Re: Hussein Obama’s First 10 Executive Orders
wis...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Hussein Obama’s First 10 Executive Orders
>
>Quotes from BarrackObama.com
>
>• Obama enacts stronger “federal hate crimes legislation” to
>“reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.”
>
>• Obama creates “a fund to help people refinance their mortgages and
>provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.”
>
>• Obama, following through on his pledge to “meet with the leaders of
>all nations, friend and foe,” signs a non-agression pact with the Hitler
>of Iran.
>
>• Obama doubles foreign aid to $50 billion to cut “poverty around the
>world in half by 2015.”
>
>• Obama removes our troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum filled by Iran.
>
>• Obama enacts socialized medicine, destroying small businesses with
>taxes to pay for illegal alien healthcare.
>
>• Obama enacts amnesty for illegal aliens.
>
>• Obama enacts legislation demanding carbon friendly cars, hammering the
>final nail in the coffin of the US car industry.
>
>• Barack Obama enact laws to reinforce affirmative action by funneling
>money to “women and minority-owned businesses.”
>
>• Obama repeals the Bush tax cuts.
>
>• Obama enacts the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to entrench the
>power of the homosexual lobby.
Whaaaaaaaata jigaboo!
ted
George Grapman
A president can not enact or repeal legislation.
Speaking of Iran, which president sold them arms?
> ted
aemeijers
rest are controlled by Congress.
Benj
> A president can not enact or repeal legislation.
Never heard of "executive orders" and the "unitary executive" I take
it. All a president needs to do is issue some decree (to be authorized
under an emergency) and then create the "emergency" to enable it.
Simple.
> >> • Barack Obama enact laws to reinforce affirmative action by funneling
> >> money to “women and minority-owned businesses.”
Well, unless the women are religious, pro-life, pro-gun, honest, Cute,
Republican, pro-beauty pageant, pro-shaved armpits, or held elected
office as other than a Democrat.
As for "minorities" anyone with even a drop of minority blood shall be
considered a full-blooded minority for the purposes of this money give-
away.
Dano
It seems as if the idiots are growing exponentially in numbers. Amazing.
William December Starr
"Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> said:
> It seems as if the idiots are growing exponentially in numbers.
> Amazing.
There's probably a provable mathematical inverse relationship
between that and "number of days remaining until the election,
while $OTHER_CANDIDATE holds a lead in the polls."
(Indeed, I have a truly marvelous proof of this proposition which
this margin is too narrow to contain.)
-- wds
Truth...@nospam.net
In <7jl6f4ldenr79pkva...@4ax.com>, on 10/13/2008
at 10:10 AM, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> said:
>barrack hussein obama and a compliant congress, one that is leftist
>controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
That son, is why Obama is going to be Mr. President. Deal with it.
>__________________________________________
>Never argue with an idiot.
>They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Larry Sheldon
> Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Read, whatzizname Dowd all
rightwingers!??!
Wow. Who knew.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal registrations.
> That son, is why Obama is going to be Mr. President. Deal with it.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
aemeijers
> controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Oh, the country will survive. We may all be working at Wally World and
selling McFries to each other, but the country will survive. Other than
the outright wackos, nobody wants the USA to go out of business, because
for most of those countries, we are there best customer and source of
cash flow.
--
aem sends...
Sure,Not
> In <7jl6f4ldenr79pkva926m7fv4tlva50...@4ax.com>, on 10/13/2008
> at 10:10 AM, jdoe <j...@aol.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:14:42 GMT, aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
> >>wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:18:13 -0400, TheTruth <no...@bellsouth.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> Quotes from BarrackObama.com
>
> >>>> Obamaenacts stronger federal hate crimes legislation to
> >>>> reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
>
> >>>> provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.
>
> >>>> Obama, following through on his pledge to meet with the leaders of
> >>>> all nations, friend and foe, signs a non-agression pact with the Hitler
> >>>> of Iran.
>
> >>>> world in half by 2015.
>
>
> >>>> Obamaenacts socialized medicine, destroying small businesses with
> >>>> taxes to pay for illegal alienhealthcare.
>
> >>>> Obamaenacts amnesty for illegal aliens.
>
> >>>> final nail in the coffin of the US car industry.
>
> >>>> money to women and minority-owned businesses.
>
> >>>> Obamarepeals the Bush tax cuts.
>
> >>>> power of the homosexual lobby.
>
> >>> Whaaaaaaaata jigaboo!
>
> >>> ted
> >>There are maybe 2 things on that list POTUS has any control over. The
> >>rest are controlled by Congress.
> >controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
>
> Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>
>
>
>
> >__________________________________________
> >Never argue with an idiot.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
The right wingers crashed the market? For the people? Cite?
George Grapman
> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
>> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>
> Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Read, whatzizname Dowd all
> rightwingers!??!
>
> Wow. Who knew.
Right, two years of a Democratic congress offset 12 years of
Republicans and six years where Republicans controlled everything.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of illegal registrations.
Have a cite for that number.
Tom
Let's just hope they're not registered to vote!
Tom
RM V2.0
>
> Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>
> That son, is why Obama is going to be Mr. President. Deal with it.
>
>
I hope he does win.
Jeff
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>> Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
>>> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>>
>> Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Read, whatzizname Dowd all
>> rightwingers!??!
>>
>> Wow. Who knew.
>
> Right, two years of a Democratic congress offset 12 years of
> Republicans and six years where Republicans controlled everything.
When it was asked of McCain who would be his Treasury Secretary he
mentioned Warren Buffet. Buffet is, of course, a top Obama supporter.
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html
Economists Support Obama Over McCain By More Than 2 to 1
Note that former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker who predicted that this was
more likely to end in collapse than any other alternative back in the
heady Republican days of '2005 is a top adviser.
The crux of the whole Republican Economic Agenda has had three
central pillars.
1) Trickle down (by any name) economics
2) Deficits don't matter.
3) Deregulation of financial markets
Now, you Republicans can keep buying into that. And I don't doubt
that you will.
In the meantime, how are you enjoying George W Bush, America's first
Socialist President? I see you have your hopes set on Sara, who
socialized Wasilla in 3 years with over $40,000 in earmarks for each
resident. And who as governor of Alaska has over 1/3 of it's residents
on the government payroll and each citizen of which is cut a $1,000 +
check each year.
Republicans are the true socialist welfare recipients, their only
concern is that nobody else gets in on the gravy train.
Wasilla Earmarks:
http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=1284&action=Headlines%20By%20TCS
>>
Jeff
ChairMan
jdoe <jd...@aol.com>spewed forth:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:14:42 GMT, aemeijers <aeme...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:18:13 -0400, TheTruth <no...@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hussein Obama's First 10 Executive Orders
>>>>
>>>> Quotes from BarrackObama.com
>>>>
>>>> "reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal
>>>> Section."
>>>>
>>>> and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners."
>>>>
>>>> of
>>>> all nations, friend and foe," signs a non-agression pact with the
>>>> Hitler
>>>> of Iran.
>>>>
>>>> the
>>>> world in half by 2015."
>>>>
>>>> filled by Iran.
>>>>
>>>> . Obama enacts socialized medicine, destroying small businesses
>>>> with
>>>> taxes to pay for illegal alien healthcare.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> . Obama enacts legislation demanding carbon friendly cars,
>>>> hammering the final nail in the coffin of the US car industry.
>>>>
>>>> funneling money to "women and minority-owned businesses."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> . Obama enacts the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to entrench
>>>> the
>>>> power of the homosexual lobby.
>>>
>>> Whaaaaaaaata jigaboo!
>>>
>>> ted
>> There are maybe 2 things on that list POTUS has any control over. The
>> rest are controlled by Congress.
> controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special session
immediately after the election in hopes of passing legislation to spend
almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3719193/
Fift...@abcnnbcbs.com
>> Right, two years of a Democratic congress offset 12 years of
>> Republicans and six years where Republicans controlled everything.
>
> When it was asked of McCain who would be his Treasury Secretary he
>mentioned Warren Buffet. Buffet is, of course, a top Obama supporter.
>
>
>Economists Support Obama Over McCain By More Than 2 to 1
Hundreds of Economists Sign Letter Opposing Obama's Tax Plan
Hundreds of economists (including Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker,
James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith)
have signed letters opposing Barack Obama's economic and tax plans
(here, here, and here):
We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on
labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax
increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions
of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates
would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and
reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to
provide expensive health insurance.
After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama
has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax
increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that
postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on
the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is
already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire
workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer
than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009
or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/10/hundres-of-econ.html
clams_casino
>
>
>
>Considering that you right wingers have crashed the stock market and
>erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>
>That son, is why Obama is going to be Mr. President. Deal with it.
>
>
>
>
>
It took some work, but GW has finally been able to undo most all the
Clinton gains.
Dano
Did all these great intellects sign this before or after McCain supported
the bailout bill after the market meltdown? These are the same folks that
helped get us where we are. I'm surprised he could only get 533 signatories
to his plan. It's really not that many. We're supposed to be impressed? I
wonder how many are even legit.
clouddreamer
Probably the same few hundred "scientists" the Repugs had sign a
declaration that they didn't agree with the findings on climate change
by the IPCC. Turns out most of them were boogus, were not in the field
of climate science, didn't know they had "signed," or were energy sector
paid "scientists" like Fred Singer.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
Jeff
Or even before or after yet another of McCains populist moves to spend
$300 Billion on absorbing mortgages. The text mentions nothing about
supporting McCain, in fact it doesn't even mention McCain.
Of course it would be tough for any economist to back John “I don’t
know as much about the economy as I should” McCain who admittedly has
been relying on his chief economic adviser Phil "mental recession" Gramm.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html
But Gramm's most cunning coup on behalf of his friends in the financial
services industry—friends who gave him millions over his 24-year
congressional career—came on December 15, 2000. It was an especially
tense time in Washington. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had
issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the
Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. It was
the perfect moment for a wily senator to game the system. As Congress
and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus
spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act. Written with the help of financial industry
lobbyists and cosponsored by Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the
chairman of the agriculture committee, the measure had been considered
dead—even by Gramm. Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or
inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted. "Nobody in
either chamber had any knowledge of what was going on or what was in
it," says a congressional aide familiar with the bill's history.
It's not exactly like Gramm hid his handiwork—far from it. The balding
and bespectacled Texan strode onto the Senate floor to hail the act's
inclusion into the must-pass budget package. But only an expert, or a
lobbyist, could have followed what Gramm was saying. The act, he
declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled
financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial
institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services
industries to be world leaders into the new century."
It didn't quite work out that way. For starters, the legislation
contained a provision—lobbied for by Enron, a generous contributor to
Gramm—that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight, allowing
Enron to run rampant, wreck the California electricity market, and cost
consumers billions before it collapsed. (For Gramm, Enron was a family
affair. Eight years earlier, his wife, Wendy Gramm, as cftc chairwoman,
had pushed through a rule excluding Enron's energy futures contracts
from government oversight. Wendy later joined the Houston-based
company's board, and in the following years her Enron salary and stock
income brought between $915,000 and $1.8 million into the Gramm household.)
But the Enron loophole was small potatoes compared to the devastation
that unregulated swaps would unleash. Credit default swaps are
essentially insurance policies covering the losses on securities in the
event of a default. Financial institutions buy them to protect
themselves if an investment they hold goes south. It's like bookies
trading bets, with banks and hedge funds gambling on whether an
investment (say, a pile of subprime mortgages bundled into a security)
will succeed or fail. Because of the swap-related provisions of Gramm's
bill—which were supported by Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury
secretary Larry Summers—a $62 trillion market (nearly four times the
size of the entire US stock market) remained utterly unregulated,
meaning no one made sure the banks and hedge funds had the assets to
cover the losses they guaranteed.
In essence, Wall Street's biggest players (which, thanks to Gramm's
earlier banking deregulation efforts, now incorporated everything from
your checking account to your pension fund) ran a secret casino. "Tens
of trillions of dollars of transactions were done in the dark," says
University of San Diego law professor Frank Partnoy, an expert on
financial markets and derivatives. "No one had a picture of where the
risks were flowing." Betting on the risk of any given transaction became
more important—and more lucrative—than the transactions themselves,
Partnoy notes: "So there was more betting on the riskiest subprime
mortgages than there were actual mortgages." Banks and hedge funds,
notes Michael Greenberger, who directed the cftc's division of trading
and markets in the late 1990s, "were betting the subprimes would pay off
and they would not need the capital to support their bets."
These unregulated swaps have been at "the heart of the subprime
meltdown," says Greenberger. "I happen to think Gramm did not know what
he was doing. I don't think a member in Congress had read the 262-page
bill or had thought of the cataclysm it would cause." In 1998,
Greenberger's division at the cftc proposed applying regulations to the
burgeoning derivatives market. But, he says, "all hell broke loose. The
lobbyists for major commercial banks and investment banks and hedge
funds went wild. They all wanted to be trading without the government
looking over their shoulder."
This won't be the last misdirection campaign of the season.
Jeff
William December Starr
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
sessions, right?
-- wds
Truth...@nospam.net
You're talking about power. It has nothing to do with leadership.
>-- wds
ChairMan
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>spewed forth:
Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
Did you even read the article?
ChairMan
Truth...@nospam.net <Truth...@nospam.net>spewed forth:
Jeff
You realize that that 150B is a small fraction of the 5T in debt that
your fearless leader George W Bush and the Republican Congress ran up
along with the largest increase in government in history.
Almost all of that "stimulus" is aimed at local and state governments
who have been widely suffering. Not an insignificant amount but what
happens if we fail to stop the failure of local governments to provide
necessary services? I live in a red state and I can tell you that the
state and many red run local governments are in serious trouble. This is
a serious issue that will once again be ignored by George W Bush until
it reaches catastrophe proportions. Past is prologue. Whether I will
support that, I don't know, there is no bill.
Now for the bait, so we can see your true colors. What about these
terrorists associations that are being made against Obama? What about
the use of Hussein instead of his real first name?
Perhaps it's time to talk about which candidate is really "palling"
around with known anti government terrorists.
Jeff
William December Starr
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>>
>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>> sessions, right?
>
> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
> Did you even read the article?
Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have
already met and plan to call a special session immediately after the
election".
-- wds
Truth...@nospam.net
Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
the right wing mess ASAP!
>-- wds
Larry Sheldon
> Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
> the right wing mess ASAP!
I like being able to make my mortgage payments and to buy food.
I won't be able to do that as soon as the socialists get free rein.
George Grapman
But after the election Obama will still be the junior senator from
Illinois with no power to reconvene the Senate contrary to what the
original poster claimed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -- wds
>
>
clouddreamer
Why not? People in socialist countries don't seem to be having a problem
doing it...and we get better health care.
Gary Heston
<Truth...@nospam.net> wrote:
>In <gd33js$8kl$1...@panix2.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
> at 05:40 PM, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>>In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
[ ... ]
>>> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
>>> Did you even read the article?
>>Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have already
>>met and plan to call a special session immediately after the election".
>Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
>the right wing mess ASAP!
Perhaps that the prime architects of the mess were Democrats?
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?
Truth...@nospam.net
That was not the claim. The claim was that he had talked with the
speaker -- who does have the authority.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -- wds
>>
>>
Truth...@nospam.net
In <6lkngbF...@mid.individual.net>, on 10/14/2008
>Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
Gee the right wign kooks have just handed you a 2 trillion dollar bill for
socializing banks, AIG, GM, etc., not to mention another 2 trillion for
iraq -- and you're worried about the people who want to stop the right
wing spending and nonsense?
You need to get your head straight son; e.g., the fuck ups are the people
you like.
HeyBub
>
> Gee the right wign kooks have just handed you a 2 trillion dollar
> bill for socializing banks, AIG, GM, etc., not to mention another 2
> trillion for iraq -- and you're worried about the people who want to
> stop the right wing spending and nonsense?
>
> You need to get your head straight son; e.g., the fuck ups are the
> people you like.
Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush administration:
low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight quarters of economic
growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Then the Democrats took over. In a mere twenty-one months they
fucked up the economy beyond all recognition.
It's a wonder we're still ALIVE after they finished tinkering with their
favorite projects.
HeyBub
>
>> But after the election Obama will still be the junior senator from
>> Illinois with no power to reconvene the Senate contrary to what the
>> original poster claimed.
>
>
> That was not the claim. The claim was that he had talked with the
> speaker -- who does have the authority.
>
Not exactly. The Speaker can re-convene the House of Representatives, not
the Congress. Once this august body gathers under Democratic control, they
can do what they excelled at the past two years: naming post offices and
issuing declarations proclaiming something or other about groundhogs.
George Grapman
> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Gee the right wign kooks have just handed you a 2 trillion dollar
>> bill for socializing banks, AIG, GM, etc., not to mention another 2
>> trillion for iraq -- and you're worried about the people who want to
>> stop the right wing spending and nonsense?
>>
>> You need to get your head straight son; e.g., the fuck ups are the
>> people you like.
>
> Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush administration:
> low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight quarters of economic
> growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the wars in Iraq and
> Afghanistan. Then the Democrats took over. In a mere twenty-one months they
> fucked up the economy beyond all recognition.
Tell us the last time the monthly number of jobs created exceeded the
weekly number of new jobless claims.
Tell us what the deficit was in 2001 and in 2006. Same for real wages.
Tell us in 2003 Bush said we found the WMDs that Cheney in 2006
admitted never existed. Then tell us why we invaded Iraq.
George Grapman
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:54:02 -0230, clouddreamer
> <St...@Climate.change.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why not? People in socialist countries don't seem to be having a problem
>> doing it...and we get better health care.
>>
>> ..
> you canucks come to the US for their health care?
Urban legend, but why do so many Americans go to Canada for their
prescriptions?
> __________________________________________
> Never argue with an idiot.
> They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Long Ranger
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ildJk.3593$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
And you have......
ChairMan
Truth...@nospam.net <Truth...@nospam.net>spewed forth:
> In <7jl6f4ldenr79pkva...@4ax.com>, on 10/13/2008
> at 10:10 AM, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> said:
>
>
>
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:14:42 GMT, aemeijers <aeme...@att.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:18:13 -0400, TheTruth <no...@bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hussein Obama s First 10 Executive Orders
>>>>>
>>>>> Quotes from BarrackObama.com
>>>>>
>>>>> reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal
>>>>> Section.
>>>>>
>>>>> and provide comprehensive supports to innocent homeowners.
>>>>>
>>>>> leaders of
>>>>> all nations, friend and foe, signs a non-agression pact with the
>>>>> Hitler
>>>>> of Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> world in half by 2015.
>>>>>
>>>>> filled by Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>> with
>>>>> taxes to pay for illegal alien healthcare.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hammering the final nail in the coffin of the US car industry.
>>>>>
>>>>> funneling money to women and minority-owned businesses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the
>>>>> power of the homosexual lobby.
>>>>
>>>> Whaaaaaaaata jigaboo!
>>>>
>>>> ted
>>> There are maybe 2 things on that list POTUS has any control over.
>>> The rest are controlled by Congress.
>> barrack hussein obama and a compliant congress, one that is leftist
>> controlled, will almost certainly be able to do irreparable damage
>
>
> erased 80 years of progress for the people, anyone can do better.
>
> That son, is why Obama is going to be Mr. President. Deal with it.
>
>
"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."
-- Sen. John McCain (R) 5/25/2006
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis"
-- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and
soundness, 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 and withstand some of the disaster
scenarios.
-- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the
GSEs ever missed their housing goals?
-- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/10/2003
"Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at
Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything
in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their
housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and
this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing
mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop
underwriting to 100 percent loans."
-- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to
fix something that wasn't broke.
-- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
"I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure
so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't
think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do
very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this
country."
-- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/25/2003
"I=3Fm just pissed off at OFHEO [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight], because if it wasn=3Ft for you, I don=3Ft think we=3Fd be here
in the
first place. =3F There=3Fs been nothing that indicated that=3Fs wrong with
Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own =3F The question that then comes up
is
the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and
regulating these GSEs."
-- Rep. Gregory Meeks (D) 9/25/2003
=3FCongressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac
did. OFHEO did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So
this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about
Freddie Mac.=3F
-- OFHEO Director Armando Falcon Jr. 9/25/2003
And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns,
particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to
curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt
that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and
Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it.
-- Sen. Charles Schumer (D) 10/16/2003
"The Capital Markets Subcommittee meets today for the purpose of receipt of
a report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. It is
indeed a very troubling report. But it is a report of extraordinary
importance, to those who wish to own a home, as well as the taxpayers of
this country who would pay the cost of cleanup."
-- Rep. Richard Baker (R) 10/6/2004
"I don=3Ft see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness
problems."
-- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 10/6/2004
"And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below
4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I
should be satisfied with 3%?"
-- Rep. Christopher Shays (R) 10/6/2004
"Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily and
single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital for
holding them should be under 2%."
-- Franklin Raines (D) 10/6/2004
"This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."
-- Rep. Lacy Clay (D) 10/6/2004 (Clay, a black man, is implying that the
actual purpose of these reform hearings are to lynch another black man,
Raines)
"Congress needs to get them [Fannie and Freddie] reformed, get them
streamlined, get them focused"
-- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 8/9/2007
"Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to
modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families
stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus
on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free
bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."
-- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 5/2008
"We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
-- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 6/2008
"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in
resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was
president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac."
-- Pres. Bill Clinton (D) 9/24/2008
Bill Clinton has just done a better job blaming the democrats for this than
John McCain has done! By the way, in 3 years Barack Obama managed to become
the number 2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money, beaten only slightly by
Chris Dodd who had a 30 year head start. One of the reasons was Obama was
majorly involved in pushing subprime loans (suing banks for not making
loans, etc.) with ACORN during his community organizer days. Amazingly one
of the prime arsonists and biggest money recipient is succeeding in blaming
John McCain for the fire, is taking credit for helping to put out the fire,
and is being allowed to get away with it.
ChairMan
I wrote it, they said it
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/3719193
ChairMan
Truth...@nospam.net <Truth...@nospam.net>spewed forth:
ChairMan
HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>spewed forth:
In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with
what's handed to him.
ChairMan
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>spewed forth:
Oh so in your mind as long as it's your guys adding to it it's okay.
150B here and 150B there and another
>
> Almost all of that "stimulus" is aimed at local and state
> governments who have been widely suffering. Not an insignificant
> amount but what happens if we fail to stop the failure of local
> governments to provide necessary services? I live in a red state and
> I can tell you that the state and many red run local governments are
> in serious trouble. This is a serious issue that will once again be
> ignored by George W Bush until it reaches catastrophe proportions.
> Past is prologue. Whether I will support that, I don't know, there is
> no bill.
Why are they suffering?
Could it be their own inability to balance a budget?
And why is the responsibility of the fed to fix it?
>
> Now for the bait, so we can see your true colors. What about these
> terrorists associations that are being made against Obama?
Lets see. Obama says Pastor Wright is no longer his buddy suddenly. Sudden
change of heart after such a long relationship. Hmmm.
Well that's OK. Wright is not without friends. He had a traveling buddy
named Farrakhan. Farrakhan has called Nobama the "Messiah" Back some time
ago they decided they needed a trip and
went to see another buddy overseas. This bud would be Muammar el-Qaddafi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html
Qaddafi as you may recall is a spunky one. His ties include the
assassination of Prime Minister of Jordan as well as killing 11 athletes
during the Olympics in Munich. But I'm sure Wright's visit was to just show
Qaddafi there's a better path and Qaddafi bought right in.
Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California . He is very
open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was
wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply
himself to his studies.
Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two
roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.
During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a
'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next
Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with
his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My
question: Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one
of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in
college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New
York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.
Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap! to say the
least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After
Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000.
a year. Why Chicago ? Why not New York ? He was already living in New York .
By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real
estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery
this year. Rezko, was n amed 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the
Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later,
Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for
Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law School ? More
student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago . Rezko offered him
a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner,
Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented Rezar' which Rezko's firm.
Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for
office in Chicago.
In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune
reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with
'seed money' for his U. S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home
in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price).
With ALL those Student Loans: where did he get the money for the property?
On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for
full price.
The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire
loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased.
Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.
Now, we have Obama running for President.
Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor
and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where
was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz , Iran ! Do we see a pattern here?
Or am I going crazy?
On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was
'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with
'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past week,
buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during
Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war
until after he is elected, and he will 'Take care of things'.
Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in
Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those 'small' Internet campaign
contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle
class in this country. or could it be from the Middle East ?
And the final bit of news. On September 7,
2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week'
with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'My
Muslim faith'. When questioned, he made a mistake'. Some mistake!
>What about
> the use of Hussein instead of his real first name?
What about it?
It's his real name.
Do have the same problem with what Palin, McCain or Bush have been called by
the left?
Keep in mind, what they have been called aren't even close to their "real"
names
>
George Grapman
You forgot the part he has to sign a bill to make it a law.
>
>
>
>
George Grapman
What were those figures in Jan.2001 compared to Jan.2007, a period of
total Republican control?
Al.E. Gator Sr.
"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote in message
news:48f579d2$0$25086$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
nice try el shithead, all you hillbillies keep beating this point but none
of you will tell everyone how MUCH money it was,
so how about trying to be a MAN for once in your miserable, worthless,
hillbilly existence and give us some figures
Jeff
Where were you during the Medicare giveaway? Trillions have been
foolishly spent that only enriched the wealthy, in this case Drug Companies.
And there is nothing in the works but speculation. There is however
McCains 300 Billion mortgage giveaway. That's twice your speculative
figure. Why silent on that?
>
>
>> Almost all of that "stimulus" is aimed at local and state
>> governments who have been widely suffering. Not an insignificant
>> amount but what happens if we fail to stop the failure of local
>> governments to provide necessary services? I live in a red state and
>> I can tell you that the state and many red run local governments are
>> in serious trouble. This is a serious issue that will once again be
>> ignored by George W Bush until it reaches catastrophe proportions.
>> Past is prologue. Whether I will support that, I don't know, there is
>> no bill.
>
> Why are they suffering?
> Could it be their own inability to balance a budget?
> And why is the responsibility of the fed to fix it?
Have you missed that the economy is rapidly decelerating?
And there is no proposal only an agreement to look into what is
necessary. Irregardless some stimulus will be necessary or the already
decelerating economy will decelerate much faster.
Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
economic policies?
None of this would have happened with an administration that tended
to the business of government. The right wing has gotten absolutely
everything it wanted under a compliant George W Bush administration.
>
>> Now for the bait, so we can see your true colors. What about these
>> terrorists associations that are being made against Obama?
>
> Lets see. Obama says Pastor Wright is no longer his buddy suddenly. Sudden
> change of heart after such a long relationship. Hmmm.
Obama has completely disinherited the Reverand Wright. Nice speech on
that if you need me to dig it up.
Unlike the ties that Sara Palin and John McCain have:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/20/081020taco_talk_hertzberg
For example, Todd Palin was a registered member of the Alaskan
Independence Party—to which his wife, as governor, has sent friendly
greetings—between 1995 and 2002. Four years before Todd joined, the
A.I.P.’s founder, Joe Vogler, declared, “The fires of hell are frozen
glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government,” and added,
referring to the Stars and Stripes, “I won’t be buried under their
damned flag!” (Sure enough, in 1995, Vogler, after being murdered in
connection with an informal transaction involving plastic explosives,
was buried in Canada.) Good material for an attack ad there, no? Ditto
the fact that during the early nineteen-eighties John McCain sat on the
advisory board of General John Singlaub’s U.S. Council for World
Freedom—the American outpost of the World Anti-Communist League, a sort
of clearing house for former Nazi collaborators, Central American
death-squad leaders, and assorted international thugs. And, unlike
Obama’s alleged palship with Ayers, these things are true.
And it goes far beyond even that.
Is it that you support these fanatics that have such deep ties into
Palin?
It seems to me that you support the politics of hate. But then that's
just about all you have left.
Obviously there's ammunition to feed personal attacks on both sides.
Retiring Va Rep. Tom Davis (R) put it this way:
"The Republican brand is in the trash can. I've often observed that if
we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf."
There really is nothing left on your side but personal innuendo. You
can't defend the direction the country has been taken under George W
Bush and there is no policy shift under McCain. Only more trickle down.
You can sell your dog food somewhere else. Even dogs don't like it.
Jeff
clams_casino
>
>
>Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush administration:
>low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight quarters of economic
>growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the wars in Iraq and
>Afghanistan.
>
>
>
Now that's funny.
Truth...@nospam.net
>On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:54:02 -0230, clouddreamer
><St...@Climate.change.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Why not? People in socialist countries don't seem to be having a problem
>>doing it...and we get better health care.
>>
>> ..
>is that so? isn't more like rationed health care? why do so many of you
>canucks come to the US for their health care?
Hey right wing asshole, a few come for elective care, because they choose
to on vacation. Not needed care. Stop the lying goober.
There is no rationing of health care in Canada. There is rationing in the
US. If you can't afford it, you don't get it. And bush and the right
wingers are fighting to keep it that way and make it worse.
Truth...@nospam.net
Anything a democratic congress does, will be better then the problems
created by the right wigners -- who have brought us another depression.
In <OrudnWrRd_epymjV...@earthlink.com>, on 10/14/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
>In article <dD9Jk.1047$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
> <Truth...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>In <gd33js$8kl$1...@panix2.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
>> at 05:40 PM, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>>>In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>>"ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
> [ ... ]
>>>> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
>>>> Did you even read the article?
>>>Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have already
>>>met and plan to call a special session immediately after the election".
>>Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
>>the right wing mess ASAP!
>Perhaps that the prime architects of the mess were Democrats?
Really? Is that why 15 states passed anti-predatory lending laws to
control the prblem during 2001-2008? It was the bush
no-need-for-regulation thinking the new laws were needed to stop.
Now we need one to stop right wign lying.
>Gary
Truth...@nospam.net
In <Sdqdnwrpsya1y2jv...@earthlink.com>, on 10/14/2008
>Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>> Gee the right wign kooks have just handed you a 2 trillion dollar
>> bill for socializing banks, AIG, GM, etc., not to mention another 2
>> trillion for iraq -- and you're worried about the people who want to
>> stop the right wing spending and nonsense?
>>
>> You need to get your head straight son; e.g., the fuck ups are the
>> people you like.
>Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush
>administration: low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight
>quarters of economic growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the
>wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the Democrats took over. In a mere
>twenty-one months they fucked up the economy beyond all recognition.
It was all built on phony credit-care finances son. The bills prove it.
And hey asshole, the problems are all at the feet of the right wing. You
see asshole, the controls were in he hands of bush; e.g., the executive
branch and the the right wing filibusters in the congress. -- Not the
democrats in Congress.
Now stop lying scumball. The lying you idiots do, is why the People are
throwing your right wign asses out of the government in 3 weeks.
Get the message goober.
clams_casino
>
>Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with
>what's handed to him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Then obviously you won't be voting for any presidential candidate.
HeyBub
>>
>> Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush
>> administration: low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight
>> quarters of economic growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the
>> wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the Democrats took over. In a
>> mere twenty-one months they fucked up the economy beyond all
>> recognition.
>
> Tell us the last time the monthly number of jobs created exceeded the
> weekly number of new jobless claims.
From last week: Oct 2, 2008, "The number of U.S. workers filing new claims
for jobless benefits rose to their highest in seven years..."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26988186 This could be because there are more folks,
but it's probably because the Democrats extended the time for which jobless
benefits could be paid. Lazy folks pay attention to things like that.
> Tell us what the deficit was in 2001 and in 2006. Same for real
> wages.
The deficit doesn't matter. I can't find a comparison of real wages, but I'm
doing better. Too bad about the lazy folks.
> Tell us in 2003 Bush said we found the WMDs that Cheney in
> 2006 admitted never existed. Then tell us why we invaded Iraq.
We invaded Iraq because it was there, I guess. The president doesn't need a
reason to invade another country. As for WMDs, Sadaam Hussein himself was a
WMD.
George Grapman
> George Grapman wrote:
>>> Huh? The economy was swell the first six years of the Bush
>>> administration: low inflation, super-low unemployment, 22 straight
>>> quarters of economic growth. This is spite of 9-11, Katrina, and the
>>> wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the Democrats took over. In a
>>> mere twenty-one months they fucked up the economy beyond all
>>> recognition.
>> Tell us the last time the monthly number of jobs created exceeded the
>> weekly number of new jobless claims.
>
> From last week: Oct 2, 2008, "The number of U.S. workers filing new claims
> for jobless benefits rose to their highest in seven years..."
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/26988186 This could be because there are more folks,
> but it's probably because the Democrats extended the time for which jobless
> benefits could be paid. Lazy folks pay attention to things like that.
>
>
>> Tell us what the deficit was in 2001 and in 2006. Same for real
>> wages.
>
> The deficit doesn't matter. I can't find a comparison of real wages, but I'm
> doing better. Too bad about the lazy folks.
Deficits don't matter. From 1980 to 2000 every Republican platform
called for a balanced budget and blamed deficits on either a Democratic
president or congress. In 2004 the subject vanished. Wonder why.
>
>> Tell us in 2003 Bush said we found the WMDs that Cheney in
>> 2006 admitted never existed. Then tell us why we invaded Iraq.
>
> We invaded Iraq because it was there, I guess. The president doesn't need a
> reason to invade another country. As for WMDs, Sadaam Hussein himself was a
> WMD.
Great theory. A president can invade because. Which president aided
Saddam?
George Grapman
You are ignoring conservative logic. Anything good that happened in
the last 8 years is because of Bush,anything bad is because of Clinton.
Anything bad that happened under Clinton was because of Clinton but
anything good was because of Bush,Sr. or Reagan,
>
>
>
HeyBub
>>
>>> Tell us what the deficit was in 2001 and in 2006. Same for real
>>> wages.
>>
>> The deficit doesn't matter. I can't find a comparison of real wages,
>> but I'm doing better. Too bad about the lazy folks.
>
> Deficits don't matter. From 1980 to 2000 every Republican platform
> called for a balanced budget and blamed deficits on either a
> Democratic president or congress. In 2004 the subject vanished.
> Wonder why.
The people who write the platform finally came to the realization that
deficits don't really matter?
Well, within reason, of course. Our deficit is nowhere near its historical
high. Sometimes you have to borrow (and spend) money now so that the future
will be better. For example, overthrowing the government of Iraq.
No, wait. Bad example. That's money spent to make us feel better now.
professorgunz
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>> Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
>>> the right wing mess ASAP!
>>
>>
>> I won't be able to do that as soon as the socialists get free rein.
>
>
> Why not? People in socialist countries don't seem to be having a problem
> doing it...and we get better health care.
>
> ..
>
Jeff
> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>> Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with correcting
>> the right wing mess ASAP!
>
> I like being able to make my mortgage payments and to buy food.
>
> I won't be able to do that as soon as the socialists get free rein.
As has already been pointed out, George W Bush is the biggest socialist.
Or did you miss that the largest insurer (AIG), the largest thrift
(WAMU) and the largest morgage institutions are all "nationalized".
Actually, George W Bush seems not so much like a socialist as a
stalinist, with tentacles into everyday lives as well as corporate
america. Perhaps you missed the eavesdropping and dissemination on calls
home from Iraq. They were literally passing around intimate calls
between servicemen and their wives.
*ucking communists!
Colin Powell's long time aid Colonel Wilkerson put it best when he
stated that George W Bush should be impeached for treason.
Jeff
Jeff
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10
Every part of the country is trending Democrat.
Tradition red states like Virginia are now solid Democrat. NC, is
leaning Democrat although still a tossup.
Amongst many other red states support is eroding.
That pretty much leaves Republicans with the old Dixiecrats and bits
of the prairie. Pretty much the group that runs on blind faith and
hatred is the republican core.
Jeff
Cindy Hamilton
> Innews:OrudnWrRd_epymjV...@earthlink.com,
So, if the Democratic Congress is doing nothing besides naming post
offices and
issuing meaningless proclamations, the policies in effect must be
those of the
Republican Congress. I just don't see how it logically follows that
the Democratic
Congress caused the mess.
Cindy Hamilton
George Grapman
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>>>> Tell us what the deficit was in 2001 and in 2006. Same for real
>>>> wages.
>>> The deficit doesn't matter. I can't find a comparison of real wages,
>>> but I'm doing better. Too bad about the lazy folks.
>> Deficits don't matter. From 1980 to 2000 every Republican platform
>> called for a balanced budget and blamed deficits on either a
>> Democratic president or congress. In 2004 the subject vanished.
>> Wonder why.
>
> The people who write the platform finally came to the realization that
> deficits don't really matter?
Actually they came to the realization that they could no longer
blame Democrats for deficits
George Grapman
Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
prescriptions? Do you have a cite showing large number of Canadians
come here for health care?
George Grapman
The key word is "logically" .
clams_casino
>
>
>In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
> Thought you might like to read the following:
> A little over one year ago:
>
>
>1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>
>
>Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>
>
>1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
>(stock and mutual fund losses);
>5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
>6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>
>
>
>
>
Can you quote one law that was passed since 1 / 2006 that caused these
problems?
HeyBub
What does the passage of laws have to do with it? The Democrats controlled
Congress, that in itself is enough to collapse the confidence of many.
Where confidence goes, the economy follows.
Cabot
> right wing mess?
Absolutely the right wing mess. You fail to provide vital information.
> "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."
> -- Sen. John McCain (R) 5/25/2006
The last action on this was Jul 28, 2005.... McCain made this statement
while it was a Republican majority.
This expired while under 109th Congress, thanks to Republicans. Mr.
Santorum (R) decided to have some amendments while in the Housing/Banking
committee. Read about it, I'm not doing all your homework.
http://www.govtrack.us:80/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190
Now: S1100 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1100
Democrats sponsered Hr1427, which is further along than the Republican
sponsered bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1427#votes
> "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis"
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
> Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have
> the
> GSEs ever missed their housing goals?
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/10/2003
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/25/2003
> -- Rep. Gregory Meeks (D) 9/25/2003
> -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D) 10/16/2003
If you want to blame all these people. Why did Bush sign the American Dream
Downpayment 2003, in Dec. of 2003?
Bush pushed the envelope on something which worked. Those ARM loans taken
out in 2004/2005 because of this outrageous behavior of Bush and Co, came
due in 1 & 3 years for the first ARM. Bush took people who couldn't pay
rent, and put them in homes which they couldn't pay.
He wanted to pump up his housing bubble. It's not a coincidence, this is
when the foreclosure problem started.
See Bush strutting his stuff here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031216-9.html
Jeff
You by a lot of snake oil don't you?
The economy never really got rolling under George W Bush. At the end
of his first term he came with a month or so of being the first
president in memory of having a net loss in jobs. The economy was being
pushed along by cheap money with the lowest prime rate in decades. Even
with that it never got going and the rate was lowered still further.
All that cheap money flooded into the system and instead of going
toward something useful went into inflating all these bubbles that are
now bursting.
What you've seen throughout the George W Bush years are bubbles that
were allowed to inflate under lax regulation. There never was any real
value in any of them.
What you've seen and totally bought into was that housing, credit, et
all would keep inflating. A very foolish assumption, but then you buy
into a lot of the aforementioned snake oil.
But the largest bubble of all has yet to really burst, the derivative
market. Hundreds of trillions worth.
>
> Where confidence goes, the economy follows.
So said the first lemming.
Jeff
>
>
Jeff
> "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> wrote in message
> news:48f579d2$0$25086$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> In news:nQIIk.638$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,
>> Truth...@nospam.net <Truth...@nospam.net>spewed forth:
>>> In <7jl6f4ldenr79pkva...@4ax.com>, on 10/13/2008
>>> at 10:10 AM, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> said:
>> Bill Clinton has just done a better job blaming the democrats for this
>> than
>> John McCain has done! By the way, in 3 years Barack Obama managed to
>> become
>> the number 2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money, beaten only slightly by
>> Chris Dodd who had a 30 year head start.
>
> nice try el shithead, all you hillbillies keep beating this point but none
> of you will tell everyone how MUCH money it was,
That's because Fanny and Freddy per se don't contribute anything.
It's an open question how much their employees contribute, some figures
have them contributing more to republicans.
But, it's all a misdirection. The only direction Republicans have.
Jeff
Dennis
> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>economic policies?
The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
budgets:
http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
clams_casino
>clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>>ChairMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>>>Thought you might like to read the following:
>>>A little over one year ago:
>>>
>>>
>>>1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>>>2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>>>3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>>
>>>
>>>Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>>
>>>
>>>1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>>>2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>>>3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>>>4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
>>>evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
>>>5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
>>>dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Can you quote one law that was passed since 1 / 2006 that caused these
>>problems?
>>
>>
>
>What does the passage of laws have to do with it?
>
>
And here I thought the purpose of Congress was to write, debate and pass
laws (bills).
Hmm - Ok, I give up. What is their purpose?
George
caused everything and the republicans are as innocent and pure as
freshly fallen snow) without applying any critical thought. I am a
conservative and it is embarrassing what damage was caused by unchecked
greed and stupidity. The current version of capitalism failed for the
same reason applied Marxism failed. They are both good sounding theories
but neither can be applied with a check and balance system to prevent
the greedy few from destroying the system.
Truth...@nospam.net
And your point is? The fact is the repuks have been in control. The
market meltdown is their fault.
In <48f579e4$0$25059$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, on 10/15/2008
at 12:01 AM, "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
>In news:dD9Jk.1047$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,
>Truth...@nospam.net <Truth...@nospam.net>spewed forth: > In
><gd33js$8kl$1...@panix2.panix.com>, on 10/14/2008
>> at 05:40 PM, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <48f4a8fc$0$9266$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>>> "ChairMan" <wh...@fu.com> said:
>>
>>>>>> nobama and pelosi have already met and plan to call a special
>>>>>> session immediately after the election in hopes of passing
>>>>>> legislation to spend almost $150 billion in extended benefits.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that on the day after the election Barack Obama will
>>>>> still be a Senator, and not one in a position to call any special
>>>>> sessions, right?
>>>>
>>>> Pelosi can and will, do try to keep up.
>>>> Did you even read the article?
>>
>>> Yup. I also read the part where you said "nobama and pelosi have
>>> already met and plan to call a special session immediately after the
>>> election".
>>
>>
>> Well she has the right to call one. What's your problem with
>> correcting the right wing mess ASAP!
>>
>right wing mess?
>"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."
> -- Sen. John McCain (R) 5/25/2006
>"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis"
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
>The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and
>soundness, 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 and withstand some of
>the disaster scenarios.
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/10/2003
>Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have
>the GSEs ever missed their housing goals?
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/10/2003
>"Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular
>at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
>Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have
>exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the
>regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their
>affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish
>from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans."
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
>I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying
>to fix something that wasn't broke.
> -- Rep. Maxine Waters (D) 9/25/2003
>"I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently
>secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis;
>I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and
>Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal
>health of this country."
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 9/25/2003
>"I=3Fm just pissed off at OFHEO [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
>Oversight], because if it wasn=3Ft for you, I don=3Ft think we=3Fd be
>here in the
>first place. =3F There=3Fs been nothing that indicated that=3Fs wrong
>with Fannie
>Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own =3F The question that then comes
>up is
>the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and
>regulating these GSEs."
> -- Rep. Gregory Meeks (D) 9/25/2003
>=3FCongressman, OFHEO did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie
>Mac did. OFHEO did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac
>did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it
>is about Freddie Mac.=3F
> -- OFHEO Director Armando Falcon Jr. 9/25/2003
>And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness
>concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a
>straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think
>there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't
>believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do
>it.
> -- Sen. Charles Schumer (D) 10/16/2003
>"The Capital Markets Subcommittee meets today for the purpose of receipt
>of a report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. It
>is indeed a very troubling report. But it is a report of extraordinary
>importance, to those who wish to own a home, as well as the taxpayers of
>this country who would pay the cost of cleanup."
> -- Rep. Richard Baker (R) 10/6/2004
>"I don=3Ft see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness
>problems."
> -- Rep. Barney Frank (D) 10/6/2004
>"And you have about 3% of your portfolio set aside. If a bank gets below
>4%, they are in deep trouble. So I just want you to explain to me why I
>should be satisfied with 3%?"
> -- Rep. Christopher Shays (R) 10/6/2004
>"Because banks don't -- there aren't any banks who only have multifamily
>and single-family loans. These assets are so riskless that their capital
>for holding them should be under 2%."
> -- Franklin Raines (D) 10/6/2004
>"This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines."
> -- Rep. Lacy Clay (D) 10/6/2004 (Clay, a black man, is implying that
>the actual purpose of these reform hearings are to lynch another black
>man, Raines)
>"Congress needs to get them [Fannie and Freddie] reformed, get them
>streamlined, get them focused"
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 8/9/2007
>"Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to
>modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families
>stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they
>focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue
>tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 5/2008
>"We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
> -- Pres. George W. Bush (R) 6/2008
>"I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in
>resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress, or by me when I was
>president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae
>and Freddie Mac."
> -- Pres. Bill Clinton (D) 9/24/2008
>Bill Clinton has just done a better job blaming the democrats for this
>than John McCain has done! By the way, in 3 years Barack Obama managed
>to become the number 2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money, beaten only
>slightly by Chris Dodd who had a 30 year head start. One of the reasons
>was Obama was majorly involved in pushing subprime loans (suing banks for
>not making loans, etc.) with ACORN during his community organizer days.
>Amazingly one of the prime arsonists and biggest money recipient is
>succeeding in blaming John McCain for the fire, is taking credit for
>helping to put out the fire, and is being allowed to get away with it.
Truth...@nospam.net
Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months
to cause the meltdown. its all the result of right wing thinking and
control.
In <fZeJk.2574$Ei5....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>, on 10/14/2008
at 10:14 PM, George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> said:
>ChairMan wrote:
>> In news:OrudnWrRd_epymjV...@earthlink.com,
>> HeyBub <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>spewed forth:
>>> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>>>> But after the election Obama will still be the junior senator from
>>>>> Illinois with no power to reconvene the Senate contrary to what the
>>>>> original poster claimed.
>>>>
>>>> That was not the claim. The claim was that he had talked with the
>>>> speaker -- who does have the authority.
>>>>
>>> Not exactly. The Speaker can re-convene the House of Representatives,
>>> not the Congress. Once this august body gathers under Democratic
>>> control, they can do what they excelled at the past two years: naming
>>> post offices and issuing declarations proclaiming something or other
>>> about groundhogs.
>>
>> In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>> Thought you might like to read the following:
>> A little over one year ago:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>
>>
>> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
>> (stock and mutual fund losses);
>> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
>> 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>What were those figures in Jan.2001 compared to Jan.2007, a period of
>total Republican control?
>>
>>
>> America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
>>
>> Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with
>> what's handed to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Marsha
> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
> prescriptions? Do you have a cite showing large number of Canadians
> come here for health care?
I can't say there were "large" numbers, but over the last 18 years, our
open-heart surgery practice has seen quite a few Canadians who were
either turned down for surgery or put on a very long waiting list. They
were expected to put up with painful angina daily and an extremely
limiting lifestyle. Our orthopedic practice also had many Canadians who
were waiting for hip or knee procedures.
Marsha/Ohio
Jeff
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:20:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>> economic policies?
>
> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
> budgets:
Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
at no time did I mention national debt.
Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
increases were almost erased.
As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
worn out in Iraq.
Jeff
>
> http://www.letxa.com/articles/16
>
> Dennis (evil)
Dennis
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:20:20 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now clearly, if George W Bush hadn't taken a 230 Billion surplus and
>>> left us with 5 trillion in additional debt this would have been much
>>> easier to manage. And exactly who has been left better off under these
>>> economic policies?
>>
>> The outrageious deficit spending under Bush is a scandal. In no way
>> do I defend it. But the myth of a Clinton surplus has been repeated
>> too often and only makes you look foolish. There was no surplus, only
>> accounting tricks. The national debt grew each year under Clinton
>> budgets:
>
> Well, I'll look into that further. But this a bit about symantics and
>at no time did I mention national debt.
The bottom line is: if the national debt didn't decrease, then there
was no surplus. If a private business tried to use the kind of
accounting tricks and misdirection that the government does, it would
be prosecuted. This is not a partisan criticism and is true of all
recent administrations.
> Even by those figures you'll see that under Clinton "National Debt"
>increases were almost erased.
Agreed. The deficit was small by recent standards. But no surplus.
> As bad as the debt is under Bush on the surface, it is much worse
>under the covers. Much has been deferred and is off the books. One
>example of which is the replacement cost for all the military machinery
>worn out in Iraq.
Agreed. We (and our descendents) are in deep shit.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
George
> Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months
> to cause the meltdown. its all the result of right wing thinking and
> control.
>
>
>
>
>
>
sides are complicit in the greed and stupidity. It took a lot more than
a few years to get us to where we are.
If there were a "fire everyone" choice this election I would be first in
line at the polls.
Truth...@nospam.net
>Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>> Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months
>> to cause the meltdown. its all the result of right wing thinking and
>> control.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Sounds like the politicians have you right where they want you. *BOTH*
>sides are complicit in the greed and stupidity. It took a lot more than
>a few years to get us to where we are.
Wrong goober. This is a crisis that comes from right wing thinking and
control.
Stop lying about it and accept that fact that the right wing uncontrolled
free-market thinking has destroyed the right wing.
...And its a good think for the world.
>If there were a "fire everyone" choice this election I would be first in
>line at the polls.
There is the next best choice. He's named Obama. You are against that.
Thus, proving you are another right wing driveling nut.
George
> In <Ru6dnw2d1nhkqwrv...@comcast.com>, on 10/16/2008
> at 08:32 AM, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> said:
>
>
>
>> Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>> Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months
>>> to cause the meltdown. its all the result of right wing thinking and
>>> control.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sounds like the politicians have you right where they want you. *BOTH*
>> sides are complicit in the greed and stupidity. It took a lot more than
>> a few years to get us to where we are.
>
> Wrong goober. This is a crisis that comes from right wing thinking and
> control.
Nice touch, so you definitely confirmed you only drink blue kool-aid and
aren't capable of any critical thinking.
>
> Stop lying about it and accept that fact that the right wing uncontrolled
> free-market thinking has destroyed the right wing.
>
> ...And its a good think for the world.
>
>> If there were a "fire everyone" choice this election I would be first in
>> line at the polls.
>
>
> There is the next best choice. He's named Obama. You are against that.
> Thus, proving you are another right wing driveling nut.
>
Really? I said that?
Bert Hyman
news:jVpJk.3360$x%.168@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
> prescriptions?
They go to Mexico because they can buy drugs over the counter without
prescriptions. Of course, they often get counterfeits.
They go to Canada because the foolish Canadian tax payers will
subsidize the costs of their drugs.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Truth...@nospam.net
Listen up right wing asshole; There was no market meltdown until the
right thinking of no regulation let greed run it into the ground.
Now stop the lying and driveling. Your nonsense is old and boring.
In <8qGdnXrdCP6d32rV...@comcast.com>, on 10/16/2008
Truth...@nospam.net
Stop telling urban tales goober. people in a lot of rural US areas travel
to larger hospitals for certain treatments too. It has nothing to do with
rationing. That is a right wing greed lie.
In <30gef4t8cmtmmsi2e...@4ax.com>, on 10/16/2008
at 09:24 AM, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> said:
>long waits in canuckistan is part of the socialized medical plan, it
>called rationing care, and stories like you've related are not uncommon.
>canucks who have the means to pay for their care come to the US to avoid
>the all too common wait lists for procedures that are rationed in
>canuckistan
>__________________________________________
>Never argue with an idiot.
>They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Truth...@nospam.net
In <Xns9b3957bfca9...@127.0.0.1>, on 10/16/2008
at 01:38 PM, Bert Hyman <be...@iphouse.com> said:
>sfge...@paccbell.net (George Grapman) wrote in
>news:jVpJk.3360$x%.168@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com:
>> Why do Americans keep going to Canada and Mexico for their
>> prescriptions?
>They go to Mexico because they can buy drugs over the counter without
>prescriptions. Of course, they often get counterfeits.
>They go to Canada because the foolish Canadian tax payers will subsidize
>the costs of their drugs.
Provide proof of that claim.
Here's betting you lie, whine and snivel instead of owning up to the truth
-- which you are not telling.
Cabot
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message
news:gd5t6r$ucr$1...@news.datemas.de...
> I can't say there were "large" numbers, but over the last 18 years, our
> open-heart surgery practice has seen quite a few Canadians who were
> either turned down for surgery or put on a very long waiting list. They
> were expected to put up with painful angina daily and an extremely
> limiting lifestyle. Our orthopedic practice also had many Canadians who
> were waiting for hip or knee procedures.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
Marsha,
You don't give a hint of where you are, but we have the same waiting game
in Ohio. For you to imply we don't, is simply false.
Many people come from around the globe, to the Cleveland Clinic. It's not
because they can get in quick, it's because the CC is one of the top notch
hospitals in the world. There is a waiting game there, also.
My daughter was recently admitted to a local emergency room. After all said
and done, it took a wait of 6 weeks, for surgery. I could go on about the
people I know who had to wait , and I'm sure you know quite a few which
have to wait for surgery.
People throughout our State of Ohio, have to wait for operations.
Truth...@nospam.net
Run along goober. You are posting urban myths. I told you the truth and
you come back lying some more.
I have no time for losers. Grow up.
velef41f3a4eq451n...@4ax.com>, on 10/16/2008
at 10:57 AM, jdoe <jd...@aol.com> said:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:08:49 GMT, Truth...@nospam.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>Stop telling urban tales goober. people in a lot of rural US areas travel
>>to larger hospitals for certain treatments too. It has nothing to do with
>>rationing. That is a right wing greed lie.
>>
>so says you, and up to now you haven't gotten too much right, I think the
>word of a person who sees people coming to the US on a regular basis for
>health care would have a better handle on things than a radical ideologue
>like you
David Moffitt
professorgunz
Um, I don't think we're talking about 6 week waits. I personally know
one Canuck who was put on a 6 _month_ wait for prostate cancer surgery.
Not an apocryphal internet story - a long-time friend of my
sister-in-law whom I know and have spent time with.
George
> Listen up right wing asshole; There was no market meltdown until the
> right thinking of no regulation let greed run it into the ground.
>
> Now stop the lying and driveling. Your nonsense is old and boring.
>
>
>
>
aid. All you can do is resort to clueless name calling. If you actually
want to convince someone you need to offer well a well thought out
rebuttal not the lame name calling which makes you look silly and
totally invalidates your position.
Rick
down payments on mortgages starting with Fanny may and Freddy Mac.
<Truth...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:QVHJk.1418$Rx2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Rod Speed
> Truth...@nospam.net wrote
>> Stop pretending son. The democrats have done nothing in the past months to cause the meltdown. its all the result
>> of right wing thinking and control.
> Sounds like the politicians have you right where they want you. *BOTH* sides are complicit in the greed and stupidity.
> It took a lot more than a few years to get us to where we are.
Indeed.
> If there were a "fire everyone" choice this election I would be first in line at the polls.
More fool you. You'd just get another crew thats just as corrupt as the current choices,
but with no experience whatever, that the spivs and con men could scam effortlessly.
ChairMan
George <geo...@nospam.invalid>spewed forth:
Perfect example of the *tolerence* of the left
ChairMan
clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com>spewed forth:
> ChairMan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In just one year . Remember the election in 2006?
>> Thought you might like to read the following:
>> A little over one year ago:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
>> 2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
>> 3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
>>
>>
>> Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
>>
>>
>> 1) Consumer confidence plummet;
>> 2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
>> 3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
>> 4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value
>> evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
>> 5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion
>> dollars; 6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> problems?
Can you quote one promise that the dems made in 06 that they kept?
It damn sure wasn't bring gas prices down, like they promised