Hussein Concerning Terror Plot: Buh-but but but Bush
Eddie Haskelll
and be a man?
What a national embarrassment.
"It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
-Eddie Haskell
babeejm
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
>
> -Eddie Haskell
>Well sir it was good enough for 8 years..maybe you should
spend more time in DC..and less time traveling on your magic carpet.
Eddie Haskelll
"babeejm" <jmts...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:c1b5cb7e-0088-4516...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Yep.
-Eddie Haskell
James Of Tucson
killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
Eddie Haskell
"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e6f4d50-276b-47be...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
> killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
Why, you realize that unlike Bush, a terrorist attack will put Hussein's
polls in the shitter because of Gitmo, NY show trials and his decimating the
CIA?
Very good, James of Dumbston..
-Eddie Haskell
Kevin Cunningham
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
>
> -Eddie Haskell
You supported Bush. He allowed attacks on the Pentagon and the World
Trade Center.
How can you justify that?
Bush failed as president.
invalid
Is it supposed to be a secret that the Republicans wish terrorists to
succeed and America to fail?
If so they haven't done a very good job of keeping it, have they?
Things like voting to deny the troops pay and supplies make it pretty
obvious where such traitors loyalties lie.
invalid
wrote:
>
>"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6e6f4d50-276b-47be...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
>> killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>
>Why, you realize that unlike Bush, a terrorist attack will put Hussein's
>polls in the shitter
And what's a few hundred or thousand dead Americans compared to
a boost for Republicans in the polls-right?
Thanks for the lesson in your twisted sick logic.
Why do you hate America so?
invalid
airplane bomb
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews
Obama's approval rating on national security has remained relatively
steady since he took office. In a mid-November Washington Post-ABC
News poll, 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Obama
was handling the threat of terrorism, while 41 percent said they
disapproved.
Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
attempted bombing and predicted that their effort would fail with the
American people. "There are those who want to solve the problem, and
there are those who want to exploit it," he said. "This is not the
time for politics."
The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
ago.
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
> changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
> ago.
And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that they've
done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
Strange, isn't it?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
> attempted bombing
And you think that the Democrats aren't doing exactly the same?
> and predicted that their effort would fail with the
> American people. "There are those who want to solve the problem, and
> there are those who want to exploit it," he said. "This is not the
> time for politics."
Since it was politicians who created the problem and politicians who are
going to have to solve the problem, this is just the time for politics.
That is, unless you're calling for some sort of totalitarian takeover of
the system, cutting Congress out of the process entirely.
That's not what you're doing, is it?
invalid
>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
>> attempted bombing
>
>And you think that the Democrats aren't doing exactly the same?
I haven't seen any Democratic politicians trying to use the fear
engendered as a fundraiser for themselves have you?
GOP fundraising letter 'shameful'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/29/dnc-calls-gop-fundraising-letter-shameful/
(CNN) � A Democratic National Committee spokesman is calling Michigan
Rep. Pete Hoekstra's efforts to raise campaign cash in the wake of the
Christmas Day terrorism attempt "shameful."
"It was shameful that Republicans like Mr. Hoekstra would attempt to
play politics with our national security at all, but raising money off
it is beyond the pale," DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said in a
statement. "Republicans are playing politics with issues of national
security and terrorism, and that they would use this incident as an
opportunity to fan partisan flames and raise money for political
campaigns tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican
party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they
have become.
>
>> and predicted that their effort would fail with the
>> American people. "There are those who want to solve the problem, and
>> there are those who want to exploit it," he said. "This is not the
>> time for politics."
>
>Since it was politicians who created the problem and politicians who are
>going to have to solve the problem, this is just the time for politics.
Yes, bipartisan national political action would be in order but as
Republicans only agenda seems to be to try to paralyze the government
it isn't going to happen any time soon.
>
>That is, unless you're calling for some sort of totalitarian takeover of
>the system, cutting Congress out of the process entirely.
>
>That's not what you're doing, is it?
No that seems to be the Republican ambition helped by their
"teabaggers" and psychotic shock-jocks doesn't it?
A perfect example is the attempt to keep the TSA leaderless out of
fear that baggage handlers might get decent wages and conditions.
Dems Vow Roll Call Vote On TSA Nominee Delayed By Sen. Jim DeMint
\
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/reid-will-hold-roll-call-vote-on-tsa-administrator-nomination-as-dems-fume-at-demint-for-delay.php
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a formal Senate roll
call vote on the nomination of Erroll Southers to be administrator of
the Transportation Security Administration as soon as Congress returns
from break.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley told TPMDC that Reid will file a cloture
motion as soon as the Senate reconvenes the week of Jan. 19. He said
it's a necessary step to overcome Sen. Jim DeMint's hold on the
nomination.
"In light of recent incidents TSA deserves to have its leadership in
place," Manley said. "It is long past time for Senator DeMint to stop
trying to score cheap political points."
Confirmations rarely are subject to roll call votes - several passed
the Senate by unanimous consent the day they adjourned.
Democrats are furious that DeMint (R-SC) blocked the confirmation over
a question of whether Southers would allow collective bargaining for
TSA screeners. They believe that if Democrats had delayed a national
security nominee under a Republican president, their party would be
excoriated.
Democrats also compared the move to the Republicans blocking funding
for troops for political purposes.
Nobama
Mr. Obama is a shallow race-hustler who became president because a lot
of silly, feel-good, politically correct Americans believed it would
prove something for America to have a black president. That there is
nothing substantial between his ears, that the light shines straight
through from one ear canal to the other, has long been apparent to
anyone willing and able to examine Barack Obama objectively. He is a
man without qualities, an individual distinguished by his sheer lack
of distinction. He has never done, said, thought or achieved anything
whatever except, alas, become president of the US. A more perfectly
unqualified, indeed disqualified man would be hard to imagine. His
presidency is a lasting testimony to the folly of feel-good,
smiley-faced racism and self-indulgent moral vanity on the part of
naifs who voted for him because, not in spite of the fact he is,
through no fault of his own, 1/2 black.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:02:45 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
invalid
Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
from the truth
Obama Integrates Security Councils, Adds New Offices
Computer, Pandemic Threats Addressed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052603148.html
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
President Obama announced yesterday that he will merge the staffs of
the Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council to
speed up and unify security policymaking inside the White House.
The combined national security staff, about 240 people, will report to
national security adviser James L. Jones.
The White House also will add new offices for cybersecurity, for
terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, and for "resilience"
-- a national security directorate aimed at preparedness and response
for a domestic WMD attack, pandemic or natural catastrophe, officials
said.
"The challenges of the 21st century are increasingly unconventional
and transnational, and therefore demand a response that effectively
integrates all aspects of American power," Obama said in a statement.
Obama's changes to the national security structure, to be implemented
over six weeks, address concerns that President George W. Bush created
an overlapping White House bureaucracy by establishing the Homeland
Security Council after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The 9/11
Commission, among others, recommended merging it into the NSC.
Instead, Obama will preserve the Homeland Security Council's role as
the main forum for government policymaking on issues such as
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, natural disasters and pandemic
influenza. Doing so will improve state and local officials' access to
the White House and does not require an act of Congress, aides said.
"The idea that somehow counterterrorism is a homeland security issue
doesn't make sense when you recognize the fact that terror around the
world doesn't recognize borders," Jones told reporters in a briefing.
"There is no right-hand, left-hand anymore."
John O. Brennan, Obama's assistant for homeland security and
counterterrorism, will continue to report to Jones as a deputy and
maintain direct access to the president.
"There's no diminishment at all of the effort on" counterterrorism,
Brennan said.
Jones and Brennan, whom Obama tapped Feb. 23 to lead a 60-day
organizational review, said the changes will strengthen the White
House security staff, which includes aides detailed from other
departments.
Among other things, Obama is establishing a new global engagement
directorate to coordinate U.S. communications with other countries and
to streamline U.S. diplomatic, aid, environment and energy policies in
support of security objectives, officials said.
Jones said the biggest pitfall for the new structure will be if he and
Brennan "don't achieve this degree of collegiality that we've
achieved," adding: "If we don't do this well . . . that will
contribute to instability."
Senior lawmakers in Congress and former Bush aides generally praised
the moves.
Kenneth Wainstein, Brennan's immediate predecessor, praised the
administration's "inclusive" approach and said it allayed fears that
changes "might diminish the perceived importance of homeland security
issues."
"It doesn't bury the homeland equities," said Frank J. Cilluffo,
director of George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy
Institute, who served as assistant to the president for homeland
security in 2003.
However, Frances Fragos Townsend, who served in Brennan's role from
2005 to 2008, cautioned in an e-mail that he "will no longer have
direct control of the resources required to the job."
"John Brennan and Gen. Jim Jones are experienced, competent
professionals and they will bear the burden of ensuring the necessary
resource allocations across the broad spectrum of threats against the
United States," Townsend wrote.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Republican on the Senate
homeland security committee, said she remained "concerned" that
changes may dilute the focus of Brennan and homeland security
staffers.
AIG Ball-less Repugs
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF1A81A820...@216.250.188.140...
> In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
> <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
>> attempted bombing
>
> And you think that the Democrats aren't doing exactly the same?
The GOP was waiting for an Arab to sneeze on a Greyhound Bus so they could
cover their lil Tard Bush.
AIG Ball-less Repugs
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
news:4b3b8917...@news.datemas.de...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Obama is a shallow race-hustler who became president because a lot
> of silly, feel-good, politically correct Americans believed it would
> prove something for America to have a black president.
There's no hope for you.
invalid
Top posted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Mr. Obama is a shallow race-hustler who became president because a lot
>of silly, feel-good, politically correct Americans believed it would
>prove something for America to have a black president. That there is
>nothing substantial between his ears, that the light shines straight
>through from one ear canal to the other, has long been apparent to
>anyone willing and able to examine Barack Obama objectively. He is a
>man without qualities, an individual distinguished by his sheer lack
>of distinction. He has never done, said, thought or achieved anything
>whatever except, alas, become president of the US. A more perfectly
>unqualified, indeed disqualified man would be hard to imagine. His
>presidency is a lasting testimony to the folly of feel-good,
>smiley-faced racism and self-indulgent moral vanity on the part of
>naifs who voted for him because, not in spite of the fact he is,
>through no fault of his own, 1/2 black.
But apart from that he's OK-right?
Better than Bush by far eh?
Dacato
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
>
> -Eddie Haskell
Is he right? Is the system outdated? I don't see where he mentions
Bush in this statement. Are you claiming his statements are wrong and
that we don't need to upgrade the system? Please show us where he is
blaming the Bush administration in his statement. Please show us the
inaccuracies of his statement.
James Of Tucson
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
>
> -Eddie Haskell
You're the one mumbling about Bush, no one else.
Dacato
> "James Of Tucson" <james0tuc...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6e6f4d50-276b-47be...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
> > killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>
> Why, you realize that unlike Bush, a terrorist attack will put Hussein's
> polls in the shitter because of Gitmo, NY show trials and his decimating the
> CIA?
>
> Very good, James of Dumbston..
>
> -Eddie Haskell
Where does all your bitterness and anger come from? I hope you haven't
made the fatal mistake of spawning. Racism and bigotry are learned and
not genetic, and I am concerned that if you have spawned, you will
likely destroy your children by indoctrinating them in your rabid,
racist ways.
Nobama
There ya go again, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Heh.
Nobama
criticizing a black person but you need to get over your Bush
Derangement Syndrome and start taking George Soros' Rent-A-Radical who
currently occupies the White House to task. The ball is in his court.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:48:26 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
AIG Ball-less Repugs
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
> I know that you Moonbat liberals have been brainwashed into never
> criticizing a black person but you need to get over your Bush
> Derangement Syndrome and start taking George Soros' Rent-A-Radical who
> currently occupies the White House to task. The ball is in his court.
No one on Earth will ever "get over" Tard Bush.
AIG Ball-less Repugs
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
>
>
>
> There ya go again, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
>
> Heh.
Call it whatever you like if it makes your excuse for a President make you
feel better but Bush's damage is obvious to the whole World. Now go back to
your coma.
Nobama
Are your mother's welfare benefits higher under Obammy?
Nobama
So you're going to continue to blame every Obama, Piglosi, moonbat
fuck-up on Booshy?
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2009 16:28:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>>> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
>>> changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
>>> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two
>>> years ago.
>>
>>And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that they've
>>done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
>>
>>Strange, isn't it?
>
> Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
> from the truth
>
>
> Obama Integrates Security Councils, Adds New Offices
> Computer, Pandemic Threats Addressed
So, all those folks who are still whining about having inherited the
problem from Bush are wrong?
I'll just send them to you and you can set them straight.
invalid
> I know that you Moonbat liberals have been brainwashed into never
>criticizing a black person but you need to get over your Bush
>Derangement Syndrome and start taking George Soros' Rent-A-Radical who
>currently occupies the White House to task. The ball is in his court.
Project much?
A more classic text book example of the Obama Derangement Syndrome
than the rant you joined this thread with would be hard to find.
You even name yourself after the guy!!!
Rachel Maddow puts a name to the affliction that has infected the
President�s most ardent critics: Obama Derangement Syndrome.
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002235/
BTW Don't you know how to post properly or is your top posting some
sort of statement?
invalid
>
>
>
>There ya go again, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
>
>Heh.
Obama Derangement Syndrome
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNIQG7WXpSM
invalid
>
>
>
>So you're going to continue to blame every Obama, Piglosi, moonbat
>fuck-up on Booshy?
I think the point is that a lot of the damage that Bush did to America
and to the world is irreparable.
The utterly pointless death of millions of totally innocent people
based on his lies and psychosis can never be undone.
AIG Ball-less Repugs
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
> Are your mother's welfare benefits higher under Obammy?
My Mom's dead, asshole but I'll bet yours bends over for Cheney every day.
invalid
In the whole wide world there are only a handful of lunatics
inhabiting the collective psychosis that is the current Republican
party that need setting straight on the palpable destruction,
devastation, bankruptcy and millions of pointless deaths that the
Bush puerile "cowboy" approach left behind for the current
Administration to grapple with.
Clearly you are one of them. Even faced with the clear evidence that
you were totally incorrect to suggest nothing had been done to
restructure the faulty data collection and processing you remain in
denial.
invalid
>
>
>
>
>Are your mother's welfare benefits higher under Obammy?
Gee
Is top posting mommy lames all you are left with?
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:69tmj5l7t7qnk8uoa...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:47:08 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <fg...@eeaeae.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:6e6f4d50-276b-47be...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
>>> killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>>
>>Why, you realize that unlike Bush, a terrorist attack will put Hussein's
>>polls in the shitter
>
> a boost for Republicans in the polls-right?
>
> Thanks for the lesson in your twisted sick logic.
A terrorist attack boosted Bush in the polls. Why do you think a terrorist
attack would be bad for Hussein's numbers?
The question is rhetorical of course, but thanks for the admission, you
demented cretin.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Dacato" <tfit...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:d01e09db-16b8-4f60...@t12g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
Oh, look, the demi is weaving racist accusations out of whole cloth to cover
his guilt.
Dat toe cute..
"Typical white person"
-Hussein
"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
-Hussein
Hussein's associations:
Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."
Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."
Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."
From Hussein's book:
"White man's greed runs a world in need."
Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.
Obama advisor Van Jones:
"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"
"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:37:06 -0800 (PST), James Of Tucson
> <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
>>killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>
> succeed and America to fail?
And it's openly known that you're lying to cover the fact that you were
guilty of the charge all during Bush. Even wanted the US lose a war for
democrat political gain. You know that you are guilty of the charge so
that's what you accuse republicans of. It's standard democrat MO and you
fool no one, traitor.
> America to fail?
Lying about what Rush said I see. That's all you people have isn't it? Lies
and smears. It must suck to have to live that way. Why do you do it? What is
the real reason that you support democrats that you can't admit to, immoral
low-life?
> If so they haven't done a very good job of keeping it, have they?
>
> Things like voting to deny the troops pay and supplies make it pretty
> obvious where such traitors loyalties lie.
Holding troops lives for ransom to get Obamacare was downright treason, and
know it, you maggot. Why do you support such grossly immoral tactics? How
much did the DNC pay you for your soul, you scum? Why are you a willful
piece of shit?
-Eddie Haskell
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> Even faced with the clear evidence that you were totally incorrect to
> suggest nothing had been done to restructure the faulty data
> collection and processing you remain in denial.
>
You're just another idiot who won't accept "yes" for an answer?
You tell me that Obama's made sweeping changes to the system and I
didn't disagree.
I merely pointed to the scores of people who continue to whine that all
of the Obama administration's problems are due to failures in the
systems Obama "inherited" from the Bush administration.
Since you tell me that those systems have been totally reworked, I
simply said that I'd be sending the whiners to you to be straightened
out.
What's your problem?
Nobama
It seems implausible that a President of the United States could
actually be doing harm to the economy by design, but that appears to
be the case. Despite what the media lapdogs, Obama apologists say, the
economy is �contracting�. It just contracted less than the previous
quarter. If you listen to the media however, things are rosy and we
can see light at the end of the tunnel. WHAT? When Bush was President
the economy was growing every quarter until the Democrats seized
control of Congress. The media was predicting doom every day, the
economy is terrible, it grew at a slower rate than expected, Bush
sucks, the Republicans suck, their policies don�t work,
blah,blah,blah. But now that there is a Democrat in the White House
and a Democratic Congress, all is right with the economy. So what if
people are losing jobs at an alarming rate and they are spending less
money, which will cause more people to lose their jobs. And just what
is a jobless recovery anyway? And while we are at it, what exactly
does adding or �saving� jobs mean? This administration has more
�doublespeak� terms than any I have ever heard.
Here�s the deal. The President does not believe in free market
capitalism. He learned his economics from Maynard Keynes, and Obamas�
own father, who was a Communist Economist in Kenya. He believes in
taxing the rich and spreading the wealth just like Karl Marx. He says
it almost everyday, and he said it to Joe the plumber when he thought
no one could hear.
Let me make economic theory easy for you Obama drones out there.
If a business is taxed more, will the business have more money or less
money? The answer is less money. If this business has less money,are
they going to hire more people or less people? The answer is less
people. Will that mean more people will have jobs or less people will
have jobs. The answer is less people will have jobs. If less people
have jobs, will they have more money to spend at the business you work
at or less money to spend at the business you work for? The answer is
less money to spend at the business you work. Then what happens? YOU
get laid off and so on and so on and so on.
If Taxes are cut, will the business have more money or less money? The
answer is more money. If the business has more money are they going to
hire more people ar less people? The answer is more people. If the
business has more money are they more apt or less apt to give you a
raise. The answer is, if they have more money they might give you a
raise, especially if there are other business out ther hiring more
people and you might go to work for their competitor if you can get
paid more. Competition is good.
Now, if you cut taxes and there are more and more businesses who have
more and more money, hiring people and maybe giving them raises due to
increased competition, are these people who are now working going to
have more money or less money? The answer is more money. If their are
more people who have more money are they more likely to buy your goods
and services or less likely? The answer is more likely. If this
happens are you more likely to have more money or less likely?.The
answer is YOU will have more money!
Where Obamas� theory of economics fail is he believes that if you tax
people more the government will have more money. I just proved that to
be false. To make a point, would you rather have 20% of 1 million
dollars(200,000) or only 10% of 3 million dollars(300,000)? Of course
the answer is you want the SMALLER portion of the BIGGER pie. If you
cut taxes and expand the economy(the Pie) everyone wins. If you take
larger and larger percentages of the pie it will contract just like
the economy and everyone loses. Just ask the state budget directors
who can�t print money like our esteemed hero, the mighty, the all
powerful, OBAMA!
Speaking of printing money, I hope that all you economic illiterates
out there(Obama supporters) realize that the Government has no money
of its own right? Let me explain that to you also.
The government gets money 3 ways. They can tax you and business, which
is actually another tax on you because a business operates to make
money. If they don�t make enough they close. Now whenever they get
taxed they just pass the costs of the higher taxes to you, and then
YOU pay their tax. So taxing business is crazy. You end up paying
their tax. Now these taxes that are imposed on you by government come
from money that would otherwise be left in the private sector(which
Obama is out to destroy as much as possible i.e. car companies, banks,
insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.). If this money is left
in the private sector then expansion of the pie continues. If it
doesn�t, the pie gets smaller(exactly what Obama is doing, on
purpose).
The second way government can get money is to print it. This is what
Obama is doing also(and is an impeachable offence). He swore to uphold
the Constitution which includes keeping this country sovereign and
keeping the currency strong. If you just print money our currency will
be worth less and less. There will be too many dollars chasing too few
goods which will cause inflation. Prices will rise, you will need more
and more of these dollars to purchase fewer and fewer goods. This is a
bad thing.
The third way the government can get money is by borrowing it at ever
increasing interest rates.(ask China how much of the U.S. debt they
own). Do you Obama morons out there know that in six months Obama has
got us into more debt than all other presidents combined in the
history of the country. HE IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY ON PURPOSE! HE
IS EVIL. There, now I feel better. Not as good as I�ll feel in 2010
and 2012, but better. Obama does not love this country. He only sees
its faults(in his eyes). He is out to change it fundamentally. I say
no. The only thing wrong with this country is there are too many
leftist who seek government office. Normal people are going to have
to start running for office or we are in trouble. Of course, I like to
fight. Maybe we need to thin the ranks out a little? We can start with
the anti-capitalist democrats. They can form their own country
somewhere else. It ain�t gonna happen here. I promise you that!!!
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:54:33 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
Nobama
Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any
president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove
of his
job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.
There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an
unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful
health-care
plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is
happening.
Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting,
bipartisan
consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new
kind of
politics--free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin--was a mirage.
He has
cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.
Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on
CBS's "60
Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a
triumphant sense about war."
This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark
moments,
including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces,
with
the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the
inevitable
triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we
shall
fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our
hearts"); and
John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the
safety
and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by
whatever
action is needed").
This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For
example,
he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it
during the
campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called
it
"flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it
"hastily."
Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben
Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If
it was
"flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second
term as
Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?
Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great
Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the
help" of
Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a
Dec. 9
letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama
administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which
went to
small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush
administration
lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion
forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?
Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes"
interview Sunday
when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the
problem," he
insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their
part" and
pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from
putting
us in this kind of pickle again."
But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005
filibuster of
a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot
of shame"
that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory
system"
that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the
first
place.
The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also
claimed his
$787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the
economy
growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he
said there
would be if nothing were done.
And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent.
Why was
$787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly
got the
job done?
Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will
actually
bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He
said his
reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and
businesses"
(though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he
claimed 30
million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows
individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15
million of
them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private
insurance).
Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a
pretty
darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed
where
"seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have
failed."
But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they
are tiring
of the president's blame shifting and distortions.
Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview,
that he
deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American
people
beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is
receiving
unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's
earned
them.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:38:06 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
Nobama
In Obama we have an inexperienced underqualified affirmative action
prince who happens to be a share-the-wealth Marxist; a man whose
ideologues were communists Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky; a
man who sat for 20 years shouting "Rahhht on" to the racist rantings
of Rev. Wright and who nominated a racist cunt to SCOTUS, not to
mention racists Eric Holder, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd; and let us not
forget the pro-pedophile Kevin Jennings; a man who inherited an
economic fire -- caused in part by his own Party -- and is throwing
gasoline on it; a man who hates his country and travels around the
world on apology tours; a man who has achieved nothing in foreign
policy, as both the Euro twits and those south of the border have
rejected his wishes; a man who plans to tax the drawers off of
everybody except the welfare set .....
And maybe he's a Muzzie too.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:34:55 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
Nobama
Obama's returning to the old AFDC scheme that your mother enjoyed
under LBJ.
Nobama
As opposed to posting opinions from fringe, kook, left-wing blogs?
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:18:27 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
duke
>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
>> changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
>> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
>> ago.
>
>And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that they've
>done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
>
>Strange, isn't it?
obummer is begging more attacks by his wussy attitude.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
invalid
wrote:
>
>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>news:errmj51ftbbjk44a4...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:37:06 -0800 (PST), James Of Tucson
>> <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
>>>killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>>
>> Is it supposed to be a secret that the Republicans wish terrorists to
>> succeed and America to fail?
>
>And it's openly known that you're lying to cover the fact that you were
>guilty of the charge all during Bush. Even wanted the US lose a war for
>democrat political gain. You know that you are guilty of the charge so
>that's what you accuse republicans of. It's standard democrat MO and you
>fool no one, traitor.
>
>> America to fail?
>
>Lying about what Rush said I see.
Limbaugh doesn't SAY anything,it's more akin to projectile vomiting
the free associations of his psychotic mind.
Be that as it may,the object is to paralyze the United States
Government which is an act of treason.
>That's all you people have isn't it? Lies
>and smears. It must suck to have to live that way. Why do you do it? What is
>the real reason that you support democrats that you can't admit to, immoral
>low-life?
I suspect you lost contact with the difference between truth and lies
a long long time ago.
>
>> If so they haven't done a very good job of keeping it, have they?
>>
>> Things like voting to deny the troops pay and supplies make it pretty
>> obvious where such traitors loyalties lie.
>
>Holding troops lives for ransom to get Obamacare was downright treason,
Indeed it is so why did the republican senators do it?
> and know it, you maggot. Why do you support such grossly immoral tactics?
That would be what you are doing oh deluded one.
> How much did the DNC pay you for your soul, you scum? Why are you a willful
>piece of shit?
You are aware it was the REPUBLICANS that tried to block money for the
troops as a slimy tactic to try to delay passage of Healthcare reform?
I guess not, your delusions run way too deep.
invalid
I see you can only operate in terms of black and white.
There is quite a continuum between "done nothing" and "totally
reworked"
That you see those concerned to create the most effective system
as "whiners" says a lot in itself.
invalid
>
>
>
>As opposed to posting opinions from fringe, kook, left-wing blogs?
As opposed ton any sane discussion in your case it seems.
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> I see you can only operate in terms of black and white.
While you can't seem to make a straight statement to save your life.
Good luck.
invalid
>
>
>In Obama we have an inexperienced underqualified affirmative action
>prince who happens to be a share-the-wealth Marxist; a man whose
>ideologues were communists Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky; a
>man who sat for 20 years shouting "Rahhht on" to the racist rantings
>of Rev. Wright and who nominated a racist cunt to SCOTUS, not to
>mention racists Eric Holder, Van Jones, and Mark Lloyd; and let us not
>forget the pro-pedophile Kevin Jennings; a man who inherited an
>economic fire -- caused in part by his own Party -- and is throwing
>gasoline on it; a man who hates his country and travels around the
>world on apology tours; a man who has achieved nothing in foreign
>policy, as both the Euro twits and those south of the border have
>rejected his wishes; a man who plans to tax the drawers off of
>everybody except the welfare set .....
I guess recycling the mindless drool of hate speech shock-jocks is
marginally better than mommy lames.
>
>
>
>And maybe he's a Muzzie too.
Oh yes, and a communist and a socialist and a marxist and a fascist
all at the same time huh?
Quite a feat.
Have you got the slightest clue as to how ridiculous that is in the
eyes of sane folk?
invalid
>
>
>Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any
>president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove
>of his
>job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.
>
>There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an
>unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful
>health-care
>plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is
>happening.
>
>Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting,
>bipartisan
>consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new
>kind of
>politics--free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin--was a mirage.
>He has
>cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.
>
>Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on
>CBS's "60
>Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a
>
>triumphant sense about war."
>
>This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark
>moments,
Odd then that George Bush himself said exactly the same thing then
isn't it?
George W Bush admits mistakes in final press conference - video
he admitted he miscalculated when making a victory speech on USS
Abraham Lincoln in 2003. "Clearly putting 'Mission Accomplished' on an
aircraft carrier was a mistake," he said.
Nobama
Speaking of drool:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly
direction."
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the
world.
I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or
thirteen,
when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to
whites."
"I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and
animosity
against my mother's race."
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends
carefully. The
more politically active black students. The foreign students. The
Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds.
One
of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you
were
courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than
satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a
well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
"I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering
those
years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could
afford
it. Not smack, though. ..."
"...I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going
to
teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a
mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
"I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the black
community." --UPDATE: Barack Obama decides to "disown" him on
Tuesday,
April 29th after he realized his campaign was in severe turmoil due to
his
association with Mr. Wright.
"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial
animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."
"That's just how white folks will do you."
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a
lot of
small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years
and
nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton
administration,
and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has
said
that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And
it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize
what it's
like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's
like to
be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the
criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
Call to Islamic prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at
sunset."
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:34:39 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
Nobama
Barack Obama spends the first 12 months of his presidency traveling
the world to MALIGN the United States, bowing down to terrorists,
breaking campaign promises, applauding despots, working to eliminate
competitive insurance, condemning capitalism, destroying the United
States defense system, killing the banking industry and giving thug
union bosses authority over the auto industry ...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:26:46 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
Nobama
been compared to the likeness of Adolph Hitler. This was the case for
George Bush, Al Gore, and both Bill and Hillary Clinton; to name a
few. Try as we might to modify graphic images to resemble the physical
appearance of Hitler, any attempt to make a genuine comparison using
these pictures crumbles when we face the ugly truth about Adolph
Hitler�s personality and actions.
Some have attempted to make the comparison of Barack Obama to Adolph
Hitler. This kind of thing has been done so many times before that
people no longer think it credible. The shock value is gone and people
almost expect such comparisons to be made during the election
campaigns. The smear attempt which aims to anger supporters hardly
gives them cause to raise an eyebrow.
This situation of being resistant to the �Hitler Factor� could
eventually become a dangerous thing for the voting public of any
country. How would citizens recognize another Hitler-type politician
in the future if they have become resistant to the idea of making the
comparison? If citizens are accustomed to instantly rejecting any
comparison of a candidate to Hitler, will they be able to apply the
lessons of history in order to prevent electing another one like him
in the future?
What is it about Hitler we should remember so as to prevent electing
another similar candidate who appears to be following in his
footsteps? Many believe Adolph Hitler had Narcissistic Personality
Disorder (NPD), which is a documented mental disorder. People who have
NPD have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for
admiration. They believe that they're superior to others and have
little regard for other people's feelings.1 It is not hard to see
these traits when we view images or videos of Adolph Hitler.
In the general population only 0.5-1% of people are thought to have
NPD2, although many will remain undiagnosed and untreated for their
entire lives. People may interpret lower levels of expressed
narcissism as mere conceitedness, selfishness, or arrogance.
Given narcissism is centered around the idea of self-importance and
the need for adoration from others, it should be no surprise to find
narcissists are often attracted to those things which feed their
emotional needs for recognition and adoration. They may, for example,
pursue careers as movie stars or politicians in order to gain elevated
social status and popularity. Nothing screams �elite� and �fame� like
celebrities and politicians attending red carpet events.
Rarely do the minor expression of narcissism cause any real damage to
anyone, but in a position of influence things can go awry very quickly
for someone with a severe case of NPD. Adolph Hitler showed us just
how bad things can get under that kind of leadership.
What exactly causes NPD? One expert and author by the name of Dr.
Shmuel Vaknin offers the following explanation, �The onset of
pathological narcissism is in infancy, childhood and early
adolescence. It is commonly attributed to childhood abuse and trauma
inflicted by parents, authority figures, or even peers. Pathological
narcissism is a defense mechanism intended to deflect hurt and trauma
from the victim's "True Self" into a �False Self� which is omnipotent,
invulnerable, and omniscient.�3
It must be said here nearly all children are born with narcissist
traits and Sigmund Freud believed that to be normal.4 However, the
development of NPD as a pathological disorder is thought to be rooted
in childhood neglect and abuse. Adolph Hitler certainly had a
qualifying childhood which would have contributed to the development
of NPD.
Adolph Hitler was born to a communist father who worked as a
government employee who had several other children with multiple
women. His father was considerably older than his mother and they
conceived their famous son prior to getting married. His father was
not interested in child-rearing, abused alcohol, and the future German
leader would reside in several different residences in his early
years. The young boy felt alienated from his father. He would attend
several different schools, including a catholic school run by strict
priests and nuns.
A teacher would later describe Adolph using these words, �... reacted
with ill-concealed hostility to advice or reproof; at the same time,
he demanded of his fellow pupils their unqualified subservience,
fancying himself in the role of leader, at the same time indulging in
many a less innocuous prank of a kind not uncommon among immature
youths."5
If there were no bias against the name �Adolph Hitler� one might
actually feel sorry for this young boy who grew up in such a
dysfunctional family and knew so much instability, turmoil, and
sorrow. It should come as no surprise how someone like Adolph could
develop pathological NPD as a means of deflecting years of emotional
trauma. He clearly had a childhood which could have contributed to the
development of NPD. Given the comment of his teacher in later years it
is clear Adolph was exhibiting signs of having NPD (see definition in
the last paragraph of page one).
As a self-defense mechanism, Adolph imagined himself to be
all-powerful and invincible, but that was contrary to his true
personality as �nervous and awkward�.6 The fantasy aspect of his
invincible �False Self� was becoming deeply rooted in his mind and
even overshadowing the personality traits of Hitler�s �True Self�.
Eventually, Hitler wouldn�t be able to separate fantasy from reality
and Hitler�s �False Self� would totally convince him that he could
conquer the world.
So, in getting back to the comparison of Barack Obama to Adolph
Hitler, one could say there are some similarities. However, there are
perhaps hundreds of thousands of children who share some of these
similarities. Having a childhood similar to Hitler does
not mean a person will grow up to develop NPD, as only 1% of the
general population would do so.
Like Adolph Hitler, Barack Obama was born to a communist father who
worked as a government employee who had several other children with
multiple women. His father was considerably older than his mother and
they conceived their famous son prior to getting married. His father
was not interested in child-rearing, abused alcohol, and the future
leader would reside in several different residences in his early
years. The young boy felt alienated from his father. He would attend
several different schools, including a catholic school run by strict
priests and nuns.
He was described by peers who would later say, �He used to be a
naughty boy particularly among his female seniors. Once he destroyed
the school�s fence which made from bamboos.� �In a creative writing
lesson, other students said that they wanted to be a doctor or pilot,
but Barry claimed that he wanted to be a president.�7 His childhood
friend, Keith Kakugawa said, "He is such a people person now, it's
really amazing because he was a very, very shy -- I wouldn't say
introverted -- but he was just a very shy, cautious kid".8
Unlike Hitler, Obama did not experience the death of his father at the
age of thirteen. However, Barack Obama did see his father alive for
the final time at the young age of only ten. It does seem many things
about Obama�s early years are quite similar to those found in Hitler�s
childhood. Barack Obama had no control over these matters so there is
not a single person who would dare hold these things against him.
However, we must also understand that Obama was affected by these
experiences. It is, therefore, possible that Barack Obama, like 1% of
the general population, could have dealt with those emotional issues
by developing NPD. According to the comment of his teacher and
childhood friend, it appears he was expressing signs which are
associated with NPD. Both Hitler and Obama were considered to be
shy/awkward while also desiring power.
However, it must be clarified at this point that neither Hitler nor
Obama were officially diagnosed as having NPD. Suspicions can arise as
a result of observing their behavior, but conclusions would
nevertheless remain inconclusive. The best we can do is to compare the
history, behavior, and interests of Hitler to see if a political
candidate followed a similar path. Merely having a childhood which is
similar to that of Hitler is not sufficient to make a comparison. We
all know how Hitler turned out, so we should be wary of someone who
had similar childhood experiences, seems to show signs of having NPD,
has similar interests and ideas, and appears to be retracing Hitler�s
footsteps.
So what are Adolph Hitler�s historical footsteps?
At the age of 35 Adolph Hitler would write a book called, �Mein Kampf�
(translated as �My Struggle�). It would be an autobiography containing
insights pertaining to his early years, political ideas, and thoughts
on race.
At the age of 34 Barack Obama would write a book called, �Dreams of my
Father�, also an autobiography highlighting his early years, political
ideas, and thoughts on race.
Hitler�s �Zweites Buch� (translated as �Second Book�) contains a
deeper understanding of his political ideas. The same can also be said
about Obama�s second book, �The Audacity of Hope�.
Both Hitler and Obama used their books as a springboard to further
their political careers. The title of Obama�s second book was based on
a sermon of Reverend Wright and was the foundational basis of the
speech he gave at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. It was
that speech which caught the attention of the media and the public,
both of whom propelled him to political stardom. He further expounded
on those ideas to publish his second book in 2006, just before
announcing his run for the Presidency. The book was on the New York
Times best-seller list for 30 weeks.
Ok, so they have a similar childhood and they both wrote two books
around similar themes. So what? Well, we suspected both might have had
NPD too. Let�s talk a little more about NPD to see if there is really
a connection to be concerned about here.
Criteria for narcissistic personality disorder to be diagnosed
include9:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power or beauty
Believing that you are special and can associate only with equally
special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Taking advantage of others
Inability to recognize needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
I would be willing to speculate that a person who feels the need to
write an autobiography in their mid-thirties might be entertaining an
exaggerated sense of self-importance. Both Hitler and Obama felt their
life was worth documenting for the public even before either had
started their political careers.
As mentioned earlier, both Hitler and Obama were described by others
as being shy or awkward children with dreams of being in powerful
positions of leadership. Both followed that dream, perhaps because
they were preoccupied with fantasies about success and power?
As I go down the list of nine NPD criteria I can see a number of them
which could be applied to both Obama and Hitler. This should be a
concern because we know the outcome in Hitler�s case, but we don�t
really know all that much about Barack Obama. He hasn�t released the
vault copy of his birth certificate, records of his activity logs
while in the Illinois State Senate, SAT scores, college transcripts,
thesis paper, medical records, tax returns, list of clients he worked
for as a lawyer, etc. Like Hitler, Obama has distanced himself even
from childhood friends10 (see below right), not to mention other
controversial associates such as William Ayers, Reverend Wright, Tony
Rezko, Frank Marshall Davis, etc.
Without full transparency people must look at documented history and
recorded actions to learn what this man is all about. Does Obama hold
the same or similar convictions and/or associations as Hitler?
Abortion (Infanticide)...Yes
(http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702)
Universal Health Care...Yes
(http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070125-the_time_has_co/)
Gun Control...Yes
(http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm)
Anti-Semitism...Yes
(Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley,
William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady)
Left-Wing Radicalism...Yes
(http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/13/updated-a-dangerous-mixture-of-lies-and-omissions-obama-ayers-wright-and-farrakhan/)
Communism...Yes
(http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf)
(http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf)
Socialism...Yes
(http://www.military-money-matters.com/barack-obamas-stealth-socialism.html)
Ok, so they have a similar childhood, show some signs of having NPD,
wrote similar books at the same age, pursued a career in politics,
respect many of the same radical political ideas, have similar
associations in their relationships; but we are talking about two
totally different time periods in history. Yes, that is true, but you
may be surprised to know the signs of the times today are very similar
to those in Hitler�s era.
At the time Hitler was rising to power after WWI, Germany had a bad
reputation in the eyes of the world. The actions of the country were
seen as an act of dishonesty, betrayal, treachery and a war crime.
Hitler promised to correct this. Americans are also seen in similar
ways for the way we justified and proceeded with an invasion of Iraq.
Barack Obama has promised to correct this.
The Germans felt deceived and humiliated after WWI and had just
entered into the Great Depression. Hitler capitalized on this feeling
by offering hope and change. Americans also feel deceived and
humiliated by their own government which allowed the current financial
crisis to happen, followed by their passage of a $700 billion bailout
plan. Americans have just experienced the worst financial crisis since
the Great Depression and Obama is also capitalizing on this feeling by
offering hope and change.
There was weakness in the ineffective German Constitution which
angered many German citizens while few freedom-fighters remained to
resist change. Hitler was seen as one who would resolve Constitutional
issues while being capable of dealing with resistance. Many Americans
have a few problems with the U.S. Constitution, namely the Second
Amendment. Obama offers a solution which claims to respect tradition
while also allowing for gun-control laws. He will have to deal with
those who resist infringement on Second Amendment rights.
The financial contributions of private supporters enabled Hitler to
fund his campaign. The same can be said of Obama, for he has collected
record-breaking funds from private donors.
Hitler promised something to everyone, just as Obama is doing today.
The Nazi propaganda machine convinced people Hitler was their last
hope. In a similar way, the media is supporting the idea Obama
represents the only hope for change from the policies of President
Bush.
Hitler was an excellent orator, community organizer, and politician
who could motivate and inspire huge crowds. His self-confidence was
instrumental in convincing voters to elect him. The public viewed him
as their savior. The same can be said of Obama11.
Hitler realized there was strength to be found in the young. Hitler
Youth were extremely dedicated and instrumental to his success. I am
sure we have all heard about the Obama Kids singing songs of praise to
their leader. Obama�s own website offers the following encouragement
for youngsters to get involved in his campaign:
�Do you feel like you want to get involved in the political process
but you don�t know how? Do you feel like there�s something important
coming up in the Presidential elections? Get involved in KIDS FOR
OBAMA! Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their
siblings� opinions and even change the opinions of older family
members . . . including those of voting age. Are you still with me?
Great, Let�s get started!�
(http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidskit)
Beyond children, Obama is receiving an incredible amount of support
from college students and young adults.
Hitler held extremely leftist ideals. Barack Obama has been called one
of the most liberal Senators in Congress12.
Obama and Hitler can even be compared on having similar preferences,
such as their desire to give their major speeches against a backdrop
of Greek-style temples.
Where Hitler gave a speech in Vienna, Austria, March 1938 (above left)
Hitler giving a speech, date unknown (above right)
Where Obama accepted the nomination in Denver, Colorado, August 2008
(below left)
Where Obama announced Biden as his running mate in Springfield, IL
(below right)
�Obama is the hope of the entire world.� - Louis Farrakhan
�Hitler was a very great man.� - Louis Farrakhan
Barack Obama is fully aware the nation�s problems are helping pave the
way for him to be President. His poll ratings went through the roof
during the bailout mess, so he obviously wants to talk more about the
economy to make even more political gains. On October 22, 2008, Obama
gave a speech in Virginia which included the statement, �I feel like
we got a righteous wind at our backs here.� He may not be able to
fully explain why he is having such great success in his campaign, but
I�m not entirely convinced �righteous� was the appropriate word to use
since it taps into religious overtones. Like Obama, Hitler claimed to
be a Christian too, but I doubt anyone would believe his election
success was a result of divine influence or intervention. The fact of
the matter is both Obama and Hitler have the right qualities and
message which influenced the right people in just the right way at
just the right time. The question is: What will they do when elected?
We need to be cautious when we see historical experiences, thought
processes, behavior patterns, courses of action, belief structures,
personality traits, and career goals in a candidate which are found to
be strikingly similar to those of Hitler. Combined with lack of
transparency we have a serious red flag waving before us. We
absolutely cannot afford to be wrong about this. With 12 million total
deaths, the holocaust was simply too tragic for anyone to allow it to
happen again. It might hurt our pride to vote for another candidate,
any other candidate, when we want to pull that lever for our beloved
candidate so badly. He seems so promising! Yet, so did Hitler. We
would suffer much worse if that candidate proved to be something we
never anticipated. I can only imagine how many Germans eventually came
to regret casting a vote for Hitler.
This article was written as a reminder we need to continue being wise
in judgment and unafraid to make comparisons when necessary. Turning a
blind eye and responding with anger in defense of our preferred
candidate can be quite dangerous. Some might choose to insist Obama
would not be one who would take us through another holocaust. Indeed,
they may be right, but few can deny the many similarities between
Obama and Hitler. I would rather not take the chance of being proven
wrong later on in life. I, for one, will always consider �The Hitler
Factor� when choosing which candidate will receive my vote and hope
others will do the same so we may always learn from our past mistakes.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652
"Narcissistic Personality Disorder". Personality Disorders -
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Armenian Medical Network (2006).
http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_(psychology)
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/father.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/father.htm
http://hubpages.com/hub/barrack-obama-indonesia
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2989722&page=1
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=tests-and-diagnosis
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=2989722&page=1
http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-messiah-has-spoken.html
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Sunday, November 02, 2008 | Permalink
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:41:12 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
invalid
>In news:kgdnj5165857etflh...@4ax.com invalid
><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see you can only operate in terms of black and white.
>
>While you can't seem to make a straight statement to save your life.
That perception is just another product of your black and white
thinking.
Perhaps it's just too complicated for you to grasp.
You imagine anyone could repair all the damage overnight?
For example the underwear bomber was on a CIA watch list but not on
the no-fly list.
>
>Good luck.
Bert Hyman
<invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
> Perhaps it's just too complicated for you to grasp.
And you can't even conceive that you're wrong or just can't explain your
position clearly.
> For example the underwear bomber was on a CIA watch list but not on
> the no-fly list.
The CIA is run by an Obama appointee. Was that failure his fault?
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:36:12 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <fg...@eeaeae.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>>news:errmj51ftbbjk44a4...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 14:37:06 -0800 (PST), James Of Tucson
>>> <james0...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You secretly wish the attack had been successful, because it's just
>>>>killing you to realize that it was prevented on Obama's watch.
>>>
>>> Is it supposed to be a secret that the Republicans wish terrorists to
>>> succeed and America to fail?
>>
>>And it's openly known that you're lying to cover the fact that you were
>>guilty of the charge all during Bush. Even wanted the US lose a war for
>>democrat political gain. You know that you are guilty of the charge so
>>that's what you accuse republicans of. It's standard democrat MO and you
>>fool no one, traitor.
>>
>>> America to fail?
>>
>>Lying about what Rush said I see.
>
> Limbaugh doesn't SAY anything,it's more akin to projectile vomiting
> the free associations of his psychotic mind.
You just can't stop projecting, can you?
> Be that as it may,the object is to paralyze the United States
> Government which is an act of treason.
We don't have the votes to stop you from doing anything, moron. The
democrats couldn't get their shit together so they blamed republicans. What
did I tell you about standard democrat MO, cretin?
>>That's all you people have isn't it? Lies
>>and smears. It must suck to have to live that way. Why do you do it? What
>>is
>>the real reason that you support democrats that you can't admit to,
>>immoral
>>low-life?
>
> I suspect you lost contact with the difference between truth and lies
> a long long time ago.
No retort. Just more projection.
>>> If so they haven't done a very good job of keeping it, have they?
>>>
>>> Things like voting to deny the troops pay and supplies make it pretty
>>> obvious where such traitors loyalties lie.
>>
>>Holding troops lives for ransom to get Obamacare was downright treason,
>
> Indeed it is so why did the republican senators do it?
Republicans are against Obamacare, moron.
>> and know it, you maggot. Why do you support such grossly immoral tactics?
>
> That would be what you are doing oh deluded one.
We're not the ones that held troops lives for ransom to get something
totally unrelated, immoral low-life
>> How much did the DNC pay you for your soul, you scum? Why are you a
>> willful
>>piece of shit?
>
> You are aware it was the REPUBLICANS that tried to block money for the
> troops as a slimy tactic to try to delay passage of Healthcare reform?
You're an idiot. The democrats held the lives of the troops for ransom to
try and get a few republicans votes. They tried to use their morality
against them like terrorists because democrats don't have any morals.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9770080e-e19b-4328...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 5:10 pm, "Eddie Haskelll" <f...@eeaeae.com> wrote:
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/29/obama-systemic-failure-all...
>
> -Eddie Haskell
> You supported Bush. He allowed attacks on the Pentagon and the World
> Trade Center.
> How can you justify that?
Fuck off, Cuntingham. You're one of the most immoral lairs in this NG, and
that says a LOT.
> Bush failed as president.
Fuck off with your stupid DNC talking points, Cuntingham, you dumb
son-of-a-bitch.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> Republicans see political opportunity in Obama response to failed
> airplane bomb
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews
>
> Obama's approval rating on national security has remained relatively
> steady since he took office. In a mid-November Washington Post-ABC
> News poll, 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Obama
> was handling the threat of terrorism, while 41 percent said they
> disapproved.
>
>
> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
> American people. "There are those who want to solve the problem, and
> there are those who want to exploit it," he said. "This is not the
> time for politics."
>
> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
Buh-but but but Bush. Grow the FUCK UP!
> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
> changed.
Then why didn't you fucking change it, stupid-fuck?
> In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
> ago.
You're probably too stupid to realize that your post is proof the democrats
are yet again guilty of the crime they accuse republicans of.
NEVER fucking fails.
EVER.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2009 16:28:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>>> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
>>> ago.
>>
>>done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
>>
>>Strange, isn't it?
>
> from the truth
Goddamn, do even read your own posts, you fucking idiot?
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2009 18:29:20 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:n52nj5l3ftudte2fm...@4ax.com invalid
>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Dec 2009 16:28:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
>>>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>>>>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>>>>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>>>>> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
>>>>> changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
>>>>> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two
>>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>>And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that they've
>>>>done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
>>>>
>>>>Strange, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
>>> from the truth
>>>
>>>
>>> Computer, Pandemic Threats Addressed
>>
>>So, all those folks who are still whining about having inherited the
>>problem from Bush are wrong?
>>
>>I'll just send them to you and you can set them straight.
>
> In the whole wide world there are only a handful of lunatics
> inhabiting the collective psychosis
As clear a case of projection yet seen.
Invalid: Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
changed.
Hyman: And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that
they've done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
Invalid: Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
from the truth.
You're a drooling shit for brains idiot.
DIE.
-Edie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2009 16:28:47 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>>> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
>>> changed. In addition, the former Guantanamo Bay detainees who showed
>>> up in the al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen were released by Bush two years
>>> ago.
>>
>>And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that they've
>>done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
>>
>>Strange, isn't it?
>
> Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
> from the truth
Oh, so you lied then. Thanks for the admission, fuckwit.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
He's a lying idiot.
You know, a democrat.
-Edie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
Then why do you claim that both are true, shit-for-brains?
-Eddie Haskell
Lamont Cranston
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to
> grow up and be a man?
Iddy, George W. Bush won't ever grow up and he's no longer president.
Adults are now in charge.
Eddie Haskell
> In news:kgdnj5165857etflh...@4ax.com invalid
> <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> I see you can only operate in terms of black and white.
>
> While you can't seem to make a straight statement to save your life.
>
> Good luck.
That's what happens with liars.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2009 16:31:31 GMT, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>In news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com invalid
>><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
>>> attempted bombing
>>
>
> engendered as a fundraiser for themselves have you?
Fear-mongering on a colonial scale is the stock-n-trade of the entire left,
dolt.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
>
> Mr. Obama is a shallow race-hustler who became president because a lot
> of silly, feel-good, politically correct Americans believed it would
> prove something for America to have a black president. That there is
> nothing substantial between his ears, that the light shines straight
> through from one ear canal to the other, has long been apparent to
> anyone willing and able to examine Barack Obama objectively. He is a
> man without qualities, an individual distinguished by his sheer lack
> of distinction. He has never done, said, thought or achieved anything
> whatever except, alas, become president of the US. A more perfectly
> unqualified, indeed disqualified man would be hard to imagine. His
> presidency is a lasting testimony to the folly of feel-good,
> smiley-faced racism and self-indulgent moral vanity on the part of
> naifs who voted for him because, not in spite of the fact he is,
> through no fault of his own, 1/2 black.
Absolutely 100% correct and well said to boot.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"AIG Ball-less Repugs" <argba...@go.net> wrote in message
news:hhg886$df9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Are your mother's welfare benefits higher under Obammy?
>
STFU, you're not fit to utter Cheney's name, you low-life.
The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took
office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the
options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three
charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of
Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's
medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will
go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid
for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious
schools.
The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated,
waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.
The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his
attorney says.
Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on
what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known
beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits
constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the
chosen charities.
http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:50:14 GMT, nomospam@usenet. (Nobama) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>As opposed to posting opinions from fringe, kook, left-wing blogs?
>
> As opposed ton any sane discussion in your case it seems.
Invalid: Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
changed.
Hyman: And the Obama administration was so happy with that setup that
they've done nothing to change it in the year since Obama took office.
Invalid: Were it true it certainly would be,however nothing could be further
from the truth.
You're a drooling shit for brains idiot.
Now, DIE.
-Eddie Haskell
invalid
>In news:7tenj5pts2ri1i5ot...@4ax.com invalid
><invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's just too complicated for you to grasp.
>
>And you can't even conceive that you're wrong or just can't explain your
>position clearly.
>
>> For example the underwear bomber was on a CIA watch list but not on
>> the no-fly list.
>
>The CIA is run by an Obama appointee.
He's the President whether you like it or not.
Who do you expect to do the appointing-Sarah Palin?
>Was that failure his fault?
IMHO the fault rests entirely with the Dutch especially if he was
allowed on board without a passport on a last minute one way
ticket paid for in cash.
invalid
wrote:
>
And the name of the Democratic politician who used a terrorist attack
to raise money for himself is?
/crickets
invalid
wrote:
So in your whacky demented world Democrats forced 35 Republican
senators to vote against money for the troops?
Money for troops becomes pawn in health care debate
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/20847
Lost in all the back and forth in the nonstop health debate this
weekend was a late night procedural vote that put a lot of Senate
Republicans on record as voting against money for troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Among them: Kansas� two Republicans, Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam
Brownback.
It�s not often that you see political gamesmanship in full flower.
Call it, "I voted against the bill before I was for it."
It was very early Saturday. Democrats had temporarily set health
care aside to deal with the must-pass defense bill. A key item in the
huge bill was $128 billion to pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including a 3.4 percent pay raise.
At any other time this would not be controversial, especially among
the GOP lawmakers who have rarely missed a chance to turn a vote on
funding the military into a solemn pledge of patriotism. But the
partisan divide in the Senate this year is a chasm, and the bottom
apparently has not been found yet.
Looking to stop the Democrats� health care reform bill any way they
could, Republicans tried to delay a vote on the defense bill to keep
the Senate from getting back to it.
So 35 Republican senators opposed voting on the defense bill. It
was not enough. Democrats needed 60 votes to break the filibuster
attempt. They drew 57 from their party, two independents and four
Republicans.
Among the Republicans who broke ranks: Missouri�s Kit Bond. The
others were Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Thad Cochran
of Mississippi.
After the delay attempt failed, the Senate voted to send the
defense bill to the White House for President Obama to sign. That
passed 88-10, with most Republicans on board, including Roberts and
Brownback.
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:17:47 GMT, nomospam@usenet. (Nobama) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>So you're going to continue to blame every Obama, Piglosi, moonbat
>>fuck-up on Booshy?
>
> I think the point is that a lot of the damage that Bush did to America
> and to the world is irreparable.
>
> The utterly pointless death of millions of totally innocent people
> based on his lies
One day I'll read a democrat post and it won't be nothing more than fascist
lies smears and character assassination. I just know it.
"The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's
illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not
try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S.
weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion
made by top administration officials about Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
-Bill Clinton - 1998
Eddie Haskell
"Nobama" <nomospam@usenet.> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It seems implausible that a President of the United States could
> actually be doing harm to the economy by design, but that appears to
> be the case. Despite what the media lapdogs, Obama apologists say, the
> economy is �contracting�. It just contracted less than the previous
> quarter. If you listen to the media however, things are rosy and we
> can see light at the end of the tunnel. WHAT? When Bush was President
> the economy was growing every quarter until the Democrats seized
> control of Congress. The media was predicting doom every day, the
> economy is terrible, it grew at a slower rate than expected, Bush
> sucks, the Republicans suck, their policies don�t work,
> blah,blah,blah. But now that there is a Democrat in the White House
> and a Democratic Congress, all is right with the economy. So what if
> people are losing jobs at an alarming rate and they are spending less
> money, which will cause more people to lose their jobs. And just what
> is a jobless recovery anyway? And while we are at it, what exactly
> does adding or �saving� jobs mean? This administration has more
> �doublespeak� terms than any I have ever heard.
>
> Here�s the deal. The President does not believe in free market
> capitalism. He learned his economics from Maynard Keynes, and Obamas�
> own father, who was a Communist Economist in Kenya. He believes in
> taxing the rich and spreading the wealth just like Karl Marx. He says
> it almost everyday, and he said it to Joe the plumber when he thought
> no one could hear.
>
> Let me make economic theory easy for you Obama drones out there.
>
> If a business is taxed more, will the business have more money or less
> money? The answer is less money. If this business has less money,are
> they going to hire more people or less people? The answer is less
> people. Will that mean more people will have jobs or less people will
> have jobs. The answer is less people will have jobs. If less people
> have jobs, will they have more money to spend at the business you work
> at or less money to spend at the business you work for? The answer is
> less money to spend at the business you work. Then what happens? YOU
> get laid off and so on and so on and so on.
>
> If Taxes are cut, will the business have more money or less money? The
> answer is more money. If the business has more money are they going to
> hire more people ar less people? The answer is more people. If the
> business has more money are they more apt or less apt to give you a
> raise. The answer is, if they have more money they might give you a
> raise, especially if there are other business out ther hiring more
> people and you might go to work for their competitor if you can get
> paid more. Competition is good.
>
> Now, if you cut taxes and there are more and more businesses who have
> more and more money, hiring people and maybe giving them raises due to
> increased competition, are these people who are now working going to
> have more money or less money? The answer is more money. If their are
> more people who have more money are they more likely to buy your goods
> and services or less likely? The answer is more likely. If this
> happens are you more likely to have more money or less likely?.The
> answer is YOU will have more money!
>
> Where Obamas� theory of economics fail is he believes that if you tax
> people more the government will have more money. I just proved that to
> be false. To make a point, would you rather have 20% of 1 million
> dollars(200,000) or only 10% of 3 million dollars(300,000)? Of course
> the answer is you want the SMALLER portion of the BIGGER pie. If you
> cut taxes and expand the economy(the Pie) everyone wins. If you take
> larger and larger percentages of the pie it will contract just like
> the economy and everyone loses. Just ask the state budget directors
> who can�t print money like our esteemed hero, the mighty, the all
> powerful, OBAMA!
>
> Speaking of printing money, I hope that all you economic illiterates
> out there(Obama supporters) realize that the Government has no money
> of its own right? Let me explain that to you also.
>
> The government gets money 3 ways. They can tax you and business, which
> is actually another tax on you because a business operates to make
> money. If they don�t make enough they close. Now whenever they get
> taxed they just pass the costs of the higher taxes to you, and then
> YOU pay their tax. So taxing business is crazy. You end up paying
> their tax. Now these taxes that are imposed on you by government come
> from money that would otherwise be left in the private sector(which
> Obama is out to destroy as much as possible i.e. car companies, banks,
> insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.). If this money is left
> in the private sector then expansion of the pie continues. If it
> doesn�t, the pie gets smaller(exactly what Obama is doing, on
> purpose).
>
> The second way government can get money is to print it. This is what
> Obama is doing also(and is an impeachable offence). He swore to uphold
> the Constitution which includes keeping this country sovereign and
> keeping the currency strong. If you just print money our currency will
> be worth less and less. There will be too many dollars chasing too few
> goods which will cause inflation. Prices will rise, you will need more
> and more of these dollars to purchase fewer and fewer goods. This is a
> bad thing.
>
> The third way the government can get money is by borrowing it at ever
> increasing interest rates.(ask China how much of the U.S. debt they
> own). Do you Obama morons out there know that in six months Obama has
> got us into more debt than all other presidents combined in the
> history of the country. HE IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY ON PURPOSE! HE
> IS EVIL. There, now I feel better. Not as good as I�ll feel in 2010
> and 2012, but better. Obama does not love this country. He only sees
> its faults(in his eyes). He is out to change it fundamentally. I say
> no. The only thing wrong with this country is there are too many
> leftist who seek government office. Normal people are going to have
> to start running for office or we are in trouble. Of course, I like to
> fight. Maybe we need to thin the ranks out a little? We can start with
> the anti-capitalist democrats. They can form their own country
> somewhere else. It ain�t gonna happen here. I promise you that!!!
They don't care about the affects of taxation. For their masters taxation is
not about funding the government. It's about disempowering individuals and
empowering government. And with the rank-n-file taxation is about getting
back at the rich because their masters have fomented their minds with hate
because they are weak-minded and stupid.
-Eddie Haskell
duke
>
>"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
>news:3sumj59r8gb4uumkg...@4ax.com...
>> Republicans see political opportunity in Obama response to failed
>> airplane bomb
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122903379.html?hpid=topnews
>>
>> Obama's approval rating on national security has remained relatively
>> steady since he took office. In a mid-November Washington Post-ABC
>> News poll, 53 percent of Americans said they approved of the way Obama
>> was handling the threat of terrorism, while 41 percent said they
>> disapproved.
>>
>>
>> Axelrod accused Republicans of seeking to exploit last week's
>> attempted bombing and predicted that their effort would fail with the
>> American people. "There are those who want to solve the problem, and
>> there are those who want to exploit it," he said. "This is not the
>> time for politics."
>>
>> The Republican strategy is further complicated by the fact that the
>> nation's counterterrorism intelligence and security procedures were
>> created after Sept. 11, 2001, by Bush and congressional Republicans.
>
>Buh-but but but Bush. Grow the FUCK UP!
>
>> Current watch-list systems were put in place years ago and have not
>> changed.
>
>Then why didn't you fucking change it, stupid-fuck?
Hey, no good black man will accept blame for his actions if he can find somebody
else to blame and point to.
Good grief, our old worn out homeland sec believes the system worked while
obummer fiddled, or is that diddled, his days on the golf course and tennis
courts.
And he not coming home for another next four days, no less.
Gitmo, gitmo, gitmo - keep it open, obummer.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:06:33 GMT, nomospam@usenet. (Nobama) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>There ya go again, Bush Derangement Syndrome.
>>
>>Heh.
>
> Obama Derangement Syndrome
No, unlike you we actually have views and agree with those that espouse
those views and disagree with those that run counter. With you little shits
it didn't matter what the fuck Bush did. Your masters figured out a way to
smear him for it and you dutifully chimed in parroting it every time.
You pretended to give a shit about the deficit during Bush and then
gleefully voted in a man and party that promised to spend like hell. You
pretend to give a shit about racism and then voted in a man that IS a
racist. You pretend to give a shit about the reputation of the country and
then smear the country for political gain every chance you get.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are nothing but a bunch of fucking
liars that will lie for your government cheese because the democrats have
you bought, and you will not stop until you've bankrupted the nation just as
Hussein wants you to. That way government gets to ride in on a white horse
and save you by fucking you out of every last vestige of your freedom, but
you don't give a shit about that either because you're perfectly willing to
become a ward of the state. That's what you WANT, but can't admit it openly
so you lie like hell and NEVER, EVER stop.
But make no mistake, you will NOT succeed. We have the guns and the military
and when it comes nut-cuttin' time we will bury you once and for all.
You are FUCKED.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
Thanks for yet another PRISTINE example of Bush derangement syndrome, you
fuckwit. You bitch, piss, cry and moan about Bush not admitting any mistake
and then when he does you piss, shit, and blubber endlessly about him being
such a fuck-up that he even admitted it.
Where are Hussein's admissions? The only thing that piece of shit can do is
blame everybody except himself for everything that goes wrong, especially
Bush.
Hussein can't hold a candle to Bush as a MAN.
Hell, the MSM berated Bush and maligned him beyond any man in human history
and he never batted an eye, while Hussein has the MSM down on it's knees
sucking is dick and yet he cries about the media because Fox News is
actually doing it's job.
Heaven fucking forbid. Don't you understand? I [Hussein] am above reproach.
The fucking messiah.
Hussein is a fucking, blubbering pussy.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Dacato" <tfit...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:2b4b1bcc-4835-405b...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 4:10 pm, "Eddie Haskelll" <f...@eeaeae.com> wrote:
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/29/obama-systemic-failure-all...
>
> -Eddie Haskell
> Is he right? Is the system outdated? I don't see where he mentions
> Bush in this statement. Are you claiming his statements are wrong and
> that we don't need to upgrade the system? Please show us where he is
> blaming the Bush administration in his statement. Please show us the
> inaccuracies of his statement.
Oh, FUCK OFF.
You goddamned well that his statement "that's been in place for years now"
is a back-handed way of blaming Bush and sloughing off his own blame. You
goddamned well know it and this pretense of stupidity act form of lie you
shit-heads employ and standard DNC tactic won't work, liar.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"James Of Tucson" <james0...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c78c037-868e-4559...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 29, 3:10 pm, "Eddie Haskelll" <f...@eeaeae.com> wrote:
> I wondered how long it would take. When is this president going to grow up
> and be a man?
>
> What a national embarrassment.
>
> "It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is
> not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we
> collect and the knowledge we have," Obama said.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/29/obama-systemic-failure-all...
>
> -Eddie Haskell
> You're the one mumbling about Bush, no one else.
Who was the president that put the system in place years ago, lying
shit-head?
Boy, you fuckers must really be embarrassed by Hussein's lack of leadership
and manhood to be lying the way are in his defense rather just coming out
and blaming Bush yourselves. I guess that little pussy act on the part of
Hussein has run it's course even with you shit-heads.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"Lamont Cranston" <Lamont....@Shadow.com> wrote in message
news:hhgg3q$fg3$1...@news.datemas.de...
Then why the fuck can't Hussein take responsibility for ONE FUCKING thing,
Cranston, you lair?
Oh, and is he still crying 'cause Fox News outed his communist advisor?
Wah wah wah..
And that after the pure HELL that Bush underwent from the MSM and never
cried about it?
Face it, Crankston, Hussein is a fucking pussy and you damned well know it.
Now, go lie to someone else. You bore the fuck out of me.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"invalid" <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote in message
Democrats use the we're all gonna die from global warming lie for fun and
profit. Difference: Terrorism is real, while GW is not. How do I know? A guy
just tried to blow up an airliner, DUMBASS.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qelnj51tqcvqlnv8h...@4ax.com...
You know, that's a damn good point. Just look at that church he supported
and attended for over 20 years. The whole point of it was to make excuses
for black behavior.
That, and to give a platform to racist and anti-American rants of course.
-Eddie Haskell
invalid
wrote:
>
Yeah-I guess we had better start passing a hat around the local bar to
fund law enforcement, disease control and the fire service right?
In your taxless Utopia you maybe could sell lottery tickets to fund
the Army and Navy and lay off all the mercenaries.
At least there would be no problem with Customs and Homeland Security
because their wouldn't be any.
invalid
wrote:
>
Nice bit of creative post editing Eddie.
Why trouble to follow a dialogue when you can just make shit up huh?
>You're a drooling shit for brains idiot.
>Now, DIE.
Yep-another Republican armchair terrorist that hates freedom of speech
and everything America stands for.
Nobama
Nobody's talking about a taxless society, moonbat.
But I have a problem with an angry socialist radical who wants to tax
in order to redistribute the achievers' wealth to the "po' and
oppressed" upon whose backs, according to the angry socialist radical,
that American exceptionalism was achieved.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:38:06 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
invalid
>
>
>
>Nobody's talking about a taxless society, moonbat.
>
>But I have a problem with an angry socialist radical who wants to tax
>in order to redistribute the achievers' wealth to the "po' and
>oppressed" upon whose backs, according to the angry socialist radical,
>that American exceptionalism was achieved.
"Bankruptcy achievers" like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG , the
foreign banks Bush sent trillions of taxpayers money to you mean?
You *do* remember it was Republicans that did that after they totally
fucked up the economy-right?
Most people "have a problem" with that.
Nobama
How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30
PM PT
One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market
meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply
involved in the housing market?
The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the
juggernauts they'd later be.
While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act,
which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority
communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After
entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's
rules.
In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms
into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made
loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and
money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to
corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.
Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton
unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA
in ways Congress never intended.
Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, Clinton
bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own
homes." He meant it.
Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and
other minorities to enter the middle class.
Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to
change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than
submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to
reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite
the rules in 1995.
The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a
satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical
quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan
portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted
to expand or merge with another.
Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.
"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by
neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance,"
wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
But those rules weren't enough.
Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to
double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.
Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions
between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current
crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were
changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in
a big way.
Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage,
allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments,
vs. 10% for banks.
Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit
government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored
enterprises boomed.
With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans
into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that
required no money down and no verification of income.
By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12
trillion U.S. mortgage market � a staggering exposure.
Worse still was the cronyism.
Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly
Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a
roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.
Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384
politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.
Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and
political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions
more on think tanks and radical community groups.
Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people
into homes, the answer would have to be yes.
From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of
the 12.5 million new homeowners.
The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and
minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.
Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with
securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a
failed legacy of the Clinton era.
_________
http://beltwaysnark.com/2008/09/16/john-mccain-supported-a-proposal-for-
an-agency-to-oversee-fannie-and-freddiein-2005/
In Sept. 2003 President Bush proposed a new agency to oversee
regulatory
reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Here is an excerpt form the
above
linked article from Sept. 11, 2003.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new
agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision
of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that
are
the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with
Congress,
to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies.
It
would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would
determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their
ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � which together have issued more than $1.5
trillion in outstanding debt � is broken. A report by outside
investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its
accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does
not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
Then in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise
Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.
The Bill was never passed. John McCain addressed the floor on May
26th,
2006. Here is an excerpt:
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory
Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage
of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act,
American
taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial
system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform
legislation.
This bill was shot down by the Democrats and some Republicans in
Congress.
John McCain fought two years ago to shield the American people from
the
crisis some of us are facing.
What was Barack�s vote??
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:56:13 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
invalid
>Reform Act of 2005, S. 190
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/20/21195/8886
S190 was introduced in the Senate on Jan 26, 2005, sponsored by Hagel
and co-sponsored by Dole and Sununu.
McCain was not a co-sponsor.
S190 was discussed in the Senate Banking Committee on July 28, 2005
with the result, "Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute favorably", which I believe is Congress speak
for, "we don't like this, please go rewrite it and we may reconsider",
i.e., the bill died in a Republican controlled committee and never
came to the floor of the Senate or back to the Senate Banking
Committee for reconsideration.
S190 died in committee.
On May 23, 2006, Fannie and Freddie's regulator, the Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight, issued the results of their 27 month
long investigation of Fannie Mae's shenanigans. The report was widely
reported and was scathing in its criticism of Fannie Mae. A NYT
article is here: Regulators Denounce Fannie Mae. The actual report is
here: OFHEO report.
Two days later, in an amazing act of prescience, McCain gets up in the
Senate and reveals to the unknowing masses that Fannie Mae has
problems by regurgitating some findings of the report and signs on as
a co-sponsor of S190. Here is a link to the Senate record: McCain
sounds the alarm! That's it. That's what all the fuss is about.
Nothing else happened with regard to S190 or HR1461. McCain doesn't
say anything else.
And for the icing on the cake, HR1461 and S190 would actually weaken
the regulation of Fannie and Freddie. Even the conservative think tank
American Enterprise Institute thought these were bad bills: Reform
That is Worse Than Current Law. Even Bush thought the bills were too
weak: Bush says HR1461 too weak.
Nobama
Of all the characteristics of a successful politician, none is more
essential than bare-faced cheek. Never has this been more evident than
in the past fortnight, as senior Democrat members of the US
legislature have sought to lay all the blame for the country's
financial crisis on the executive arm of Government and Wall Street.
Neither of these two institutions is blameless � far from it. Yet when
I see such senior Democrats as Barney Frank, Chairman of the House
Financial Services Committee, and Christopher Dodd, Chairman of the
Senate's Banking Committee, play the part of avenging angels � well, I
can only stand in silent awe at the sheer tight-bottomed nerve of it.
These are men with sphincters of steel.
What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the
world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers.
Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing
half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the
so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were
formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic
collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures
blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush � and other
Republicans � to bring these lending behemoths under greater
regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a
rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing
following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people
exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial
losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities
that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the
committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were
nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that
wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and
particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr
Franklin Raines."
When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher
Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is,
mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss
retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital
ratio of under 2 per cent".
Maxine Walters' complaint about previous attempts to bring the great
state-sponsored housing finance bodies under stricter control was
partly a reference to Bill Clinton's efforts. Last week the former
President acknowledged that "responsibility" for the absence of proper
regulation rested "with Democrats who were resisting any efforts of
Republicans in Congress, and earlier when I was President and tried to
impose tighter standards on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac". Then, as now,
members of his own party saw all such initiatives as unwonted attacks
on the chances for low-earners, and particularly African-Americans, to
own their own homes.
From its inception in 1938 Fannie Mae (and later Freddie Mac) was
designed to make housing finance available to "ordinary Americans".
This was a noble aim. In the 1970s another Democrat President, Jimmy
Carter, introduced legislation which demanded that such bodies enhance
their lending to minorities. Again, this was based on a noble idea: to
stamp out racism in the mortgage market. Thus by 1998 you had the
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston producing a document entitled "Closing
the Gap: a Guide to Equal Opportunities Lending", which instructed
banks that an applicant's "lack of credit history should not be seen
as a negative factor" in obtaining a mortgage. As Stephen Malanga of
the Manhatta *Institute notes: "Of course the new federal standards
couldn't just apply to minorities. If they could pay back loans under
these terms, then so could the majority of loan applicants. Quickly,
these became the new standards in the industry. As the housing market
boomed, banks embraced these new standards with a vengeance. Between
2004 and 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac became the biggest
purchasers of subprime mortgages from all kinds of applicants, white
and minority, and most of these loans were based on lending standards
promoted by the Government."
One of the few journalists to see where this would lead was Jeff
Jacoby, of the Boston Globe. Last week he reminded his readers what he
had written in 1995: "Our banks are knowingly approving risky loans to
get the feds and the activists off their backs... When the coming wave
of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's
self-congratulating bankers, politicians and regulators plans to take
the credit?". Jacoby adds now: "Barney Frank doesn't. But his
fingerprints are all over this fiasco."
It's true that the improvident lending was not initiated by Fannie and
Freddie: their role in this was to buy these loans and sell them on �
but then the music stopped. Cynical students of the American political
system will note that the biggest recipient of campaign contributions
from the munificent duo of Fannie and Freddie over the past 20 years
was one Christopher Dodd, Democrat Chairman of the Senate's Banking
Committee.
Rather surprisingly, given that he has only been in the Senate for
four of those years, the second biggest beneficiary was Barack Obama.
In August the Washington Post reported that Obama's presidential
campaign team had sought the advice of Franklin Raines "on mortgage
and housing policy matters". Perhaps Mr Obama's team just wanted to
know where all the bodies are buried � there are rather a lot of them.
The saddest outcome of all this within America � apart from the
crippling cost to the nation's taxpayers � is that the very people the
Democrats had intended to help will be the biggest victims: for many
years to come banks will demand the most stringent terms for mortgages
to the least well off.
In the meantime, let us praise Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, who
confessed this week: "Like a lot of my Democrat colleagues I was too
slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie when in
retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised. I wish my
Democrat colleagues would admit that we were wrong." I fear
Congressman Davis will not go far with this attitude � but at least he
will be able to look at himself in the
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 05:49:03 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
DamOTclese
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:42:46 GMT, nomospam@usenet. (Nobama) wrote:
>>Nobody's talking about a taxless society, moonbat.
>>But I have a problem with an angry socialist radical who wants to tax
>>in order to redistribute the achievers' wealth to the "po' and
>>oppressed" upon whose backs, according to the angry socialist radical,
>>that American exceptionalism was achieved.
>"Bankruptcy achievers" like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG , the
>foreign banks Bush sent trillions of taxpayers money to you mean?
>You *do* remember it was Republicans that did that after they totally
>fucked up the economy-right?
>Most people "have a problem" with that.
Under Republican economies, the rich have Socialism and the rest of us
have Capitalism. This buttfuck "Nobama" Republican thinks that's just
perfectly okay since he's the artifact of his Republican upbringing.
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Nobama
Actually, Obama is the philosophical protege of Frank Marshall Davis
and George Soros' Rent-a-Radical.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:56:22 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (DamOTclese)
wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:56:22 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (DamOTclese)
wrote:
Nobama
Actually, Obama is the philosophical protege of Frank Marshall Davis
and George Soros' Rent-a-Radical.
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:56:22 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (DamOTclese)
wrote:
>invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:56:22 GMT, fr...@skeptictank.org (DamOTclese)
wrote:
>invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid> wrote:
invalid
>
>Actually, Obama is the philosophical protege of Frank Marshall Davis
>and George Soros' Rent-a-Radical.
If you can manage to raise your head above the deep pit of Obama
Derangement Syndrome you have dug for yourself, you might see that
your ludicrous theory of President Obama being a socialist, fascist,
militant atheist,fundamental Muslim and communist all at the same time
has no bearing on George Bush looting the public purse on behalf of
his backers in his final days.
Nobama
Bush spent money like a librul.
But he looks like a piker compared to the Commissar.
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:11:55 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>
wrote:
invalid
>
>
>
>
>Bush spent money like a librul.
I'm not too sure taking money out of US circulation and transferring
it to his friends to put in foreign enterprises and banks is
"spending' as it's normally known.
Certainly countless billions just plain went missing in Iraq, for
example, without even being tracked.
>
>But he looks like a piker compared to the Commissar.
When a new Captain takes over, and finds when he tries to steer the
ship from the rocks the departing Captain has not only destroyed the
engines but drilled holes in the bottom of the boat,it takes money to
repair such damage.
Should the damage done by the Republicans have remained unaddressed
and the ship allowed continue on to the rocks?
We all know, of course, Republicans pray for the boat to sink, in
some cases quite literally.
Nobama
No, dumbass, you don't throw gasoline on a fire.
We need to create wealth. Govt. does not create wealth by spending.
And if you want to talk about giving money to friends, 85% of his
stimulus is pork, oink, oink.
Obama's No-Growth Tax Cuts
Obama and his defenders keep saying his stimulus package includes a
balance of tax cuts as well as increased government spending, alleging
that "We can't rely on a losing formula that offers only tax cuts as
the answer to all our problems." But Obama's tax cuts are Keynesian
"garbage" as well, as Barro recently called them.
The centerpiece of Obama's tax cuts is, again, the $500 per worker tax
credit. But that credit is the equivalent of just sending a welfare
check of $500 to everyone, as far as economic stimulus is concerned.
It is just another way of trying to increase overall spending, just
like the Bush stimulus "tax" rebates adopted early in 2008, which also
failed utterly to revive the economy. Neither those Bush rebates nor
the Obama credits do anything to change the fundamental incentives
that govern the economy, the incentives to save, invest, start or
expand a business, take risks, etc. That requires supply-side tax cuts
which reduce tax rates, as we have seen.
But for Obama, time stopped in 1979, and he talks and acts as if
Reagan and everything he did never happened. While he says he is
interested only in what works, not ideology, just the opposite is
true. He won't consider the tax rate cuts that worked spectacularly
for Reagan, and Kennedy, and Bush also, because of his unreconstructed
liberal/left ideology. Instead he is embracing just what that ideology
commands, a trillion dollar addition to spending, the deficit, and Big
Government. Obama is developing a pattern of saying the opposite of
what he is doing, which is another Saul Alinsky tactic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gingrich Revolution
In sharp contrast to Obama and his ideological delusions, Newt
Gingrich has recently offered an economic recovery plan that is based
on modern economics and what would work. It includes a reduction in
the federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to the 12.5% rate that
over the past 20 years has lifted the standard of living in Ireland
from the bottom of the EU to the top. It would eliminate the capital
gains tax to match China, Singapore, and other international
competitors, enticing capital investment from the world over to
America. It would provide middle class tax relief by reducing the 25%
income tax bracket to 15%, establishing a flat rate tax of 15% for
close to 90% of American workers. He would also cut the payroll tax by
50% for 2 years.
Gingrich also proposes to control government spending to balance the
budget, something he achieved when he was Speaker of the House. He
would adopt a real, comprehensive energy program that would allow
production of domestic U.S. oil and natural gas, as well as nuclear
power, clean coal, ethanol, and renewable fuels. He would also protect
the current federal right of workers to decide in a secret ballot
election whether to join a union, replace the extremely costly,
heavy-handed Sarbanes-Oxley regulation that has crippled
entrepreneurial start-ups in America, and abolish the death tax, among
other provisions.
If Congress were adopting these reforms this week instead of the retro
Obama "stimulus" package, the American economy would be off on another
historic boom before the end of the year. Maybe we need a new
President already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Party Like It's 1979
Obama's ideological nostalgia for the liberal salad days of pre-Reagan
1979 is going to take the entire U.S. economy back there. Over time,
we will find that Obama's policies have led us back to persistently
high unemployment, resurgent inflation, double digit interest rates,
stagnating growth, even gas shortages and the high gas prices he
supports as good for the environment. And that will also effectively
be another pre-Reagan moment as well.
_________
President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion
through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
President Bush began a string of expensive finan�cial bailouts.
President Obama is accelerating that course.
President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle�ment that will cost an
estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has
proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern�ment health care
fund.
President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster
than inflation. Presi�dent Obama would double it.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on
federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in�creased
this spending by 20 percent.
_______
Obama Increases National Debt Beating All Records
17
Mar
Posted by MacRanger as Barack Obama
Sky high!
The eye-popping national debt surpassed $11 trillion Monday, the
largest in U.S. history.
The new Treasury Department figures on the national debt were released
as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is expected to project
that the annual budget deficit will be higher than previously
estimated by the White House�s Office of Management and Budget. The
debt, which refers to the cumulative amount of money the government
owes, hit $10.9 trillion on Friday.
The whopping number has major ramifications for President Barack
Obama, who is trying to push through a raft of big-ticket bills on
health care, energy, education and climate change � while also
attempting to stabilize the swooning economy.�
The rate which Obama is bankrupting the Nation has to be a record.
What do you know? It is!
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:12:58 -0800, invalid <invalid.invalid@invalid>