Markets plummet on Republican obstructionism

[de...@dudu.org]

Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy. Republicans
once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
wealthy masters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html

[JohnJohnsn]

On Nov 21, 10:35 am, an Anonymous Narcissistic Personality Disorder-
afflicted Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist
democRat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) Gun Control Advocate Scheißekopf,

posting as "Deep Dudu" <DeepD...@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:

> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy.

No problemo!

Let's start with an Eisenhower-Kennedy era 90+% tax on all the
millionaires in the Congress (current and past -party affiliation
notwithstanding; as well as their spouses <cough> Pelosi <cough>
Kerry <cough>), combined with the same taxation of all the Liberals
in
Hollyweird (and George Soros and Warren Buffet); making it retroactive
back to 1963.

Once that's done, get back to us about all the so-called
"wealthy" (1M
per year income) of the rest of us,

"Works for me!" <g> ;D

[John]

de...@dudu.org wrote:
Polls show most Americans do not favor raising taxes on wealthy.

Democrats once again, show their ignorance, that wealthy masters

George Soros etc have programed them with.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> on or about
Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:52:40 -0800 (PST) did write, type or otherwise
cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>On Nov 21, 10:35 am, an Anonymous Narcissistic Personality Disorder-
>afflicted Abderian Simpleton Lying Left-Wing Liberal Socialist
>democRat LOSER™ (est. 2010-11-02) Gun Control Advocate Scheißekopf,

>posting as "Deep Dudu" <Deep...@propagandists.dnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy.

>> once

>
>No problemo!
>
>Let's start with an Eisenhower-Kennedy era 90+% tax on all the
>millionaires in the Congress (current and past -party affiliation
>notwithstanding; as well as their spouses <cough> Pelosi <cough>
>Kerry <cough>), combined with the same taxation of all the Liberals in
>Hollyweird (and George Soros and Warren Buffet); making it retroactive
>back to 1963.
>
>Once that's done, get back to us about all the so-called "wealthy" (1M
>per year income) of the rest of us,
>
>"Works for me!" <g> ;D

And while we are at it, how about a 50% surcharge on Capital Gains
of members of Congress? Plus a 50% excise tax on that portion of any
income higher than their Federal had been, within five years of their
separation? Maybe we can also end the Eisenhower tax break for
Hollywood .. and restore that particular revenue enhancement on films?

Works for me.


--
pyotr filipivich
Watergate didn’t have a body count. Gunwalker has hundreds.

[Lookout]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:38:37 -0600, John <john...@oldwest.net>
wrote:

Prove it.
Well. you can't so you're lying again. Why?

[Too_Many_Tools]

That same majority of Americans is planning on voting Democrat in
2012.

A Republican bloodbath is coming to America...

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Nov 21, 10:35 am, d...@dudu.org wrote:

Ever notice that the markets never acted like this until we let the
Republicans drive the bus?

TMT

[Benny Fishhole]

It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit tight
and wait the imposter out.

[Gray Guest]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:s8vkc79j23kco3umv...@4ax.com:

Most polls show that you are a greedy moron.

Why do you want to raise taxes?

What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?

Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing and
figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?

Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being successful?

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

[Gray Guest]

JohnJohnsn <TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:dc224227-bde3-4af1-9c76-
49f95c...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

Fuck 'em. 100% tax on anyone who wants taxes raised. Call it the stupid
tax.

[Gray Guest]

Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:7uflc7husmevrg561...@4ax.com:

Just listen to them. Pelosi, Fieinstein, Kerry all made millions
manipulating the markets through investing in sectors they were legislating
and you fucktards either can't see it or won't admit it. Time for a pogrom
of the stupid people.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>Polls show most Americans

know that talk.politics.guns is for the discussion of gun politics.
Only left-wing losers like Lookout and Dud can't figure this out.

http://klaus.webege.com/dudu/dudu.htm
The Lies of Deep Dudu

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Nov 21, 7:10 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >d...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Gun politics uh?

So let's talk about imposing a tax on those who have more than one
gun.

And a tax for every bullet.

Tax them until the national debt is paid.

Patriotic and practical..why isn't the Republican Party is pushing it?

TMT

[John]

Because Republicans choose to follow and support the constitution, and
your gun and bullet tax would be a severe infringement of the 2nd
amendment.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:30:41 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or

otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:s8vkc79j23kco3umv...@4ax.com:
>
>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy. Republicans
>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
>> wealthy masters.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>
>
>Most polls show that you are a greedy moron.
>
>Why do you want to raise taxes?

Dudu has all this surplus money that he just is unable to know
what to do with. So like many people, he projects his own inability
to make choices on others, and turns to his Deliverers in Washington
to relieve him (and everyone else) of their surplus cash.

>
>What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?
>
>Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing and
>figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?
>
>Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being successful?

oooh - you said the word "rape" - now Dudu will get all excited
and forget what it was he was doing.


tschus
pyotr

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Nov 21, 6:30 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> d...@dudu.org wrote innews:s8vkc79j23kco3umv...@4ax.com:

I want to buy the Herman Cain tapes on "Groping Women for Fun and
Profit"

TMT

[Too_Many_Tools]

> amendment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Why would that be an infringement?

The amendment only supports bearing of arms...it says nothing about
how expensive it should be.

And aren't conservatives all about paying off the national debt?

TMT

[Scout]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:f6hmc7tavndg2kfor...@4ax.com...

> Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
> about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:30:41 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
> otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:s8vkc79j23kco3umv...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy. Republicans
>>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
>>> wealthy masters.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>>
>>
>>Most polls show that you are a greedy moron.
>>
>>Why do you want to raise taxes?
>
> Dudu has all this surplus money that he just is unable to know
> what to do with.

I've made him an offer of what he can do with $11,000 of it.

Seems he's too much of a lying POS to accept the bet he offered.

> So like many people, he projects his own inability
> to make choices on others, and turns to his Deliverers in Washington
> to relieve him (and everyone else) of their surplus cash.

Actually he projects most, if not all, of his faults on others.

Just read were he is nominally ranting against someone and consider how
applicable that rant is when applied to Dudu himself.

>>What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?
>>
>>Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing and
>>figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?
>>
>>Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being
>>successful?
>
> oooh - you said the word "rape" - now Dudu will get all excited
> and forget what it was he was doing.

Dudu would forget anyway.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:41:31 -0600, John <john...@oldwest.net>
wrote:

Except all the rest of the Amendments don't matter unless they only
apply to Christian white men.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>de...@dudu.org wrote in talk.politics.guns :

You leftists have tried to keep minorities down for a long time. You
were defeated in the Civil War.

Americans won.

So, do you support taxes on Constitutionally protected rights? TMT
doesn't have two brain cells to rub together, but let's hear your
opinion on the topic.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

LOL

I like how Lookout demands proof and then claims he didn't get it ALL
IN THE SAME POST.

[RD Sandman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:8l7nc7ld7ks7gu4nf...@4ax.com:

>>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:38:37 -0600, John <john...@oldwest.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>Polls show most Americans do not favor raising taxes on wealthy.
>>>
>>>Democrats once again, show their ignorance, that wealthy masters
>>>
>>>George Soros etc have programed them with.
>>
>>Prove it.
>>Well. you can't so you're lying again. Why?
>
> LOL
>

> I like how Lookout demands proof .... but rarely, if ever provides any
of his own statements.

There, I fixed your post for you.



--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

[RD Sandman]

Benny Fishhole <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
news:qhllc7t03cvl8c40d...@4ax.com:

Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely will
also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic next November.
The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this time
aroung won't help.

[RD Sandman]

de...@dudu.org wrote in news:jr2nc71ra0j1148i1...@4ax.com:

Your statement, not theirs.

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>Benny Fishhole <be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
>news:qhllc7t03cvl8c40d...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:01:39 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 21, 10:35 am, d...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy.
> Republicans
>>>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
>>>> wealthy masters.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>>
>>>Ever notice that the markets never acted like this until we let the
>>>Republicans drive the bus?
>>>
>>>TMT
>>
>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
>> entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit tight
>> and wait the imposter out.
>>
>
>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
>Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely will
>also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic next November.
>The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this time
>aroung won't help.

Weak field? Blink blink...blink.

Weaker than the Obamassiah?


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jppnc7ddlfmvm81hu...@4ax.com:

Could be. Keep in mind that most Dems may badmouth him but come
November, do you really think that they will vote Republican?

[Lookout]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:15:56 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:8l7nc7ld7ks7gu4nf...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:38:37 -0600, John <john...@oldwest.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>Polls show most Americans do not favor raising taxes on wealthy.
>>>>
>>>>Democrats once again, show their ignorance, that wealthy masters
>>>>
>>>>George Soros etc have programed them with.
>>>
>>>Prove it.
>>>Well. you can't so you're lying again. Why?
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I like how Lookout demands proof .... but rarely, if ever provides any
>of his own statements.
>
>There, I fixed your post for you.

There you go. A classic assghost dodge.

You've become assghost.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:15:56 -0600, RD Sandman
><rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:8l7nc7ld7ks7gu4nf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>Lookout <mrLoo...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:38:37 -0600, John <john...@oldwest.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>de...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>Polls show most Americans do not favor raising taxes on wealthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Democrats once again, show their ignorance, that wealthy masters
>>>>>
>>>>>George Soros etc have programed them with.
>>>>
>>>>Prove it.
>>>>Well. you can't so you're lying again. Why?
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>> I like how Lookout demands proof .... but rarely, if ever provides any
>>of his own statements.
>>
>>There, I fixed your post for you.
>
>There you go. A classic assghost dodge.

Classic Lookout dodge. Note how he hopes his own hypocrisy will be
ignored.

Fat chance.

[chuckle]

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on or about Tue, 22 Nov
2011 02:07:10 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in

talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>
>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:f6hmc7tavndg2kfor...@4ax.com...
>> Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
>> about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:30:41 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
>> otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>de...@dudu.org wrote in news:s8vkc79j23kco3umv...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy. Republicans
>>>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
>>>> wealthy masters.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>Most polls show that you are a greedy moron.
>>>
>>>Why do you want to raise taxes?
>>
>> Dudu has all this surplus money that he just is unable to know
>> what to do with.
>
>I've made him an offer of what he can do with $11,000 of it.
>
>Seems he's too much of a lying POS to accept the bet he offered.
>
>> So like many people, he projects his own inability
>> to make choices on others, and turns to his Deliverers in Washington
>> to relieve him (and everyone else) of their surplus cash.
>
>Actually he projects most, if not all, of his faults on others.

A common, human enough, failing.

>
>Just read were he is nominally ranting against someone and consider how
>applicable that rant is when applied to Dudu himself.

True, true.

>
>
>>>What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?
>>>
>>>Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing and
>>>figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?
>>>
>>>Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being
>>>successful?
>>
>> oooh - you said the word "rape" - now Dudu will get all excited
>> and forget what it was he was doing.
>
>Dudu would forget anyway.

Dudu has the attention span of an ADD Mayfly on a caffeine jag.
Too much paraquat pot back in the sixites.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> on
or about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600 did write, type or otherwise

cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>

>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.

This is news?

>Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely will
>also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic next November.
>The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this time
>aroung won't help.

Good googly woogly man, we're 11.5 months out form the elections,
the primaries have not even started, and there is no Standard Bearer.
The pundits are surprised that ROmney is not popular, but that is
because the TEA Party people (et alia) are not buying the inside the
Beltway "Experts'" opinion on who should be the GOP nominee. Hell's
bells, it could even be Newt in the top slot - which would be fun in
its own way; as long as he doesn't try to be too clever.
>
>--
--
pyotr filipivich
"Mainstream Media Covers For Obama On Horrifying Mistake"
Hey, it’s not like he’s Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin -
you know, somebody important. Glenn Reynolds

[Scout]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:v0soc7d9h0nipi6c1...@4ax.com...

> Let the Record show that RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> on
> or about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600 did write, type or otherwise
> cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>
>>
>>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
>
> This is news?

Heck it's been nothing but Bu...Bu...Bu..Bush for almost 3 years now.

One has to wonder when or even if the Democrats can ever take
responsibility.

[Scout]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:btroc7ddanif5uq53...@4ax.com...

True, but Dudu seems to do it to a rather extreme extend and in exacting
detail.

Does make me wonder what a therapist would make of it.

>>Just read were he is nominally ranting against someone and consider how
>>applicable that rant is when applied to Dudu himself.
>
> True, true.

Yea, strangely precise, exact and detailed.

>>>>What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?
>>>>
>>>>Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing
>>>>and
>>>>figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?
>>>>
>>>>Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being
>>>>successful?
>>>
>>> oooh - you said the word "rape" - now Dudu will get all excited
>>> and forget what it was he was doing.
>>
>>Dudu would forget anyway.
>
> Dudu has the attention span of an ADD Mayfly on a caffeine jag.
> Too much paraquat pot back in the sixites.

By his parents?

[Gray Guest]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in

news:btroc7ddanif5uq53...@4ax.com:

> Dudu has the attention span of an ADD Mayfly on a caffeine jag.
> Too much paraquat pot back in the sixites.

By his mother maybe while he was in utero.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on or about Tue, 22 Nov

2011 23:56:55 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in

Standard rates till the therapist gets the mortgage paid off.

>
>>>Just read were he is nominally ranting against someone and consider how
>>>applicable that rant is when applied to Dudu himself.
>>
>> True, true.
>
>Yea, strangely precise, exact and detailed.
>
>>>>>What specificcally do you want to spend the money on?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ya think MAYBE we could talk about what the government SHOULD be doing
>>>>>and
>>>>>figure out EXACTLY what the costs will be and adjust rates accordingly?
>>>>>
>>>>>Or do you just want to rape the successful for the sin of being
>>>>>successful?
>>>>
>>>> oooh - you said the word "rape" - now Dudu will get all excited
>>>> and forget what it was he was doing.
>>>
>>>Dudu would forget anyway.
>>
>> Dudu has the attention span of an ADD Mayfly on a caffeine jag.
>> Too much paraquat pot back in the sixites.
>
>By his parents?

No, that was their LSD. "We were hoping for brain changes, the
chromosome damage was an extra." Pull quote from some article I read
in the early seventies.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> on or about Tue, 22 Nov
2011 23:53:31 -0500 did write, type or otherwise cause to appear in

talk.politics.guns the following:
>
>
>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:v0soc7d9h0nipi6c1...@4ax.com...
>> Let the Record show that RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> on
>> or about Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600 did write, type or otherwise
>> cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>
>>>
>>>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
>>
>> This is news?
>
>
>Heck it's been nothing but Bu...Bu...Bu..Bush for almost 3 years now.
>
>One has to wonder when or even if the Democrats can ever take
>responsibility.

Based on their actions, I doubt they even understand that the
concept applies to them.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or

about Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:03:26 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or

otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
>news:btroc7ddanif5uq53...@4ax.com:
>
>> Dudu has the attention span of an ADD Mayfly on a caffeine jag.
>> Too much paraquat pot back in the sixites.
>
>By his mother maybe while he was in utero.

Ah, so his mother was Pearly Sweetcake who had been stoned 21 of
her twenty four years?

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich

Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[Gray Guest]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in

news:c9eqc7d21iv23hfa1...@4ax.com:

So it would seem from the mental degeneration displayed.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:jahu8g$dfj$1...@dont-email.me:

They are blaming Republicans for the failure of the SuperCommittee,
global warming, and any other thing that comes to mind. The problem is
that the meetings were closed so no one really knows what went on other
than the 12 folks who were in there. So much for transparency in
government. That leaves the mainstream media carrying the news and so
far, they favor Obama as do most cable 'news' organizations like MSNBC or
blogs like the Daily Kos and Huggington Post.

[Scout]

"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message

news:nucqc750glvkb0hm4...@4ax.com...

LOL....

Award a point to pyotr.


Oh, and you owe me a new keyboard.

[Hawke]

On 11/22/2011 9:18 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Benny Fishhole<be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
> news:qhllc7t03cvl8c40d...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:01:39 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 10:35 am, d...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy.
> Republicans
>>>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on their
>>>> wealthy masters.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>>
>>> Ever notice that the markets never acted like this until we let the
>>> Republicans drive the bus?
>>>
>>> TMT
>>
>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
>> entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit tight
>> and wait the imposter out.
>>
>
> Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
> Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely will
> also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic next November.
> The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this time
> aroung won't help.
>

Yeah, that's really lucky for us. If the republicans had any good
candidates we'd be in real trouble but luck is with us and every one of
their candidates stinks.

People are not blaming the republicans because the markets are going
down. That has more to do with problems in Europe than anything going on
here. But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction. Most
people can see that we are not getting anything accomplished because the
republicans are unwilling to make any compromises. Democrats have
already shown they are willing to give in on some of their points but
the republicans won't budge an inch. To most people that makes it easy
to see who to blame. The folks who refuse to compromise. I bet they pay
come November.

Hawke

[Scout]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:jak1ja$dsg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Since you are totally a partisan Democrat, you would say the same thing no
matter how good the Republican candidates were, so your opinion really
doesn't matter due to your bias and utter inability to be objective
concerning politics.

[Hawke]

This is the problem when you have no training. You can't even recognize
when a slate of candidates is weak or not. The reason why you see a
different candidate take the lead in the republican primaries every few
months is because none of the candidates has what it takes to get people
to follow them. That's why everyone keeps saying this is a weak field.
Because it is. Pathetically weak, really. To the ill informed like
Gummer all the republican candidates look like giants. Everyone else is
seeing dwarfs.

Hawke

[Hawke]

That's where you're full of shit. You really think I wouldn't know if
the republicans had a winner? Come off it. If they had someone good I
not only would know it but I'd say so. If they had someone good I'd be
worried. Good candidates have the best chances of winning. But someone
good can lead, has experience, charisma, knowledge, attracts people from
all sides, is articulate, and has no really bad things to ruin him.
Nobody in the republican slate fits that bill except maybe for Huntsman
but he seems to lack the charisma. The bottom line is nobody has what it
takes that's running. So too bad for you. Good for the country. All your
choices are crappy. I'm so glad.

Hawke

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 23, 4:02 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
I bet they pay
> come November.
>
> Hawke

You have already made that prediction. Do you have anything new to
add to the discussion?

Dan

[Scout]

"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message

news:jak27a$f7u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

On the contrary, that's where I'm spot on. You claim to be independent, but
have stated time and again that you are utterly opposed to republicans and
you never have anything positive to say concerning republicans. So what I
said is dead on. That you can't admit it, despite your admissions in the
past concerning Republicans, simply confirm that you can't be trusted to be
politically objective.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 23, 4:13 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

But someone
> good can lead, has experience, charisma, knowledge, attracts people from
> all sides, is articulate, and has no really bad things to ruin him.

> The bottom line is nobody has what it
> takes that's running.
>

> Hawke

The unfortunate part is that Obama does not have what it takes. Good
campaigner, but not a good president.

Dan

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>>

>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
>> entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit tight
>> and wait the imposter out.
>>
>
>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the media.
>Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely will
>also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic next November.
>The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this time
>aroung won't help.

Will you commit sideways if you are proven wrong next November?

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:05:25 -0600, RD Sandman

Do you think all the Democrats that became Independants..and all the
Republicans who sat out the last election will vote for Obama?

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

I recall the same sort of invective coming from the Leftwingers when
Ronald Reagan came to the elections.

Proved them wrong twice.

Same with Bush. Same with the Democrats who controlled Congress in 1993
as well.

Democrats wish an awful lot. Wish out loud. But...cry foul when their
fantasies are undone.

[Hawke]

Sorry to put an end to your misconception but if the republicans had a
good candidate I would say so in a minute. Mitt Romney is the best they
have. He's not very good.

You really don't know that Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, or Perry
are not very good candidates for president? They all have so many things
wrong with them that none of them have a realistic shot at winning.

You just don't know me and think I'm just like your right wingers who
can't see both sides of an issue. Well, I'm not like you. I can look at
a field of candidates and tell you who's good and who isn't. This time
out the republicans have bad candidates. Don't get me wrong. I'm very
glad that is the case. I would hate it if your side had a really strong
candidate. If that was the case then he could win and that would screw
us all just like when Bush got in. But there are no good republican
candidates, which make me say, whew, we got lucky.

Hawke

[Hawke]

I'm not surprised that someone on the far right would think Obama is not
a good president. But then even if he was a great president I'd expect
you would say he was no good. That's why I discount a lot of what you
have to say about politics. I see so little in the way of objectivity in
how you see things.

Hawke

[JohnJohnsn]

Barack Hussien Obama, Jr.:
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!

Road sign seen 5 miles E of Clovis, NM?

" SO NOW WE KNOW...
"CHANGE" =

MORE DEBT
MORE TAXES
MORE WELFARE
MORE REGULATION
MORE GOVERNMENT
MORE WASTEFUL SPENDING
MORE CORRUPTION

THANKS
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t34/asazimbabwe/obama_NOPE_small.jpg
MR. PRESIDENT!

1 MORE CHANGE:
VOTE THEM OUT!

Paid for by a Vietnam Vet still fighting for his country"

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 24, 4:50 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

> > The unfortunate part is that Obama does not have what it takes.  Good
> > campaigner, but not a good president.
>
> >                                                     Dan
>
> I'm not surprised that someone on the far right would think Obama is not
> a good president. But then even if he was a great president I'd expect
> you would say he was no good. That's why I discount a lot of what you
> have to say about politics. I see so little in the way of objectivity in
> how you see things.
>
> Hawke

Ah, but I am not on the far right. I am much closer to center that
you are.
And I am more objective than you are.

Dan

[Tom Gardner]

On 11/24/2011 4:21 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
\\

>>
> I recall the same sort of invective coming from the Leftwingers when
> Ronald Reagan came to the elections.
>
> Proved them wrong twice.
>
> Same with Bush. Same with the Democrats who controlled Congress in 1993
> as well.
>
> Democrats wish an awful lot. Wish out loud. But...cry foul when their
> fantasies are undone.
>
> Gunner

You don't expect the fringe leftists to ever admit their Socialist god
Obammy is a total failure in EVERY respect, do you? ANY challenger will
most likely win against the empty suit in chief.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jak1ja$dsg$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

Not all, but the best candidate is definitely in the lower tier.

> People are not blaming the republicans because the markets are going
> down. That has more to do with problems in Europe than anything going
> on here. But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.

Which gets played up in virtually every conversation or speech made by a
Democrat.

> Most people can see that we are not getting anything accomplished
> because the republicans are unwilling to make any compromises.

Same with some of the Dems.

> Democrats have already shown they are willing to give in on some of
> their points but the republicans won't budge an inch. To most people
> that makes it easy to see who to blame. The folks who refuse to
> compromise. I bet they pay come November.

Good chance of that.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jak27a$f7u$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

The former I believe, the latter I do not. ;)

[RD Sandman]

"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> wrote in news:299809aa-4968-4ab9-
87c3-6ff...@a16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

Which may not hurt him next November. Look at all the blame being set on
Republicans and you can expect an entire year of it.

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:ts2sc7do8cif1ul74...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
>>> entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit
>>> tight and wait the imposter out.
>>>
>>
>>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the
>>media. Which means that most folks who don't follow these things
>>closely will also blame the Republicans and most likely vote
>>Democratic next November. The fact that the Republicans have a weak
>>field of candidates this time aroung won't help.
>
> Will you commit sideways if you are proven wrong next November?

?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why would
you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better candidate
at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments would change.
With the current slate in the positions that they are in...no.

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:0u2sc7do2aallj125...@4ax.com:

Nope....where did you get that asinine idea? I am saying that the
Democrats will vote for Obama rather than allow a Republican to win and
that many Republicans may sit out the election particularly if Romney is
the candidate.

[Gray Guest]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jak1ja$dsg$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.

So opposing policies that they believe will make things worse is how you
define obstruction?

So passing multiple bills that the Senate won't even take up is obstruction?

You should get a refund on your education.

[Gray Guest]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jak1ja$dsg$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

> But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.

[Hawke]

You don't think Bush did a bad job. Need I say any more about your lack
of objectivity?

Hawke

[Hawke]

I'm really sorry that you are so disappointed in Obama. I never knew you
were so naive to think that he could take a country in the worst
economic condition since the great depression and turn it into a booming
economic powerhouse in a little over two years. Especially when you
understand that the rest of the world isn't exactly booming these days
either. Why is it the rest of the world is slowing down economically
too? Is that Obama's doing too?



Even the strongest Obama supporters never expected as much from him as
you seem to. and it is surprising to find that his worst opponents
expected him to have us on the up side of an economic boom by now. I can
see why you're disappointed. Simply stopping the train headed off the
tracks, turning the country around, and moving ahead at a moderate pace,
sure isn't a giant boom. I just never realized you Obama haters were
expecting so damn much from him. Who knew?

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 11/25/2011 9:51 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> "dca...@krl.org"<dca...@krl.org> wrote in news:299809aa-4968-4ab9-
> 87c3-6ff...@a16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 23, 4:13 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>> But someone
>>> good can lead, has experience, charisma, knowledge, attracts people
> from
>>> all sides, is articulate, and has no really bad things to ruin him.
>>
>>> The bottom line is nobody has what it
>>> takes that's running.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>> The unfortunate part is that Obama does not have what it takes. Good
>> campaigner, but not a good president.
>
> Which may not hurt him next November. Look at all the blame being set on
> Republicans and you can expect an entire year of it.

I keep hearing from right wing guys that Obama is not a good president
and isn't doing a good job. Exactly where do you think a good president
would have us in less than three years? I think you can see how Europe
is bringing down our economy? I think you can see that the republicans
are blocking the president's economic policies? Given those things, what
do you expect the president to do? In this situation what would a great
president do that would give us much better results?

If you looked at the world situation and the U.S. situation you would
see right away that bringing us back from where we were less than three
years ago is an impossible task. Yet people are saying Obama is a
failure, why? Because things are not perfect by now? I'd like to see how
much better things would be if McCain had been running things. Not
really, because they would be a lot worse. But I'm also sure a lot of
the right wing would be happier with McCain in office even if things
were ten times worse than they are now.

Hawke

[Hawke]

So why exactly would I be afraid to say that the republicans had a good
candidate?

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 11/25/2011 10:37 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jak1ja$dsg$1
> @speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.
>
> So opposing policies that they believe will make things worse is how you
> define obstruction?
>
> So passing multiple bills that the Senate won't even take up is obstruction?
>
> You should get a refund on your education.
>

The parties are supposed to work together to get things done that
benefit the American people. That's their job. If one party decides that
all it intends to do is block everything then nothing gets done either
good or bad. That isn't what they are paid to do. Some of us want things
to be fixed and improved and we want our representatives to do it. If
they don't they're not doing their jobs. Right now they aren't doing
anything. One side is doing that. Everybody knows that. Some people are
happy with that. Most people think it sucks and is why congress has a 9%
approval rate. A lot of them are not going to have jobs there next year.

You need to get an education. Then you won't post quite as ignorant
things here as you do now.

Hawke

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jaoqla$b57$2
@speranza.aioe.org:

You have claimed in here that you never find anything good about
Republicans.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jaoqj3$b57$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/25/2011 9:51 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> "dca...@krl.org"<dca...@krl.org> wrote in news:299809aa-4968-4ab9-
>> 87c3-6ff...@a16g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Nov 23, 4:13 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> But someone
>>>> good can lead, has experience, charisma, knowledge, attracts people
>> from
>>>> all sides, is articulate, and has no really bad things to ruin him.
>>>
>>>> The bottom line is nobody has what it
>>>> takes that's running.
>>>>
>>>> Hawke
>>>
>>> The unfortunate part is that Obama does not have what it takes.
>>> Good campaigner, but not a good president.
>>
>> Which may not hurt him next November. Look at all the blame being
>> set on Republicans and you can expect an entire year of it.
>
>
> I keep hearing from right wing guys that Obama is not a good president
> and isn't doing a good job. Exactly where do you think a good
> president would have us in less than three years?

You will have to ask them.

I think you can see
> how Europe is bringing down our economy?

That's a good part of it. Glad to see you aren't still blaming Bush.

I think you can see that the
> republicans are blocking the president's economic policies?

I hear that both sides have folks who don't wish to compromise.
Republicans are in the news more.

Given
> those things, what do you expect the president to do? In this
> situation what would a great president do that would give us much
> better results?
>
> If you looked at the world situation and the U.S. situation you would
> see right away that bringing us back from where we were less than
> three years ago is an impossible task. Yet people are saying Obama is
> a failure, why? Because things are not perfect by now? I'd like to see
> how much better things would be if McCain had been running things.

So would I, but then that isn't how things work.....is it.

Not
> really, because they would be a lot worse. But I'm also sure a lot of
> the right wing would be happier with McCain in office even if things
> were ten times worse than they are now.

Could be.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jaoquc$b57$3...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/25/2011 10:37 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jak1ja$dsg$1
>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.
>>
>> So opposing policies that they believe will make things worse is how
>> you define obstruction?
>>
>> So passing multiple bills that the Senate won't even take up is
>> obstruction?
>>
>> You should get a refund on your education.
>>
>
>
> The parties are supposed to work together to get things done that
> benefit the American people. That's their job.

Yep.

If one party decides
> that all it intends to do is block everything then nothing gets done
> either good or bad. That isn't what they are paid to do.

True. And there are those in the House who will block anything to do
with raising taxes. And there are some in the Senate who won't things
come to a vote.

Some of us
> want things to be fixed and improved and we want our representatives
> to do it. If they don't they're not doing their jobs. Right now they
> aren't doing anything.

Correct.

One side is doing that.

One side is doing what? You don't think that there is failure to
compromise on both sides?

Everybody knows that.

No, not everybody does *know* that. Our "transparent" government isn't
really very transparent. Meetings are closed.. How many meetings for
example, on the supercommittee were televised.....or even had a camera in
there?

> Some people are happy with that. Most people think it sucks and is why
> congress has a 9% approval rate. A lot of them are not going to have
> jobs there next year.

In my opinion it should be a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle.
The main problem is that most folks think Congress is doing a terrible
job, but that their representative is, of course, not part of the
problem.

> You need to get an education. Then you won't post quite as ignorant
> things here as you do now.

There are more folks in here who could be more knowledgeable. Maybe even
a couple more than you think.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jaoq41$9u9$1
@speranza.aioe.org:

Nope, but it wasn't all Bush's either.

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:55:36 -0600, RD Sandman

<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:ts2sc7do8cif1ul74...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting some
>>>> entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can sit
>>>> tight and wait the imposter out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the
>>>media. Which means that most folks who don't follow these things
>>>closely will also blame the Republicans and most likely vote
>>>Democratic next November. The fact that the Republicans have a weak
>>>field of candidates this time aroung won't help.
>>
>> Will you commit sideways if you are proven wrong next November?
>
>?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why would
>you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better candidate
>at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments would change.
>With the current slate in the positions that they are in...no.

So you are blase about your conclusions? No standing behind them with
strength and conviction?

You ARE a moderate Democrat indeed.

Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:56:59 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>>
>> Do you think all the Democrats that became Independants..and all the
>> Republicans who sat out the last election will vote for Obama?
>
>Nope....where did you get that asinine idea? I am saying that the
>Democrats will vote for Obama rather than allow a Republican to win and
>that many Republicans may sit out the election particularly if Romney is
>the candidate.

If Obama wins again. The Great Cull will indeed occur.

Then no one will ever have to worry about leftwingers again.

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:8ptvc7hpd2bmd5po1...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 11:55:36 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:ts2sc7do8cif1ul74...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:18:54 -0600, RD Sandman
>>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting
>>>>> some entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can
>>>>> sit tight and wait the imposter out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the
>>>>media. Which means that most folks who don't follow these things
>>>>closely will also blame the Republicans and most likely vote
>>>>Democratic next November. The fact that the Republicans have a weak
>>>>field of candidates this time aroung won't help.
>>>
>>> Will you commit sideways if you are proven wrong next November?
>>
>>?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why would
>>you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better
>>candidate at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments
>>would change. With the current slate in the positions that they are
>>in...no.
>
> So you are blase about your conclusions? No standing behind them with
> strength and conviction?

Not at all. I am saying that if conditions change, my conclusions could
change. Are you still hanging on to 1975?

> You ARE a moderate Democrat indeed.

No, I am not a Democrat. I am moderate.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
..against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...

[JohnJohnsn]

On Nov 25, 1:25 pm, Dave "Hawke, the DNC Propogandist" Smithers

The History of Recessions in the United States
By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
Sep 24 2011

The history of recessions in the United States since the Great
Depression show they are a natural, though painful, part of the
business cycle. Note: On July 31, 2009 the Bureau of Economic Analysis
BEA revised all GDP statistics from 1929. It has revised the most
recent three years each year since then. The most recent stats (July
29, 2011) are given below, with the original stats in parentheses.

2008-2009 Recession
[Bush 43 & Obama administrations]

The worst recession since the Depression. The economy shrank in five
quarters, including four quarters in a row. Two quarters shrank more
than 5%, and Q2 2008 shrank a whopping 8.9%, more than any other
recession since the Great Depression. The recession ended in Q3 2009,
when GDP turned positive, thanks to economic stimulus spending. The
recession was also the longest since the Depression, lasting 18
months.

2008
[Bush 43 administration]

•Q1 -1.8%(-.7%)
•Q2 1.3% (1.5%)
•Q3 -3.7% (-2.7%)
•Q4 -8.9% (-5.4%)
2009
•Q1 -6.7% (-6.4%)
•Q2 -.7% (-.7%)

The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which then
led to a global banking credit crisis.

[ Thank you Barney Frank!
[
[ Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
[ http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.htm

2001 Recession
[Bush 43 administration]

It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K
scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet
businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy
contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%).
Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further
to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment
is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the
economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees.

1990-1991 Recession
[Bush 41 administration]

This recession was eight months (July 1990 to March 1991). It was
caused by the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1989. GDP was -3.5% (-3%) in
Q4 1990 and -1.9% (-2%) in Q1 1991.

1980-1982 Recession
[Carter ^ Reagan administrations]

This was technically two recessions: the first six months of 1980 and
16 months from July 1981 - November 1982. It was partially caused by
the Iranian oil embargo, which reduced U.S. oil supplies driving up
prices. The Fed raised interest rates to combat inflation, reducing
business spending. GDP was negative for six of the 12 quarters. The
worst was Q2 1980 at -7.9%(-7.8%), the worst quarterly decline since
the Great Depression (until the 2008-2009 recession). In Q1 1982, it
was nearly as bad, plummeting 6.4%. Unemployment rose to 10.8% in
November 1982, the highest level of unemployment in any recession. It
was above 10% for 10 months.

1973-1975 Recession
[Nixon & Ford administrations]

This recession lasted sixteen months (November 1973-March 1975). OPEC
is blamed for quadrupling prices for a few months in 1973. It alone
didn't cause such a deep recession. Several factors contributed.
First, the U.S. went off of the gold standard and printed more money.
This created inflation, as too many dollars chased too few goods.
Second, President Nixon instituted wage-price controls. This kept
prices too high, reducing demand. Wage controls made salaries too
high, which forced businesses to lay off workers. The result was
stagflation and three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth:
1974 Q3 -3.9% (-3.8%), Q4 -1.6% (-1.6%), 1975 Q1 -4.8%(-4.7%).
Unemployment reached a peak of 9% in May 1975, two months after the
recession technically ended.

1970 Recession
[Nixon administration]

This recession was relatively mild, lasting 11 months. GDP was down
for two quarters:Q1 -.7%, Q2 .7%, Q3 3.6%, Q4 -4.2%. Unemployment
peaked at 6.1% in December 1970.

1960 Recession
[Kennedy administration]

Starting in April 1960, the recession lasted 10 months. GDP was -1.9%
(-2%) in Q2 and -5% (-5.1%) in Q4. Unemployment reached a peak of 7.1%
in May 1961.

Recession of 1957
[Eisenhower administration]

It was eight months (August 1957-April 1958). GDP was - 4.2% in Q4
1957 then immediately plummeted 10.4% in Q1 1958. Unemployment didn't
reach its peak of 7.1% until September 1958. It was caused by a
contractionary monetary policy.

Recession of 1953
[Eisenhower administration]

Beginning July 1953, this recession lasted 10 months, a result of the
end of the Korean War. Unemployment didn't reach its peak of 6.1%
until September 1954, two months after the recession ended. GDP was
down 6.2% in Q4 of 1953.

1949 Recession
[Truman administration]

This 11 month recession began in November 1948 and lasted until
October 1949, when unemployment reached a peak of 7.9%. GDP fell .5%
for the year. This was another natural down cycle, caused by the
economy adjusting to peace-time production.

1945 Recession
[Truman administration]

This recession lasted only eight months, between February and October
1945. However, it was nasty, with GDP plummeting 11% in 1946. This was
a natural result of the demobilization from WWII, as the huge demand
for military weapons were no longer needed. (Source: NBER, Business
Cycle Expansions and Contractions)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.htm

> Especially when you understand that the rest of the world isn't exactly
> booming these days either. Why is it the rest of the world is slowing
> down economically too? Is that Obama's doing too?

I don't know, Dave; is it?

> Even the strongest Obama supporters never expected as much from
> him as you seem to. and it is surprising to find that his worst opponents
> expected him to have us on the up side of an economic boom by now.
> I can see why you're disappointed. Simply stopping the train headed
> off the tracks, turning the country around, and moving ahead at a
> moderate pace, sure isn't a giant boom. I just never realized you
> Obama haters were expecting so damn much from him. Who knew?

Once again you mischaracterize me as an "Obama hater," when you know
damn well I just hate what he's doing to our country: turning it into
his idea of a Socialist Society.

"Communism is the last stages of the socialist revolution."
--Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

[Gray Guest]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jaoquc$b57$3...@speranza.aioe.org:

Is it really a do nothing Congress or is it just that it isn't doing what
you want?

Because according to OpenCongress.Org:

Senate House
Bills considered >1870 >3400
Joint Resolutions 29 88
Concurrent Resolutions 32 87
Resolutions 323 465

The site lists all items before Comngress and the status. Frankly a lot of
it seems like crap and the sheer volume makes any sort of careful
consideration impossible.

I think perhaps the wooly headed sock puppets have been fed thier latest
"blurb" to repeat adnauseum.

I would like to remnind you that the all Democrat congress last year was
incapable of passing an actual budget as they are, in theory anyway,
required to do.

So why don't you take your latest bit of tripe from the Incompetent inChief
and shove in right up your ass.

[Gray Guest]

RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
news:Xns9FA882C2E...@216.196.121.131:

So Republicans should compromise even if they think what they are agreeing
to is destructive?

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:28:40 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>>>
>>>?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why would
>>>you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better
>>>candidate at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments
>>>would change. With the current slate in the positions that they are
>>>in...no.
>>
>> So you are blase about your conclusions? No standing behind them with
>> strength and conviction?
>
>Not at all. I am saying that if conditions change, my conclusions could
>change. Are you still hanging on to 1975?

Which Conditions might those be? Btw..Nixon was natural born.

>
>> You ARE a moderate Democrat indeed.
>
>No, I am not a Democrat. I am moderate.

You certainly are not a Republican. If so..you would be a RINO.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 25, 2:15 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
                                                   Dan

> > And I am more objective than you are.
>
> >                                                           Dan
>
> You don't think Bush did a bad job. Need I say any more about your lack
> of objectivity?
>
> Hawke

Ah, you are caught in a lie here. Try and find anything I posted that
says I thought Bush did a good job. I might have said that everything
that happened while Bush was president, was not caused by Bush. But
that is not the same thing.

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 25, 2:25 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

> I'm really sorry that you are so disappointed in Obama. I never knew you
> were so naive to think that he could take a country in the worst
> economic condition since the great depression and turn it into a booming
> economic powerhouse in a little over two years.

It is closer to three years than two. And we have never had such
slow economic growth after a recession since back in the 1930'l as we
have had now.

Dan


>
> Hawke

[RD Sandman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9FA8F40A4D5F2We...@88.198.244.100:

BOTH sides need to compromise. To get out of this problem we are in we
have to have more revenue and we definitely need to cut spending. If
taxes are increased, they absolutely need to go to EXISTING programs and
no NEW ones. Entitlements need to be adjusted.

I have posted some things I feel need to be done several times and I am
not particularly in the mood to do them again. Folks who didn't look at
them the first ten times won't look at them now so what's the use in
repeating them?

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:36i1d796ae7djvu4u...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:28:40 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why
would
>>>>you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better
>>>>candidate at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments
>>>>would change. With the current slate in the positions that they are
>>>>in...no.
>>>
>>> So you are blase about your conclusions? No standing behind them
with
>>> strength and conviction?
>>
>>Not at all. I am saying that if conditions change, my conclusions
could
>>change. Are you still hanging on to 1975?
>
> Which Conditions might those be? Btw..Nixon was natural born.
>>
>>> You ARE a moderate Democrat indeed.
>>
>>No, I am not a Democrat. I am moderate.
>
> You certainly are not a Republican. If so..you would be a RINO.

Nor have I ever claimed to be one. I have said several times that I am
an old school liberal or what today is a centrist with some libertarian
leaning views. Period.....end of sentence.

[RD Sandman]

"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> wrote in news:98c34543-48f2-4732-
8e29-7b5...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

Unfortunately, not enough people will understand that simple statement.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:41:42 -0600, RD Sandman

<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:36i1d796ae7djvu4u...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:28:40 -0600, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>?? If I am shown to be wrong, I will be shown to be wrong. Why
>would
>>>>>you expect that to change? If the Republicans produce a better
>>>>>candidate at the top of the heap than they have so far, my comments
>>>>>would change. With the current slate in the positions that they are
>>>>>in...no.
>>>>
>>>> So you are blase about your conclusions? No standing behind them
>with
>>>> strength and conviction?
>>>
>>>Not at all. I am saying that if conditions change, my conclusions
>could
>>>change. Are you still hanging on to 1975?
>>
>> Which Conditions might those be? Btw..Nixon was natural born.
>>>
>>>> You ARE a moderate Democrat indeed.
>>>
>>>No, I am not a Democrat. I am moderate.
>>
>> You certainly are not a Republican. If so..you would be a RINO.
>
>Nor have I ever claimed to be one. I have said several times that I am
>an old school liberal or what today is a centrist with some libertarian
>leaning views. Period.....end of sentence.

Old School Liberal is left of center. Whats known as a Progressive in
NewSpeak.

You may not like it..but there it is.

Unfortunately the Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks are setting your
party politics and agendas for you. Sadly.

Now I noticed you havnt stated with party you belong to. Im saying you
are a Democrat. Now if you had the brains of a gnat in this regards..you
would have registered as an Independant and for that..many of us could
at least understand your continued angst.

If you are still a Democrat..it simply proves you are politically
stupid. Im a Democrat and will be until Jan 1, but only because I lost
a bet and on the 2nd..I will be registering as an Independant.



Shrug

[Gray Guest]

RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in

news:Xns9FA976B80...@216.196.121.131:

I repeat, if the Republicans believe that continuing to spend more on crap
and running up the bill for future genrations is wrong and that raising
taxes is damaging and counterproductive, what is thier point of compromise?

[RD Sandman]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:6qj2d7503tb7cfno1...@4ax.com:

Yes, it is.

Whats known as a Progressive in
> NewSpeak.

No, it isn't.

You may not like it..but there it is.



> Unfortunately the Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks are setting your
> party politics and agendas for you. Sadly.

You seem to get stupider and more butt ignorant everytime you post. I
don't like folks telling me who does what and forms my opinion from
either side.

> Now I noticed you havnt stated with party you belong to.

I am a registered independent.

> Im saying you are a Democrat.

You'd be wrong. But lately that seems to be the norm.

Now if you had the brains of a gnat in this regards..you
> would have registered as an Independant and for that..many of us could
> at least understand your continued angst.

I really don't give a damn what you understand (or think you do) about
me.

> If you are still a Democrat..it simply proves you are politically
> stupid. Im a Democrat and will be until Jan 1, but only because I lost
> a bet and on the 2nd..I will be registering as an Independant.

Good for you. I have been one for several years.

[RD Sandman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in

news:Xns9FA9A453F277FWe...@88.198.244.100:

I didn't notice too many specifics in there. What programs do you
consider to be wrong, damaging and counterproductive?

Entitlements?

Move the retirement age for Social Security to 70 at a rate of say, three
months a year.
Move the early retirement age from 62 to 65 at the same rate.
Move the age for Medicare to 70 on that same schedule.
Remove the lid from FICA.

Individual and Corporate income taxes?

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 28% from 25%.
Increase gas taxes by 15 cents a gallon.
Go to a flat income tax on ALL income with ONE deductable.

Domestic spending?

Freeze Defense Department salaries and bonuses, NON combat pay military
pay and other federal salaries for a period of three years..
Reduce overseas bases and troop deployment by a third..
Reduce White House and Congressional budgets by at least 15%
Eliminate earmarks.
Cut funding for public broadcasting
Match costs of new programs with savings in costs from older ones so as
not to grow federal costs faster than overall economic growth rate.
Reduce Department of Education to setting standards...return other monies
to the states.

Healthcare

Limit annual cost increases for Medicare and Medicaid to the growth rate
of the economy.
Install doctor fix so as not to reduce them to dropping Medicare or
Medicaid
Do tort reform so that doctor's stop practicing defensive medicine


There are some samples of what to do.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
about Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:59:19 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

>RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in
>news:Xns9FA882C2E...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
>> news:jaoquc$b57$3...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2011 10:37 AM, Gray Guest wrote:
>>>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jak1ja$dsg$1
>>>> @speranza.aioe.org:
>>>>
>>>>> But people are blaming the republicans for their obstruction.
>>>>
>>>> So opposing policies that they believe will make things worse is how
>>>> you define obstruction?
>>>>
>>>> So passing multiple bills that the Senate won't even take up is
>>>> obstruction?
>>>>
>>>> You should get a refund on your education.
>>>>
>>>

[Snip]

>>> You need to get an education. Then you won't post quite as ignorant
>>> things here as you do now.
>>
>> There are more folks in here who could be more knowledgeable. Maybe even
>> a couple more than you think.
>>
>>
>
>So Republicans should compromise even if they think what they are agreeing
>to is destructive?

Why can't we get the Democrats to compromise with us on how to
destroy the country?


--
pyotr
If poverty causes crime, as a means of crime prevention
maybe we should be doing more to make people rich?

[RD Sandman]

pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:jlp2d7hbgtdselfqo...@4ax.com:

That could work..... ;)

[Hawke]

No, Dan. You didn't "catch" me in a lie. What I wrote was, "you don't
think Bush did a bad job". That is a far cry from saying you thought he
did a good job. The point was that while I never said you thought Bush
did a good job you never to my knowledge said he did a bad job. For you
not to acknowledge that Bush did a bad job tells a lot about where you
stand.

Most people think Bush did a spectacularly bad job as president yet you
can't even admit he did merely a bad job. That is almost like saying he
did okay.

The objective truth is Bush was one of our worst presidents ever and did
a terrible job. You can't seem to bring yourself to admit that. You get
on me about defending Obama but the truth is you stick up for Bush more
than I do for Obama.

Let's just stick to the truth, okay? When Obama does a bad job I will
say so. So far I don't see any really bad blunders from him. I don't
always agree with what he has done but I've yet to see any major
blunders. Conversely, he's done a good job getting terrorists,
conducting foreign affairs, and slowly but surely getting the economy
turned around. Proof? Black Friday was up 7% over last year. There are
plenty of other signs too. You just have to open your eyes to see them,
and quit trying to do nothing but find fault.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 11/25/2011 5:55 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
=

>> I'm really sorry that you are so disappointed in Obama. I never knew you
>> were so naive to think that he could take a country in the worst
>> economic condition since the great depression and turn it into a booming
>> economic powerhouse in a little over two years.
>
> The History of Recessions in the United States
> By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
> Sep 24 2011
>
> The history of recessions in the United States since the Great
> Depression show they are a natural, though painful, part of the
> business cycle.

> The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which then
> led to a global banking credit crisis.
>
> [ Thank you Barney Frank!

That's odd! You claim that the recession was caused by the subprime
mortgage crisis, which you blame on Barney Frank, as if he's the sole
congressman in charge. You also make these claims even though in the
history of recessions it says directly above that they are a natural,
though painful, part of the business cycle. So I'm confused. Which is to
blame the business cycle or Barney Frank? Please provide the evidence
proving it was Mr. Frank alone who caused this mess.

> http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.htm
>
>> Especially when you understand that the rest of the world isn't exactly
>> booming these days either. Why is it the rest of the world is slowing
>> down economically too? Is that Obama's doing too?
>
> I don't know, Dave; is it?

Of course it isn't. I would think you would know that the economy of
Europe isn't under the control of the U.S. As you might know they do
things a lot differently over in the EU than we do here. You know what I
mean? They have their own problems, and with them all being Socialists
and all and having managed economies, their economies are not going to
cause us to slow down very much. We slowed down because of a housing
bubble that burst and a financial industry that very nearly collapsed.

>> Even the strongest Obama supporters never expected as much from
>> him as you seem to. and it is surprising to find that his worst opponents
>> expected him to have us on the up side of an economic boom by now.
>> I can see why you're disappointed. Simply stopping the train headed
>> off the tracks, turning the country around, and moving ahead at a
>> moderate pace, sure isn't a giant boom. I just never realized you
>> Obama haters were expecting so damn much from him. Who knew?
>
> Once again you mischaracterize me as an "Obama hater," when you know
> damn well I just hate what he's doing to our country: turning it into
> his idea of a Socialist Society.

I wasn't referring to you specifically when I said Obama haters, of
which there are plenty here. According to you you don't hate him so I'll
accept that as being true. I never hated Bush either. I just saw him as
a sadly incompetent, stumblebum, who never should have been in charge.
What I hated was what he did to the country; deceiving the people into
following him into two wars, wrecking the economy, and nearly destroying
the American middle class. This was the kind of thing I expected from
him and unfortunately I was right. He's living proof that it does matter
who you put in the White House.

I'll gladly allow Obama two terms in the White House so the we can put
his eight year record up against Bush's. My prediction is that the
country will be in good condition when Obama leaves the White House,
that is if he gets a second term. You believe that he will cause all
kinds of damage to the country. We shall see which of us is right. I was
right about Bush. I'll bet you I'm right about Obama too, and that you
are wrong.

Hawke

> "Communism is the last stages of the socialist revolution."
> --Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

I also don't think you know enough about communism to use this kind of
sig line. You know the buzz words but not the substance of what Marx and
Engels actually thought. You do know the year when Marx wrote this stuff
I take it?

[Hawke]

We've never been in this much trouble since the great depression either
have we? That took over a decade to pull out of. But you expect Obama to
pull us out of our worst recession ever in under three years? That is
naivete`

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 11/25/2011 11:45 AM, RD Sandman wrote:

>> If you looked at the world situation and the U.S. situation you would
>> see right away that bringing us back from where we were less than
>> three years ago is an impossible task. Yet people are saying Obama is
>> a failure, why? Because things are not perfect by now? I'd like to see
>> how much better things would be if McCain had been running things.
>
> So would I, but then that isn't how things work.....is it.

No but I trust that you would know what right wing economic policies are
and which ones McCain would have followed. Just think back to the Bush
years. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and let the market fix itself.
Maybe you don't know it but I do. Policies like that would not have us
in better shape than we are now.

> Not
>> really, because they would be a lot worse. But I'm also sure a lot of
>> the right wing would be happier with McCain in office even if things
>> were ten times worse than they are now.
>
> Could be.

I guess it's true that you don't know right wingers as well as I do.
They would just as well bring down the ship as to let someone else sail it.

Hawke

[Hawke]

On 11/25/2011 11:42 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:jaoqla$b57$2
> @speranza.aioe.org:

>
>> On 11/25/2011 9:49 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Hawke<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in

>>> news:jak27a$f7u$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>>>
>>>> On 11/23/2011 4:05 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Hawke"<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jak1ja$dsg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>>> On 11/22/2011 9:18 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Benny Fishhole<be...@fakeaddress.edu> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:qhllc7t03cvl8c40d...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:01:39 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>>>>>>>> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 10:35 am, d...@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Polls show most Americans favor raising taxes on wealthy.
>>>>>>> Republicans
>>>>>>>>>> once again refuse to give their bought and paid for tax cuts on
>>>>>>>>>> their wealthy masters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20110458-503544.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ever notice that the markets never acted like this until we let
>>>>>>>>> the Republicans drive the bus?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> TMT

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's going to get much worse unless the democrats start cutting
>>>>>>>> some entitlements. Lots of them. Lucky for the rest of us, we can
>>>>>>>> sit tight and wait the imposter out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Problem is that the Republicans are the ones getting blamed in the
>>>>>>> media.
>>>>>>> Which means that most folks who don't follow these things closely
>>>>>>> will also blame the Republicans and most likely vote Democratic
>>>>>>> next November.
>>>>>>> The fact that the Republicans have a weak field of candidates this
>>>>>>> time aroung won't help.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yeah, that's really lucky for us. If the republicans had any good
>>>>>> candidates we'd be in real trouble but luck is with us and every
> one
>>>>>> of their candidates stinks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you are totally a partisan Democrat, you would say the same
>>>>> thing no matter how good the Republican candidates were, so your
>>>>> opinion really doesn't matter due to your bias and utter inability
> to
>>>>> be objective concerning politics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's where you're full of shit. You really think I wouldn't know if
>>>> the republicans had a winner? Come off it. If they had someone good I
>>>> not only would know it but I'd say so.
>>>
>>> The former I believe, the latter I do not. ;)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So why exactly would I be afraid to say that the republicans had a good
>> candidate?
>
> You have claimed in here that you never find anything good about
> Republicans.


That's true. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't know a good candidate when
I see one. When I saw Obama for the first time in 2004 when he gave the
speech at the Democratic National Convention I knew he would be a good
candidate. It was obvious he had the whole package. None of the
republicans has anything. Romney would be a good candidate except he has
so much excess baggage he's carrying around he'll never win. With his
religion and his changing positions with the wind and that the
conservative wing of the party hates him he's got a host of problems. So
they have nobody.

I'm sure you've heard the criticism of Obama being a "community
organizer" and that he never really worked at a "real" job. Do you
understand how stupid that is, and why? Do you think Obama, coming out
of Harvard, and having the connections he got there could have had any
better job besides community organizer? Like maybe he would have been
hired at a prestigious law firm or at someplace like Goldman Sachs.
That's where people like him normally go after law school. He could have
written his own ticket with his Harvard credentials and instead he went
to Chicago to be a community organizer. Do you think maybe that was part
of some other kind of long range plan?

Hawke

[Hawke]

Just read what most people write. It's nothing but partisan bickering.
You don't hear many thoughtful and intelligent comments or debates. If
people in here are smart then how come it isn't reflected in the kinds
of things they write? I'd love it if there were more thoughtful and
knowledgeable people contributing. The majority is of a pretty low
quality. But that is normal when people talk about politics but don't
really know much about it.

I saw Frank Luntz doing a show the other day. He's the guy who does all
the focus groups for Foxnews. It was an hour show and he had several
focus groups from different parts of the country. The first group was
republican women from Iowa. They didn't know very much about politics if
you ask me. A lot of what they said sounded just like what we hear in
this group. It sounded like what you hear from Hannity and Limbaugh.


Unfortunately, it seems that no one has any respect for the subject of
politics. Everyone thinks they are an expert in the field even though
none of them has any training or education in the subject. All the women
wanted to "get rid" of Obama. They didn't seem to care about a lot
besides that. Anyone with "conservative" views would be fine with them.
None of them Blamed Bush for any of our current problems. It was all
Obama, typical of what a partisan republican believes. No real
thoughtful arguments from that bunch.



Hawke

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 26, 10:59 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:

>
> We've never been in this much trouble since the great depression either
> have we? That took over a decade to pull out of. But you expect Obama to
> pull us out of our worst recession ever in under three years? That is
> naivete`
>
> Hawke

We are not in a recession now and have not been in a recession for a
while. But the economy has grown very slowly under Obama. Normally
after a recession the economy has a high growth rate for a year or
so. But the public has lost confidence.
Part of the reason is that Obamacare has raised the cost of employing
people. Another reason is that the state governments have been
keeping people employed using federal funds. But that is not going to
go on forever. So there is going to be a new wave of layoffs in the
local government sector. And that causes people to not have
confidence. So in my opinion Obama reduced the severity of the
recession, but has prolonged the duration.

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Nov 26, 10:27 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:


> No, Dan. You didn't "catch" me in a lie. What I wrote was, "you don't
> think Bush did a bad job". That is a far cry from saying you thought he
> did a good job. The point was that while I never said you thought Bush
> did a good job you never to my knowledge said he did a bad job. For you
> not to acknowledge that Bush did a bad job tells a lot about where you
> stand.
>
>

> Hawke

No, I did catch you in a lie. I have not commented either way on
Bush's performance as president. That does not mean I approved or
disapproved of Bush's performance. It just means I am discussing
Obama now, not Bush.

You have no idea of what I think about Bush's performance, and saying
that you do know what I think is a debating tactic, but not a logical
argument.

Dan

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jasc9g$udp$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/25/2011 5:55 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> =
>>> I'm really sorry that you are so disappointed in Obama. I never knew
>>> you were so naive to think that he could take a country in the worst
>>> economic condition since the great depression and turn it into a
>>> booming economic powerhouse in a little over two years.
>>
>> The History of Recessions in the United States
>> By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
>> Sep 24 2011
>>
>> The history of recessions in the United States since the Great
>> Depression show they are a natural, though painful, part of the
>> business cycle.
>
>> The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which then
>> led to a global banking credit crisis.
>>
>> [ Thank you Barney Frank!
>
> That's odd! You claim that the recession was caused by the subprime
> mortgage crisis, which you blame on Barney Frank, as if he's the sole
> congressman in charge. You also make these claims even though in the
> history of recessions it says directly above that they are a natural,
> though painful, part of the business cycle. So I'm confused. Which is
> to blame the business cycle or Barney Frank? Please provide the
> evidence proving it was Mr. Frank alone who caused this mess.

Hmmmm, do you also apply that same logic (and the cite above) rather than
blaming Shrub?



>> http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.h

>> tm
>>
>>> Especially when you understand that the rest of the world isn't
>>> exactly booming these days either. Why is it the rest of the world
>>> is slowing down economically too? Is that Obama's doing too?
>>
>> I don't know, Dave; is it?
>
> Of course it isn't. I would think you would know that the economy of
> Europe isn't under the control of the U.S. As you might know they do
> things a lot differently over in the EU than we do here. You know what
> I mean? They have their own problems, and with them all being
> Socialists and all and having managed economies, their economies are
> not going to cause us to slow down very much. We slowed down because
> of a housing bubble that burst and a financial industry that very
> nearly collapsed.

However, much of the current shakiness in our economy is a direct result of
the unknowns in the Eurozone.

>>> Even the strongest Obama supporters never expected as much from
>>> him as you seem to. and it is surprising to find that his worst
>>> opponents expected him to have us on the up side of an economic boom
>>> by now. I can see why you're disappointed. Simply stopping the train
>>> headed off the tracks, turning the country around, and moving ahead
>>> at a moderate pace, sure isn't a giant boom. I just never realized
>>> you Obama haters were expecting so damn much from him. Who knew?
>>
>> Once again you mischaracterize me as an "Obama hater," when you know
>> damn well I just hate what he's doing to our country: turning it into
>> his idea of a Socialist Society.
>
> I wasn't referring to you specifically when I said Obama haters, of
> which there are plenty here.

Just about as many as there were Bush haters a three - four years ago. The
major difference was which side of the fence they are on.

[RD Sandman]

Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in
news:jascrk$vhk$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 11/25/2011 11:45 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>
>>> If you looked at the world situation and the U.S. situation you
>>> would see right away that bringing us back from where we were less
>>> than three years ago is an impossible task. Yet people are saying
>>> Obama is a failure, why? Because things are not perfect by now? I'd
>>> like to see how much better things would be if McCain had been
>>> running things.
>>
>> So would I, but then that isn't how things work.....is it.
>
> No but I trust that you would know what right wing economic policies
> are and which ones McCain would have followed. Just think back to the
> Bush years. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, and let the market fix
> itself. Maybe you don't know it but I do. Policies like that would not
> have us in better shape than we are now.

Those tax cuts made the recession deeper and more difficult to get out of
but they weren't the cause of the recession. Two things caused that
recession......the collapse of the housing bubble and the finance
industry. Much of that collapse was due to deregulation over the years,
too much greed on the part of real estate, financial lenders with the
result that too many loans were made to people that really couldn't
afford them and became toxic.

>> Not
>>> really, because they would be a lot worse. But I'm also sure a lot
>>> of the right wing would be happier with McCain in office even if
>>> things were ten times worse than they are now.
>>
>> Could be.
>
>
> I guess it's true that you don't know right wingers as well as I do.
> They would just as well bring down the ship as to let someone else
> sail it.

Some of them......however, folks who are that short sighted do exist on

both sides of the aisle.

[JohnJohnsn]

On Nov 26, 9:54 pm, Dave "Hawke, the DNC Propogandist" Smithers

<davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> On 11/25/2011 5:55 PM, JohnJohnsn wrote:
> =
>>> I'm really sorry that you are so disappointed in Obama. I never knew
>>> you were so naive to think that he could take a country in the worst
>>> economic condition since the great depression and turn it into a
>>> booming economic powerhouse in a little over two years.
>
>> The History of Recessions in the United States
>> By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide
>> Sep 24 2011
>
>> The history of recessions in the United States since the Great
>> Depression show they are a natural, though painful, part of the
>> business cycle.
>> The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis,
>> which then led to a global banking credit crisis.
>
>> [ Thank you Barney Frank!
>
> That's odd! You claim that the recession was caused by the subprime
> mortgage crisis, which you blame on Barney Frank, as if he's the sole
> congressman in charge. You also make these claims even though in
> the history of recessions it says directly above that they are a natural,
> though painful, part of the business cycle. So I'm confused. Which is to
> blame the business cycle or Barney Frank? Please provide the evidence
> proving it was Mr. Frank alone who caused this mess.

He was the "prime suspect/perpetrator" here, Dave; along with his
"prime cohort," Chris Dodd:

Should Barney Frank and Chris Dodd resign for starting a financial
crisis?
June 08, 2008

While Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are preparing to bend you, the
taxpayer, over the sub-prime barrel, you absolutely need to watch this
video that explains how they helped us get here.

It's a little long but very worth it and it's a reminder that the same
people demanding a $700 billion bailout are the ones who got us here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928125143AAxrYHy

>> [
>> [ Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
>> [ http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/a/recession_histo.htm

Did you read it, Dave?

>>> Especially when you understand that the rest of the world isn't exactly
>>> booming these days either. Why is it the rest of the world is slowing
>>> down economically too? Is that Obama's doing too?
>
>> I don't know, Dave; is it?
>
> Of course it isn't. I would think you would know that the economy of
> Europe isn't under the control of the U.S.

Look up how the Wall Stream Crash of 1929 affected Europe, Dave:

"The Great Depression was an economic slump in North America, Europe,
and other industrialized areas of the world that began in 1929 and
lasted until about 1939. It was the longest and most severe depression
ever experienced by the industrialized Western world."
...
http://windowtowallstreet.com/1929marketcrash.aspx

> As you might know they do things a lot differently over in the EU than
> we do here.
> You know what I mean?
> They have their own problems, and with them all being Socialists and all
> and having managed economies, their economies are not going to
> cause us to slow down very much. We slowed down because of a housing
> bubble that burst and a financial industry that very nearly collapsed.

And as noted above; "Thank you, Barney Frank (and Chris Dodd, and all
their democRat _and_ Republican "cohorts")!

>>> Even the strongest Obama supporters never expected as much from
>>> him as you seem to. and it is surprising to find that his worst opponents
>>> expected him to have us on the up side of an economic boom by now.
>>> I can see why you're disappointed. Simply stopping the train headed
>>> off the tracks, turning the country around, and moving ahead at a
>>> moderate pace, sure isn't a giant boom. I just never realized you
>>> Obama haters were expecting so damn much from him. Who knew?
>
>> Once again you mischaracterize me as an "Obama hater," when you
>> know damn well I just hate what he's doing to our country: turning it
>> into his idea of a Socialist Society.
>
> I wasn't referring to you specifically when I said Obama haters, of
> which there are plenty here. According to you you don't hate him so I'll
> accept that as being true. I never hated Bush either. I just saw him as
> a sadly incompetent, stumblebum, who never should have been in charge.
> What I hated was what he did to the country; deceiving the people into
> following him into two wars, wrecking the economy, and nearly destroying
> the American middle class. This was the kind of thing I expected from
> him and unfortunately I was right. He's living proof that it does matter
> who you put in the White House.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome" ("BDS"): the acute onset of paranoia in
otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency —
nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.
--Charles Krauthammer

> I'll gladly allow Obama two terms in the White House so the we can
> put his eight year record up against Bush's. My prediction is that the
> country will be in good condition when Obama leaves the White House,
> that is if he gets a second term. You believe that he will cause all
> kinds of damage to the country. We shall see which of us is right.
> I was right about Bush. I'll bet you I'm right about Obama too, and
> that you are wrong.

We cannot afford to take the risk, Dave.

>> "Communism is the last stages of the socialist revolution."
>> --Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
>
> I also don't think you know enough about communism to use this
> kind of sig line. You know the buzz words but not the substance of
> what Marx and Engels actually thought. You do know the year when
> Marx wrote this stuff I take it?

Machts nichts, Dave: it was what Marx and Engels intended that counts;
not what they actually ended up with.

Your modern day Socialists/Federalists/OWO'ers don't intenbd to fail
this time, IMHO.

Ergo:

Barack Hussien Obama, Jr.:
-All the answers as a candidate;
-No solutions as the president!

"A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for
Colonel Sanders."
--Bud Gregg

"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"

"There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there
is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States."
—Ronald Wilson Reagan

"There are two ways to enslave a country....
One is by the Sword.
The other is by Debt."
— John Adams

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the
least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing,
and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or
succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the
confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
See: Obama Administration, 2009-2013

"Sunday, January 20th, 2013 - The End of an Error"