info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Not my father's Grand Old Party
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Dom
Jun 5, 2012, 8:00:02 AM6/5/12
to
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-20120527,0,3482529.story
Not my father's Grand Old Party
By Susan DeMersseman
May 27, 2012
I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP. I am
sometimes embarrassed for my family and friends who are Republicans in
the old way, the thoughtful, principled way - the grand way. They were
people who paid attention in history class, in science class and to
the well-being of their neighbors.
It sometimes seems as if the party has been hijacked by groups of
narrow-interest voters or ones so angry they would sacrifice their
countrymen to beat an opponent. The natural and healthy differences
within the party seem to be forbidden.
Some leaders in the party behave as if their job as legislators is to
make sure that the rich stay rich or get richer. I know many people of
exceptional wealth and very few have backed politicians to make sure
that they are protected from paying their fair share. Many appreciate
the system that has allowed them to maintain or gain their wealth and
they realize (those with enlightened self-interest) that a society in
which all have opportunity benefits them as well. They see it as a
bubble-up rather than a trickle-down economy.
Some political leaders and commentators like to call it "class
warfare" when those on the lower rungs want a better chance, but I do
not see most at the top wanting to engage in that mythic battle. For a
small group financial domination has become a sort of sport, but in
the corporations and government there are thoughtful people who want
all to do better. I want them to step up and to speak up.
I miss the days when I could watch a debate based upon thoughtful
differences, rather than one in which debaters are simply trying to
score points or pander. The Democrats are by no means perfect. I
believe even their discourse could be elevated if the worthy
opposition were indeed worthy. Currently, the extreme behavior of some
in the GOP makes the Democrats look more dignified and sensible. But I
would sacrifice that for sensible dialogue.
I once wrote about how politics has morphed into a sport where we
cheer for our team and celebrate the fouls and missteps of the other.
Now, I think the sport has descended into mud wrestling. I miss the
grand part of the GOP. If there is a silent majority, I hope it is
those who will soon step up, speak up and take it back.
When my brother gave into the cajoling of his children and opened a
Facebook page, he described himself as a "Big Tent Republican" and the
"me too" responses poured in. Those thoughtful, generous, dignified
members of the GOP still exist in my family and I believe in other
families too. Our country will be better when their voices are heard
again.
Susan DeMersseman is a psychologist who lives in Oakland, Calif. She
grew up in South Dakota.
Not my father's Grand Old Party
By Susan DeMersseman
May 27, 2012
I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP. I am
sometimes embarrassed for my family and friends who are Republicans in
the old way, the thoughtful, principled way - the grand way. They were
people who paid attention in history class, in science class and to
the well-being of their neighbors.
It sometimes seems as if the party has been hijacked by groups of
narrow-interest voters or ones so angry they would sacrifice their
countrymen to beat an opponent. The natural and healthy differences
within the party seem to be forbidden.
Some leaders in the party behave as if their job as legislators is to
make sure that the rich stay rich or get richer. I know many people of
exceptional wealth and very few have backed politicians to make sure
that they are protected from paying their fair share. Many appreciate
the system that has allowed them to maintain or gain their wealth and
they realize (those with enlightened self-interest) that a society in
which all have opportunity benefits them as well. They see it as a
bubble-up rather than a trickle-down economy.
Some political leaders and commentators like to call it "class
warfare" when those on the lower rungs want a better chance, but I do
not see most at the top wanting to engage in that mythic battle. For a
small group financial domination has become a sort of sport, but in
the corporations and government there are thoughtful people who want
all to do better. I want them to step up and to speak up.
I miss the days when I could watch a debate based upon thoughtful
differences, rather than one in which debaters are simply trying to
score points or pander. The Democrats are by no means perfect. I
believe even their discourse could be elevated if the worthy
opposition were indeed worthy. Currently, the extreme behavior of some
in the GOP makes the Democrats look more dignified and sensible. But I
would sacrifice that for sensible dialogue.
I once wrote about how politics has morphed into a sport where we
cheer for our team and celebrate the fouls and missteps of the other.
Now, I think the sport has descended into mud wrestling. I miss the
grand part of the GOP. If there is a silent majority, I hope it is
those who will soon step up, speak up and take it back.
When my brother gave into the cajoling of his children and opened a
Facebook page, he described himself as a "Big Tent Republican" and the
"me too" responses poured in. Those thoughtful, generous, dignified
members of the GOP still exist in my family and I believe in other
families too. Our country will be better when their voices are heard
again.
Susan DeMersseman is a psychologist who lives in Oakland, Calif. She
grew up in South Dakota.
Oglethorpe
Jun 5, 2012, 10:39:14 AM6/5/12
to
"Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-20120527,0,3482529.story
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
Because it was written by a flaming lib.
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
Eddie Haskell
Jun 5, 2012, 10:40:41 AM6/5/12
to
"Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-20120527,0,3482529.story
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> By Susan DeMersseman
>
> May 27, 2012
>
> I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
> household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
> governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
> little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
> Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP. I am
> sometimes embarrassed for my family and friends who are Republicans in
> the old way, the thoughtful, principled way - the grand way. They were
> people who paid attention in history class, in science class and to
> the well-being of their neighbors.
>
> It sometimes seems as if the party has been hijacked by groups of
> narrow-interest voters or ones so angry they would sacrifice their
> countrymen to beat an opponent. The natural and healthy differences
> within the party seem to be forbidden.
>
> Some leaders in the party behave as if their job as legislators is to
> make sure that the rich stay rich or get richer.
Yawn. Another corrupt creep covering for leftist socialist policy of making
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> By Susan DeMersseman
>
> May 27, 2012
>
> I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
> household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
> governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
> little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
> Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP. I am
> sometimes embarrassed for my family and friends who are Republicans in
> the old way, the thoughtful, principled way - the grand way. They were
> people who paid attention in history class, in science class and to
> the well-being of their neighbors.
>
> It sometimes seems as if the party has been hijacked by groups of
> narrow-interest voters or ones so angry they would sacrifice their
> countrymen to beat an opponent. The natural and healthy differences
> within the party seem to be forbidden.
>
> Some leaders in the party behave as if their job as legislators is to
> make sure that the rich stay rich or get richer.
EVERYONE poorer. Congratulations, you've been wildly successful at cutting
off your own nose. Did you get your rocks off? Probably not. You haven't
brought about enough destruction to feed your greed and envy.
Speaking of "millionaires and billionaires" (see here), the real tax news is
that there are fewer of both these days. This month the IRS released more
detailed tax data for 2009, and the nearby table records the decline of the
taxpaying rich.
In 2007, 390,000 tax filers reported adjusted gross income of $1 million or
more and paid $309 billion in taxes. In 2009, there were only 237,000 such
filers, a decline of 39%. Almost four of 10 millionaires vanished in two
years, and the total taxes they paid in 2009 declined to $178 billion, a
drop of 42%.
Those with $10 million or more in reported income fell to 8,274 from 18,394
in 2007, a 55% drop. As a result, their tax payments tanked by 51%. These
disappearing millionaires go a long way toward explaining why federal tax
revenues have sunk to 15% of GDP in recent years. The loss of millionaires
accounts for at least $130 billion of the higher federal budget deficit in
2009. If Warren Buffett wants to reduce the deficit, he should encourage
policies to create more millionaires, not campaign to tax them more.
The millionaires who are left still pay a mountain of tax. Those who make $1
million accounted for about 0.2% of all tax returns but paid 20.4% of income
taxes in 2009. Those with adjusted gross income above $200,000 a year were
just under 3% of tax filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 billion in total
personal income taxes. This means the top 3% paid more than the bottom 97%.
Yet the 3% are the people that President Obama claims don't pay their fair
share. Before the recession, the $200,000 income group paid 54.5% of the
income tax.
Editorial writer Mary Kissel on how Obama's taxes on "millionaires and
billionaires" would hurt the middle class. Also, Bartley Fellow Charlie
Dameron on Texas Governor Rick Perry's liabilities as a GOP presidential
candidate.
For the past three decades, the political left has obsessed about income
inequality. As the economy experienced one of the largest and lengthiest
economic booms in history from 1982-2007, the left moaned that the gains
went to yacht club members.
Well, if equality of income is the priority, liberals should be thrilled
with the last four years. The recession and weak recovery have been income
levelers. Those who make more than $200,000 captured one-quarter of the $7.6
trillion in total income in 2009. In 2007 the over-$200,000 crowd had
one-third of reported U.S. taxable income. Those with incomes above $1
million earned 9.5% of total income in 2009, down from 16.1% in 2007.
It's an old story: The best way to produce income equality is to destroy
trillions of dollars of wealth. Everyone loses, but the rich lose relatively
more than the poor and the middle class. By that measure, if few others,
Obamanomics has been a raging success.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512501087811480.html
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Jun 5, 2012, 10:47:26 AM6/5/12
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:aeOdnY2Ny770Y1DS...@mchsi.com...
is a typical fascist tactic. Back in 62 JFK advocated what would be later
known as Reaganomics and he brought about the longest economic boom in
history at the time, but that was back when we were all still Americans and
before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
In other words, not my father's DNC.
-Eddie Haskell
BeamMeUpScotty☠
Jun 5, 2012, 11:23:16 AM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 8:00 AM, Dom wrote:
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-20120527,0,3482529.story
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> By Susan DeMersseman
>
> May 27, 2012
>
> I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
> household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
> governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
> little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
> Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP.
Silly BS and the Democrat Party are all Socialists NOW..... You were
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-20120527,0,3482529.story
>
> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> By Susan DeMersseman
>
> May 27, 2012
>
> I miss the GOP, the Grand Old Party. I grew up in a Republican
> household in a Republican state. My dad was an adviser to the
> governor; my brother was a Republican state legislator. When I was
> little I wore an "I Like Ike" button. I'm registered in the Democratic
> Party now, but I miss the GOP, the grandness of the GOP.
never a Republican, if you were you couldn't become a Socialist without
real brain damage.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
-Kum bay ya- ☠
klattu
Jun 5, 2012, 1:23:41 PM6/5/12
to
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 09:40:41 -0500, "Eddie Haskell" <yy...@ssspp.com>
wrote:
good and informative article....
wrote:
Eddie Haskell
Jun 5, 2012, 1:33:07 PM6/5/12
to
"klattu" <m...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:gvfss7tldulr75e1v...@4ax.com...
again.
-Eddie Haskell
Waldo Tunnel
Jun 7, 2012, 3:59:32 AM6/7/12
to
On Jun 5, 7:47 am, "Eddie Haskell" <y...@ssspp.com> wrote:
> "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote in message
that is a typical fascist tactic you're using. Now that's irony you
can't fake.
>and he brought about the longest economic boom in
> history at the time,
But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too. But
I bet ya hate him!
> but that was back when we were all still Americans and
> before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
You mean like when the Southern racists abandoned the the party and
flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
> "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aeOdnY2Ny770Y1DS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > "Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
> >news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-201205...
> news:aeOdnY2Ny770Y1DS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > "Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
> >news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> > Because it was written by a flaming lib.
>
> Pretending that your opponent is guilty of what you know you are guilty of
> is a typical fascist tactic. Back in 62 JFK advocated what would be later
> known as Reaganomics
You're accusing Kennedy of being guilty of Reaganomics! Like you said:
> >> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> > Because it was written by a flaming lib.
>
> Pretending that your opponent is guilty of what you know you are guilty of
> is a typical fascist tactic. Back in 62 JFK advocated what would be later
> known as Reaganomics
that is a typical fascist tactic you're using. Now that's irony you
can't fake.
>and he brought about the longest economic boom in
> history at the time,
I bet ya hate him!
> but that was back when we were all still Americans and
> before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
Eddie Haskell
Jun 7, 2012, 1:51:30 PM6/7/12
to
"Waldo Tunnel" <waldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:820f2df3-b6b0-478b...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:47 am, "Eddie Haskell" <y...@ssspp.com> wrote:
> "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aeOdnY2Ny770Y1DS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > "Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
> >news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-201205...
>
> >> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> > Because it was written by a flaming lib.
>
> Pretending that your opponent is guilty of what you know you are guilty of
> is a typical fascist tactic. Back in 62 JFK advocated what would be later
> known as Reaganomics
> You're accusing Kennedy of being guilty of Reaganomics! Like you said:
> that is a typical fascist tactic you're using. Now that's irony you
> can't fake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU
> "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote in message
>
> news:aeOdnY2Ny770Y1DS...@mchsi.com...
>
> > "Dom" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
> >news:94e9507d-108f-41dc...@m24g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0527-gop-201205...
>
> >> Not my father's Grand Old Party
>
> > Because it was written by a flaming lib.
>
> Pretending that your opponent is guilty of what you know you are guilty of
> is a typical fascist tactic. Back in 62 JFK advocated what would be later
> known as Reaganomics
> You're accusing Kennedy of being guilty of Reaganomics! Like you said:
> that is a typical fascist tactic you're using. Now that's irony you
> can't fake.
>and he brought about the longest economic boom in
> history at the time,
> But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too. But
> I bet ya hate him!
and budget of the nineties because they kept Reaganomics in place and held
the line on spending. All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
years that he ushered them in and proceed to fight them tooth and nail the
rest of his term. Luckily for him he lost and budget busting Hillarycare
went down in defeat.
> but that was back when we were all still Americans and
> before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
> You mean like when the Southern racists abandoned the the party and
> flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
country, and are the most patriotic as well. Meanwhile, you democrats voted
in a blatant racist anti-American to the office of president.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just
by guessing)
McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
Obama voters got the "congressional control" question wrong by 43-41.
Those that got "congressional control" correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
Those that got "congressional control" wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.
Voters in the "South" had the best response rate on "congressional control"
(+22)
Voters in the "Northeast" had the worst response rate on "congressional
control" (+9)
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Jun 7, 2012, 1:52:21 PM6/7/12
to
"Eddie Haskell" <yy...@ssspp.com> wrote in message
news:CS5Ar.7458$r73....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
-Hussein
"Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."
-Hussein
Hussein's associations:
Rev. Wright, whose church Hussein attended and supported financially for
over
20 years:
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is
controlled by rich white people."
Rev. Lowery, hand picked by Hussein to deliver the inaugural benediction:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in
the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when
yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white
will embrace what is right."
Sonia Sotomayor, Hussein's pick for the SC:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn't lived that life."
From Hussein's book:
"White man's greed runs a world in need."
Prof. Gates, anti-white racist who Obama says is a friend of his.
Obama advisor Van Jones:
"Only Suburban White Kids Shoot Up Schools"
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child"
"White polluters steered poison into minority communities"
"Coates, who said he was testifying before the commission as a whistle
blower and in violation of his Justice supervisor's instructions, said that
there is a "hostile atmosphere" in the civil rights division that did not
"reflect race neutral policies." He said the country's major civil rights
organizations are also biased against race-neutral enforcement."
http://tinyurl.com/3x5ts8o
"In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over
the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther
Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil
rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white
victims. "
http://tinyurl.com/3x8q42h
-Eddie Haskell
Waldo Tunnel
Jun 8, 2012, 1:21:20 AM6/8/12
to
Dufus: You can't seem to quote text correctly so that normal readers
can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
Get your act together, Haskell.
[...]
>
> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
> But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
But
> I bet ya hate him!
>
> The republican congress and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the economy.
Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
> and held the line on spending.
Clinton raised taxes on the rich, goofy! And it set off a major boom.
You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
need to take my word for it.
>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
> years
Thanks for proving my point about you irrational hatred. Thanks for
proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
government-republicans.
History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
ok?
>that he ushered them in and proceed to fight them tooth and nail the
> rest of his term.
BS. You are a dope. Ever heard of Alan Greenspan? He was Fed Chairman
under Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. Greenspan would disagree with
you. But you know better, right?
> > but that was back when we were all still Americans and
> > before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
> You mean like when the Southern racists abandoned the party and
misshapen cranium led you to this erroneous conclusion? Back it up,
Eddie.
> and are the most patriotic as well.
What the fu_k do you know about patriotism? What have *you* ever
sacrificed for "your" (actually _my_) country? Slacker.
> Meanwhile, you democrats voted
I'm not a democrat, you stupid fuck.
> in a blatant racist anti-American to the office of president.
What members of Congress would subscribe to your position, Eddie? Name
them. If you can't name any, then who is out of touch? Better not
answer that question.
can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
Get your act together, Haskell.
[...]
>
> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
> But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
But
> I bet ya hate him!
>
Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
> and held the line on spending.
You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
need to take my word for it.
>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
> years
proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
government-republicans.
History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
ok?
>that he ushered them in and proceed to fight them tooth and nail the
> rest of his term.
under Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. Greenspan would disagree with
you. But you know better, right?
> > but that was back when we were all still Americans and
> > before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
> flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
>
Eddie:
>
> Southerners vote GOP because they are the most informed politically in the
> country,
Wow. What random collision of quarks in the vast emptiness of your
> country,
misshapen cranium led you to this erroneous conclusion? Back it up,
Eddie.
> and are the most patriotic as well.
sacrificed for "your" (actually _my_) country? Slacker.
> Meanwhile, you democrats voted
I'm not a democrat, you stupid fuck.
> in a blatant racist anti-American to the office of president.
them. If you can't name any, then who is out of touch? Better not
answer that question.
Eddie Haskell
Jun 8, 2012, 2:10:38 PM6/8/12
to
news:9964f5b7-927f-40b2...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
know how to do is regurgitate the Goebbels propaganda of the left, but the
fact is that the average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than
even Reagan and Clinton proved Reaganomics.
Dan Rather must not have told you.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
>> years
>
> Thanks for proving my point about you irrational hatred.
That hatred was perfectly rational and ushered in the republican congress
that held the line on Reaganomics, spending, and made the Clinton
presidency. That's because unlike democrats we put country ahead of party.
> Thanks for
> proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
> government-republicans.
Even though we were responsible for it while Clinton went to the mat for
budget busting Hillarycare.
> History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
> Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
Typical omission of the congress under each, coupled with ignoring the
democrat's financial crisis in order to posit a lie. Well done. You must be
working up a resume to get a job at the DNC.
> Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
> ok?
Like what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMPPGlOpUiM
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
>>that he ushered them in and proceed to fight them tooth and nail the
>> rest of his term.
>
> BS. You are a dope. Ever heard of Alan Greenspan? He was Fed Chairman
> under Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. Greenspan would disagree with
> you. But you know better, right?
And that has what to do with the fact that Clinton was so despised after two
years that he ushered in the republican congress that made his presidency?
>> > but that was back when we were all still Americans and
>> > before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
>
> > You mean like when the Southern racists abandoned the party and
> > flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
>>
> Eddie:
>> Southerners vote GOP because they are the most informed politically in
>> the
>> country,
>
> Wow. What random collision of quarks in the vast emptiness of your
> misshapen cranium led you to this erroneous conclusion? Back it up,
> Eddie.
I did and you deleted it. Explain why I should waste any further time on you
and have it on my desk in an hour.
-Eddie Haskell
> Dufus: You can't seem to quote text correctly so that normal readers
> can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
>
> Get your act together, Haskell.
>
> [...]
>>
>> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
>
> > But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
> But
> > I bet ya hate him!
>>
>> The republican congress and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the
>> economy.
>
> Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
>
>> and held the line on spending.
>
> Clinton raised taxes on the rich, goofy! And it set off a major boom.
> You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
> available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
> need to take my word for it.
You're comparing one year of Clinton to one year previous because all you
> can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
>
> Get your act together, Haskell.
>
> [...]
>>
>> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
>
> > But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
> But
> > I bet ya hate him!
>>
>> The republican congress and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the
>> economy.
>
> Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
>
>> and held the line on spending.
>
> Clinton raised taxes on the rich, goofy! And it set off a major boom.
> You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
> available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
> need to take my word for it.
know how to do is regurgitate the Goebbels propaganda of the left, but the
fact is that the average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than
even Reagan and Clinton proved Reaganomics.
Dan Rather must not have told you.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
>>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
>> years
>
> Thanks for proving my point about you irrational hatred.
that held the line on Reaganomics, spending, and made the Clinton
presidency. That's because unlike democrats we put country ahead of party.
> Thanks for
> proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
> government-republicans.
budget busting Hillarycare.
> History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
> Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
democrat's financial crisis in order to posit a lie. Well done. You must be
working up a resume to get a job at the DNC.
> Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
> ok?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMPPGlOpUiM
"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory
overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a
decade ago."
"Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency
would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the
two largest players in the mortgage lending industry."
http://tinyurl.com/6lp5qu
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on
these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
>>that he ushered them in and proceed to fight them tooth and nail the
>> rest of his term.
>
> BS. You are a dope. Ever heard of Alan Greenspan? He was Fed Chairman
> under Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton. Greenspan would disagree with
> you. But you know better, right?
years that he ushered in the republican congress that made his presidency?
>> > but that was back when we were all still Americans and
>> > before the fascist socialists had taken over the democrat party.
>
> > You mean like when the Southern racists abandoned the party and
> > flocked to the GOP some 50 years ago? Is that what you mean?
>>
> Eddie:
>> Southerners vote GOP because they are the most informed politically in
>> the
>> country,
>
> Wow. What random collision of quarks in the vast emptiness of your
> misshapen cranium led you to this erroneous conclusion? Back it up,
> Eddie.
and have it on my desk in an hour.
-Eddie Haskell
Waldo Tunnel
Jun 10, 2012, 11:57:49 AM6/10/12
to
On Jun 8, 11:10 am, "Eddie Haskell" <y...@ssspp.com> wrote:
> "Waldo Tunnel" <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
you.
>
> >> and held the line on spending.
>
> > Clinton raised taxes on the rich, goofy! And it set off a major boom.
> > You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
> > available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
> > need to take my word for it.
>
> You're comparing one year of Clinton to one year previous
No I'm not.
> because all you
> know how to do is regurgitate the Goebbels propaganda of the left,
Fantasizing that Goebbels was on the political left doesn't help you
either.
>but the
> fact is that the average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than
> even Reagan
You're out of your league. "Top marginal rate" is only one bit of how
you evaluate the tax burden. An article from 1993: THE CLINTON TAX
BILL; CLINTON PROPOSAL FOR TAX INCREASES PASSES FIRST TEST Read the
article. I dare ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/14/us/the-clinton-tax-bill-clinton-proposal-for-tax-increases-passes-first-test.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
>and Clinton proved Reaganomics.
You don't even know who Stockman is. You're a crackup, kid. BTW Reagan
raised taxes several times. So maybe you have a point of some kind.
[...]
> >>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
> >> years
>
> > Thanks for proving my point about you irrational hatred.
>
> That hatred was perfectly rational
Except you can't explain it without lying about him.
>and ushered in the republican congress
> that held the line on Reaganomics, spending, and made the Clinton
> presidency.
Hahahaha! Make it worth my while--stick your neck out further-- and
I'll be glad to eviscerate this simplistic scenario of yours. With
facts. I double-dog dare ya.
> That's because unlike democrats we put country ahead of party.
Like voting the rich tax breaks? Like sacrificing _nothing_ for your
country? Example: I bet you *never* served your country. I bet none of
your GOP cohorts have served either.
Am I right? You tell me. Lie if you have the nerve.
> > Thanks for
> > proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
> > government-republicans.
>
> Even though we were responsible for it while Clinton went to the mat for
> budget busting Hillarycare.
Wow. You really have no intention of being honest or objective, do
you?
>
> > History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
> > Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
>
> Typical omission of the congress under each,
I love watching you wiggle in order to avoid all responsibility for
your own policies.
Dig: Bush had republicans in both houses. From Wiki
"The One Hundred Eighth United States Congress was the legislative
branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United
States Senate and the United States House of Representatives from
January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005, during the third and fourth years
of George W. Bush's presidency.
"House members were elected in the 2002 general election on November
5, 2002. Senators were elected in three classes in the 1998 general
election on November 3, 1998, 2000 general election on November 7,
2000, or 2002 general election on November 5, 2002. The apportionment
of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the Twenty-
second Census of the United States in 2000. Both chambers had a
Republican majority.
Get it?: "Both chambers had a Republican majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress
>coupled with ignoring the
> democrat's financial crisis in order to posit a lie. Well done. You must be
> working up a resume to get a job at the DNC.
This must be very embarrassing for you.
>
> > Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
> > ok?
>
> Like what?
Learn about the author of "Reganomics," David Stockman, before you
pontificate on the subject further. Ok?
[...]
Have a nice day!
> "Waldo Tunnel" <waldotun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9964f5b7-927f-40b2...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > Dufus: You can't seem to quote text correctly so that normal readers
> > can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
>
> > Get your act together, Haskell.
>
> > [...]
>
> >> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
>
> > > But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
> > But
> > > I bet ya hate him!
>
> >> The republican congress and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the
> >> economy.
So that must mean that Obama isn't responsible either!
> news:9964f5b7-927f-40b2...@si8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > Dufus: You can't seem to quote text correctly so that normal readers
> > can discern who is who. Point: Learn to quote text, idiot.
>
> > Get your act together, Haskell.
>
> > [...]
>
> >> >and he brought about the longest economic boom inhistory at the time,
>
> > > But now Clinton holds that record and he balanced the budget too.
> > But
> > > I bet ya hate him!
>
> >> The republican congress and Newt Gingrich were responsible for the
> >> economy.
>
> > Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
Didn't think you did. You just parrot what your political guru tells
> > Do you know who David Stockman is, junior?
you.
>
> >> and held the line on spending.
>
> > Clinton raised taxes on the rich, goofy! And it set off a major boom.
> > You can lie about this if you want but the facts/truth in action are
> > available to anyone who cares to look it up. You sure as shit don't
> > need to take my word for it.
>
> You're comparing one year of Clinton to one year previous
> because all you
> know how to do is regurgitate the Goebbels propaganda of the left,
either.
>but the
> fact is that the average top marginal rate was lower during Clinton than
> even Reagan
you evaluate the tax burden. An article from 1993: THE CLINTON TAX
BILL; CLINTON PROPOSAL FOR TAX INCREASES PASSES FIRST TEST Read the
article. I dare ya:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/14/us/the-clinton-tax-bill-clinton-proposal-for-tax-increases-passes-first-test.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
>and Clinton proved Reaganomics.
You don't even know who Stockman is. You're a crackup, kid. BTW Reagan
raised taxes several times. So maybe you have a point of some kind.
[...]
> >>All Clinton did was be so despised in his first two
> >> years
>
> > Thanks for proving my point about you irrational hatred.
>
> That hatred was perfectly rational
>and ushered in the republican congress
> that held the line on Reaganomics, spending, and made the Clinton
> presidency.
I'll be glad to eviscerate this simplistic scenario of yours. With
facts. I double-dog dare ya.
> That's because unlike democrats we put country ahead of party.
country? Example: I bet you *never* served your country. I bet none of
your GOP cohorts have served either.
Am I right? You tell me. Lie if you have the nerve.
> > Thanks for
> > proving that balancing the budget was no priority to your big-
> > government-republicans.
>
> Even though we were responsible for it while Clinton went to the mat for
> budget busting Hillarycare.
you?
>
> > History: Bush P41: major deficits. Clinton P42: budget surpluses.
> > Bush P43: major deficits/& recession]
>
> Typical omission of the congress under each,
your own policies.
Dig: Bush had republicans in both houses. From Wiki
"The One Hundred Eighth United States Congress was the legislative
branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United
States Senate and the United States House of Representatives from
January 3, 2003 to January 3, 2005, during the third and fourth years
of George W. Bush's presidency.
"House members were elected in the 2002 general election on November
5, 2002. Senators were elected in three classes in the 1998 general
election on November 3, 1998, 2000 general election on November 7,
2000, or 2002 general election on November 5, 2002. The apportionment
of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the Twenty-
second Census of the United States in 2000. Both chambers had a
Republican majority.
Get it?: "Both chambers had a Republican majority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress
>coupled with ignoring the
> democrat's financial crisis in order to posit a lie. Well done. You must be
> working up a resume to get a job at the DNC.
>
> > Look, Eddie. Just take responsibility here for the GOP's fuck-ups,
> > ok?
>
> Like what?
pontificate on the subject further. Ok?
[...]
Have a nice day!
0 new messages