, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Jan 26, 4:36 pm, kevin willoughby
wrote:
wrote:
while the Dems arecomposed of different forms of "collectivism." And,

uh, are you aware of the classic joke "I'm not a member of an organized
party. I'm a Democrat."

Yes. But sometimes classics go stale. Dems have proven to be a
staggeringly well-co-ordinated party. How else could they have managed
to so successfully deflect all attention from themsleves for the
current Depression? Were the Dems less successful, Barney Frank and
Maxine Waters would be getting sued for several trillion dollars,
impeached and tried for treason.

Please. The Bush Administration was deflecting attention from everything
not related to terrorism (which included the Iraq war) since 9/11.
Remember, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong"? Just where did
*that* little gem come from, eh?

The Bush administration, as incompetant as they were on the economy
(did not even *try* to end the War On Poverty, Social Security or any
of a number of other toxic programs), were not responsible for this
aprticualr disaster. it was those pushing for housing loans for peopel
who should not have housing loans.

See, for example:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1020

“These assets are so riskless, that their capital should be under two
percent.”

SEE the amazing Maxine Waters declare that there’s not a crises at
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae!

BOGGLE at Ms. Waters refer to Raines’ leadership as “outstanding!”

STAGGER under the weight of Rep. Lacy Clay’s claim that the
investigation of Raines was a “lynching!”
THRILL to Barney Frank claiming that there are no “safety and
soundnes” issues!

wrote:

The Bush administration, as incompetant as they were on the economy
(did not even *try* to end the War On Poverty, Social Security or any
of a number of other toxic programs),

War on poverty toxic?

Toxic for you. Not toxic for the poor.

Social security is "toxic"?

YOU are toxic. A poisoned mind full of waste.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Jan 27, 10:10 am, jacob navia wrote:
wrote:

The Bush administration, as incompetant as they were on the economy
(did not even *try* to end the War On Poverty, Social Security or any
of a number of other toxic programs),

War on poverty toxic?

Yes. Trillions of dollars spent every year on government programs that
ensure that people stay in thrall to the government. Look at the
stats... poverty in the US was declining year by year until the "Great
Society" programs kicked in. Since then... static. Those trillions
would ahve better served everyone had they stayed in the hands of
those who buy and spend and create jobs.

wrote:
Those trillions
would ahve better served everyone had they stayed in the hands of
those who buy and spend and create jobs.


Yes, the war against poverty is "toxic", you say.

Better is War AGAINST the poor and welfare for the rich.

The income of the upper 0.001% of the U.S. households has increased
faster than ever under the republican rule. The income of all the
rest decreased in real terms.

As Leonard Cohen told us:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed

Everybody knows that the war is over

Everybody knows the good guys lost.

Everybody knows the fight was fixed

The poor stay poor, the rich get rich

That's how it goes



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On Jan 27, 1:35 pm, jacob navia wrote:

The income of the upper 0.001% of the U.S. households has increased
faster than ever under the republican rule.

Good.


The income of all the rest decreased in real terms.

Then fight to eliminate the income tax (*especially* corporate taxes).
Fight to eliminate welfare programs that result in generations stuck
in poverty.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:10:05 +0100, in a place far, far away, jacob
navia made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

wrote:

The Bush administration, as incompetant as they were on the economy
(did not even *try* to end the War On Poverty, Social Security or any
of a number of other toxic programs),

War on poverty toxic?

Toxic for you. Not toxic for the poor.

Actually, it is. It has destroyed the inner city, and bred millions
of fatherless children.

How is this not OT for sci.space groups?

On Jan 25, 1:39*am, "
wrote:
This has *got* to be a joke, yes? No? Yes?

Don't worry. It is a joke. America is still a free country, and, in
his own way, Obama will even help to keep it that way.

Obama, during the election campaign, reversed himself partially by
noting that he would not make his target for withdrawing from Iraq an
absolute deadline. Then, after the election, it is true, but before
the inauguration, he reversed himself on another crucial point - he
would pursue Osama bin Laden, but not in ways that would irresponsibly
affect America's friendship with Pakistan.

On the other hand, with a stock market crash just preceding the
election, McCain did a Herbert Hoover imitation. Thus, while I
originally preferred McCain for the job, I think I can live with Obama
and we can give him a chance.

John Savard

On Jan 25, 11:06*pm, "
wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:29 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:





wrote:

They always can. If the Republican party could pull itself together,
the Dems would never stand a chance. Of course, if the Libertarian
party could pull itself together, the Republican party would never
stand a chance. The problem is that the R's and especially the L's are
composed of people who take wildly differing forms of "individualism,"
while the Dems arecomposed of different forms of "collectivism." And,
oddly, collectivists seem better at forming blocs of groupthink and
unified action than individualists.

For once, we are in complete agreement; that's exactly how they behave.
Particularly the L's who seem to have no basic agreement on what they
really stand for, except that they all think it's really cool to wear a
Guy Fawkes mask on November 5. :-)

And the D's and R's also have their share of those who are non-
ideologues, but whlo are pure politician. The R's seem to have less
tolerance for that, and thus more internal dissention.

That internal dissension in the R's though seems to be a product of the
last couple of decades, when "Reagan's Rule" (Republicans never
criticize fellow Republicans) was forgotten, and coinciding with the
rise of Talk Radio and Fox News, both of which thrive on finding new
boogie men every day of the week to boost their ratings.
No Democrats to attack today? Let's go after some RINO Republicans then..
In the last election, the right wing pundits were far more responsible
for McCain's defeat than the Democrats were; he wasn't a perfect
Republican in their eyes, so why should anyone vote for him? Better not
to vote at all.
Those sort of tactics will completely destroy what's left of the party
in no time flat if they continue.

In a way, that could be good. Perhaps what will rise from the ashes
will be a party that stands for what the Rep's *used* to stand for...
limited, Consititutional government, not the big government
socialistic crapfest they've become. If the Reps fail utterly and
leave the country in the hands of the Leftists... well, that'll just
help bring about Civil War 2: Obama Boogaloo, and either the result
will be limited, Constitutional government, or more Leftism and the
end of anything resembling America. And the one good thing about
*that* would be that the rest of the world will fall into utter chaos,
with wars on a scale never before imagined. And with a billion dead in
the Middle East, their carcasses burning on the abandoned, ruined oil
fields... why, the evening skies will be just *gorgeous*.

So in order to save the Middle Easterners, as those bleeding hearts
want, we need the Repbulicans to do it. Wow, twisted! Worst case of
sour grapes I have ever seen.

Eric