The Obama Economy
Cliff
The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
(see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
numbers already (after only about a year).
"U.S. corporate earnings should top forecasts again in
the first quarter ..."
"Standard & Poor's 500 companies' first-quarter profits are seen up 36.8
percent versus a year ago, which would be a second straight quarter of
year-over-year profit growth,"
""We're seeing stronger economic data than what we expected, and that should
translate into a little bit better revenue growth.""
"The S&P 500 now is up 76 percent from its March 2009... "
The rethugs & wingers want to change all this .... remember what they did
last time ...
--
Cliff
RogerN
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the future
generations!
RogerN
John R. Carroll
> "Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
> news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
>> Leading indicators ....
>>
>> The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
>> (see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
>> numbers already (after only about a year).
>>
>> "U.S. corporate earnings should top forecasts again in
>> the first quarter ..."
>>
>> "Standard & Poor's 500 companies' first-quarter profits are seen
>> up 36.8 percent versus a year ago, which would be a second straight
>> quarter of year-over-year profit growth,"
>>
>> ""We're seeing stronger economic data than what we expected, and
>> that should
>> translate into a little bit better revenue growth.""
>>
>> "The S&P 500 now is up 76 percent from its March 2009... "
>>
>> The rethugs & wingers want to change all this .... remember what
>> they did last time ...
>
> future generations!
Yeah, isn't it?
Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire world.
"Mission Accomplisherated"
--
John R. Carroll
Wes
>> It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
>> future generations!
>
>Yeah, isn't it?
>Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire world.
>"Mission Accomplisherated"
>
Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending comes out of iirc.
Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.
Wes
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>>> It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
>>> future generations!
>>
>> Yeah, isn't it?
>> Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire
>> world. "Mission Accomplisherated"
>>
>
> Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending
> comes out of iirc.
But not on the budget Wes. A significant amount of the fresh debt came out
of the Bush White House as supplemental spending authorizations. How does
Congress defund troops in the field? As a practical matter they can't.
> Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.
I believe the Courts did that and those bonds wouldn't have been worth the
paper they were written on.
The appropriate value was nearly zero. What was screwed up was that the
holders of GM and Chrysler Credit Default Swaps couldn't get paid off since
they took new debt + stock. There was also a fair amount of just CDS's that
didn't pay either.
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:IM7wn.542490$FK3.1...@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
No...No...No...The "But-Bush" Libtard Neo-Socialist Douchebagger crowd has
their pre-programmed mindset and will spout what their handlers at "Move-On,
Kos, and Huffington TELL them to think! Don't confuse them with facts, just
go along with what ever they say, they are as harmless as they are stupid.
Just useful idiots for their masters.
YEP!!!! ALL Bush's fault!
Wes
>Wes wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's amazing what you can do when you steal enough money from the
>>>> future generations!
>>>
>>> Yeah, isn't it?
>>> Bush stole $6 trillion dollars and amazed the hell out of the entire
>>> world. "Mission Accomplisherated"
>>>
>>
>> Bush didn't steal. The House of Representatives is where spending
>> comes out of iirc.
>
>But not on the budget Wes. A significant amount of the fresh debt came out
>of the Bush White House as supplemental spending authorizations. How does
>Congress defund troops in the field? As a practical matter they can't.
GWB can't spend a sent that Congress doesn't authorize. As to defunding the troops, that
is something few politicians want to touch. Now if they would just declare war and do it
right in the first place, we wouldn't have this sort of problem.
>
>> Now how the bond holders got fleeced over GM, that is a true rip off.
>
>I believe the Courts did that and those bonds wouldn't have been worth the
>paper they were written on.
>The appropriate value was nearly zero. What was screwed up was that the
>holders of GM and Chrysler Credit Default Swaps couldn't get paid off since
>they took new debt + stock. There was also a fair amount of just CDS's that
>didn't pay either.
The true value is zero, same as the UAW contracts. Somehow the bondholders got a hair cut
nad the union got their pay off. GM should have gone Chapter 7. I guess GM was too big
to fail.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
John R. Carroll
Bond holders were entitled to the liquidation proceeds.
--
John R. Carroll
Chief Egalitarian
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
> Leading indicators ....
>
> The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
> (see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
> numbers already (after only about a year).
Really, liar? Let's compare Obama's imaginary 11,000 to Bush's real 14,000.
Or maybe to the entire year before Obama announced he would seek his party's
nomination and tanked the economy.
Iarnrod
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>
> news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
>
> > Leading indicators ....
>
> > The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
> > (see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
> > numbers already (after only about a year).
>
> Really, liar? Let's compare Obama's imaginary 11,000 to Bush's real 14,000.
Bush's "real" 14,000?? Are you fucked in the head, you dope? Wow. We
learned how "real" it was. GOP almost put America into the Second
Great GOP Depression. If not for Dems, you'd be selling pencils on the
street right now.
The PHANTOM
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
Just wait till the damned fool shoves Cap&Tax down our throats and
makes 30 million+ illegal mexxkins citizens against the will of the
people.
dca...@krl.org
> > > Leading indicators ....
>
>
> Bush's "real" 14,000?? Are you fucked in the head, you dope? Wow. We
> learned how "real" it was. GOP almost put America into the Second
> Great GOP Depression. If not for Dems, you'd be selling pencils on the
> street right now.
Who was president on Oct 9th 2007? Careful it is a trick question.
Dan
Chief Egalitarian
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:d8c5ad93-cf96-4bd4...@a9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Pay attention. Obama accepted his party's nomination at the end of August.
That's when the slide started. Check the charts moron. In February 2009 AO
(after Obama) we hit Dow 6600. He said he wanted to bring back the Clinton
days. He succeeded. You putz.
Darrell Stec
No he wouldn't. He would be worse off than that now. Modern laws prevent
someone from selling pencils on street corners now days. Businesses, even
that of the pencil vendor, are over regulated.
--
Later,
Darrell
Darrell Stec
Only against the wills of biased, prejudiced idiots. Those of us who can
think have no problems with immigrants because we know ALL citizens came
from immigrants.
--
Later,
Darrell
Chief Egalitarian
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:d8c5ad93-cf96-4bd4...@a9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
October 9, 2007? Dow 14,164.53? That would be George W. Bush. Who did the
libs think was President? Jimmy Carter? LOL Laugh, Laugh, Laugh, snort!
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Because of the Dems..a shitload of people ARE selling pencils on the
street right now.
Chief Egalitarian
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:82ehip...@mid.individual.net...
Obama would be trying to smoke the pencils.
Hawke
It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
loaf is a lot better than nothing.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Who was president on Oct 9th 2007? Careful it is a trick question.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> October 9, 2007? Dow 14,164.53? That would be George W. Bush. Who did
> the libs think was President? Jimmy Carter? LOL Laugh, Laugh, Laugh, snort!
Jimmy Carter is who the republicans would blame if things were going
badly on that date. Have you noticed that no matter what bad thing
happens during a republican administration the right wing blames a
Democrat for it? Bush is president on 9/11. Who do the republicans blame
for it? Clinton. It's always the same. Bush spends trillions we don't
have, starts two wars he doesn't win, leaves the economy in shambles
when he walks out, and who does the right wing blame? Obama. Anyone with
even half a brain has the republicans figured out. Everyone is to blame
but them. The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would make a
fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
Hawke
Hawke
Yeah, sure, and it's the Democrats fault that you can't make any money,
are broke, are hugely in debt, and have a bad heart. Can't take
responsibility for one damn thing, can you? That qualifies you as a full
fledged member of the right wing.
Hawke
dca...@krl.org
>
> It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
> followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
> the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
> preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
> happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
> entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
> loaf is a lot better than nothing.
>
> Hawke
It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
everything. The bond holders just like other creditors would have
received their portion of the assets.
Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
stock, I would sell it.
Dan
John R. Carroll
> On Apr 11, 6:13 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could
>> have followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go
>> bankrupt. Then the bond holders would have lost everything. You
>> think they would have preferred we did it that way? Or do you think
>> they are going to be happier having GM be profitable very soon and
>> them not losing their entire investment, and making some money as
>> well? Sometimes a half a loaf is a lot better than nothing.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
> everything.
And did.
>The bond holders just like other creditors would have
> received their portion of the assets.
>
> Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
> stock, I would sell it.
>
> Dan
--
John R. Carroll
dca...@krl.org
> The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
> But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would make a
> fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>
> Hawke
I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
one of the left wing.
But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
Dan
John R. Carroll
You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the ticket
needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
qualifications.
--
John R. Carroll
wmbjk...@citlink.net
That doesn't make any sense. She's already been a candidate for
national office. So she didn't win, she's still a proven vote-getter
and crowd pleaser. I know that the party establishment will work
against her, but that's mostly because they know she'd be out of
control. The idea that somebody enjoys teasing the dems with her
candidacy is ludicrous, her running would have every dem giddy with
glee. Have you forgotten how O schooled those old GOP hands? Think
what he could do with an airhead like Palin. It would be glorious, and
every serious GOPer's worst nightmare.
Wayne
RogerN
Obama has been clued in by Conservatives. A couple of weeks ago Obama
wasn't worried about nukes going to terrorists but was concerned that Israel
was building apartments (apartments of mass destruction?) in their own
capitol. Conservative Republicans started telling him that nuclear weapons
in the hands of terrorists was a bigger problem than Israel building
apartments. Maybe the Idiot listened this time.
Obama: Nuclear terrorism is 'the single biggest threat' to U.S.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/04/obama-kicks-off-nuclear-summit-with-five-leader-meetings/1
RogerN
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:e4adnbLIDNt9x1_W...@giganews.com...
True she doesn't have a resume' to impress a liberal but she has more
character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
RogerN
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:e4adnbLIDNt9x1_W...@giganews.com...
>> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:22 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>> The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
>>>> But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would
>>>> make a fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>>>>
>>>> Hawke
>>>
>>> I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
>>> one of the left wing.
>>> But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
>>> national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
>>> electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
>>
>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the
>> ticket
>> needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>> qualifications.
>>
>
> character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
>
She's a character, that's for sure.
Fey did Palin again this week on SNL. I have only seen a clip so far but it
looked amusing.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
You beat me. d8-)
John R. Carroll
LOL
My printer was running a motion and the memorandum of points and
authorities, so I had a while.
One good thing about our conversations here Ed is that you reacquainted me
with the value of research.
I brushed up and can produce good research in large quantities on the spot.
I can only imagine what the process looked like before computers and the
internet.
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
Damn, then my work is done here. d8-)
Before the Internet I had to do a lot of this kind of research, too. It
sucked in a major way. I smelled like a library and my typing fingers were
flattened on the ends.
--
Ed Huntress
Przemek Klosowski
>>>>They think Sarah Palin would make a fine
>>>> president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
> True she doesn't have a resume' to impress a liberal but she has more
> character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions, who is incapable of
acknowledging good faith of anyone not sharing her preconceived notions.
Latest example is her telling quote about "snake oil science":
http://www.adn.com/2010/02/08/1130212/palin-calls-global-warming-
studies.html
Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current prevailing
theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is lost on Ms.
Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her circlejerk
choir, and rest of the world be damned.
Eregon
news:hpu6gr$9i6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions, who is incapable of
> acknowledging good faith of anyone not sharing her preconceived
> notions. Latest example is her telling quote about "snake oil
> science":
>
> http://www.adn.com/2010/02/08/1130212/palin-calls-global-warming-
> studies.html
>
> Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current
> prevailing theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is
> lost on Ms. Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her
> circlejerk choir, and rest of the world be damned.
Since it has been scientifically proven that algore's Global Warming scam
is just that - a scam - then anyone who continues to believe in it is,
quite obviously, a total idiot.
Whether the climate cools or heats, the concept of a purely human cause
is nothing short of egoistic bigotry. Perhaps this is the appeal to
Socialists, Communists, and other "Progressives".
dca...@krl.org
> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the ticket
> needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
> qualifications.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
I think you might see her campaigning for someone else, but not on the
ticket.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> That doesn't make any sense. She's already been a candidate for
> national office. So she didn't win, she's still a proven vote-getter
> and crowd pleaser. I know that the party establishment will work
> against her, but that's mostly because they know she'd be out of
> control. The idea that somebody enjoys teasing the dems with her
> candidacy is ludicrous, her running would have every dem giddy with
> glee. Have you forgotten how O schooled those old GOP hands? Think
> what he could do with an airhead like Palin. It would be glorious, and
> every serious GOPer's worst nightmare.
>
> Wayne
It makes perfect sense to me. She is not a proven vote getter. She
is a proven loser. She might think she could be a candidate, but
would not raise enough money to be a serious candidate.
You say teasing the Democrat is ludicrous and then say her running
would make Democrats giddy in the same sentence. Which do you mean?
Dan
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Apr 11, 8:51 pm, wmbjkREM...@citlink.net wrote:
>
>> That doesn't make any sense. She's already been a candidate for
>> national office. So she didn't win, she's still a proven vote-getter
>> and crowd pleaser. I know that the party establishment will work
>> against her, but that's mostly because they know she'd be out of
>> control. The idea that somebody enjoys teasing the dems with her
>> candidacy is ludicrous, her running would have every dem giddy with
>> glee. Have you forgotten how O schooled those old GOP hands? Think
>> what he could do with an airhead like Palin. It would be glorious, and
>> every serious GOPer's worst nightmare.
>>
>> Wayne
>
>It makes perfect sense to me. She is not a proven vote getter. She
>is a proven loser..
Huh? She got elected mayor and governor. She was chosen to get votes
for McCain, and she did, just not enough. Heck, she was stumping for
him again just recently. Do you think he brought her in to lose votes?
> She might think she could be a candidate, but
>would not raise enough money to be a serious candidate.
That remains to be seen. Lots of GOPers think that Palin-Beck or
Palin-Bachman would be a dream ticket. Lots of elected GOPers have
been pandering to that crowd, which isn't interested in hearing
somebody like Romney waffle on how he can be for and against health
care reform. Those folks want the simpleton clarity of somebody like
Palin, much as they wanted it from GW. If there are enough of them
then the money will come. Don't forget that not long before GW got
into the race, even he didn't believe that the money would flow his
way.
>You say teasing the Democrat is ludicrous
It is ludicrous. GOP party hacks aren't teasing dems, they're teasing
their own base, who just might run with it. After 08 smart people were
saying that the GOP would have to learn from its loss and make real
changes. Instead they doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on their
losing rhetoric.
> and then say her running
>would make Democrats giddy in the same sentence.
It does make dems giddy. Sensible GOPers might be afraid of her
running, but that's about it. Here's another prediction: if she runs,
or even if she merely tries to run, multiple left-wing web sites will
spring up to solicit money for her. Parody and satire will flow like
Niagara Falls. It will be epic. If she wins the nomination it would be
ideal for the left. But even if she doesn't, the damage will be done.
We will see months of GOP over-the-top nonsense about cutting the
deficit and debt with trickle down, returning to Mayberry by drill
baby drill, cutting teen pregnancy by telling kids to stop doing that,
cutting health care costs by empowering insurance companies etc. We
might even hear multiple candidates for pres demand to see O's birth
certificate. In other words, mostly the same old stuff, but at
whatever volume is deemed sufficient to prevent disappointing an
enraged base.
Wayne
Gunner Asch
Then she shares the same value system as Leftwingers?
Gunner
Iarnrod
> > learned how "real" it was. GOP almost put America into the Second
> > Great GOP Depression. If not for Dems, you'd be selling pencils on the
> > street right now.
>
The trick is that you think it is a meaningful question, kooker. The
question isn't when did it occur, but how "real" it was. It was a
bubble that burst, another GOP economic disaster.
Iarnrod
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT),Iarnrod<iarn...@yahoo.com>
You meant Repubs, kook. The GOP Recession.
John R. Carroll
> On Apr 11, 8:28 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the
>> ticket needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>> qualifications.
>>
>
> ticket.
That's probably more likely.
She's a great draw, sort of like booth babes at a trade show.
--
John R. Carroll
RogerN
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:W_KdnccD555F5V7W...@giganews.com...
It's really sad that Hitlary makes Monica lewinski look good. I don't blame
Bill, Hillary would give anyone E.D.!!!!
RogerN
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>>
>> Because of the Dems..a shitload of people ARE selling pencils on the
>> street right now.
>
>You meant Repubs, kook. The GOP Recession.
No..I mean Leftards, fagboi. The Democrat Recession.
Seems Congress was taken over by Democrats in 2008. And they control
the economy.
And they have pissed in it.
Larry Jaques
Klosowski <prz...@tux.dot.org> scrawled the following:
You seem to have missed the memo, PK. In the past year, dozens of
scandals have broken out over anthropogenic global warming(kumbaya).
Have you missed every single one of them? Heads have rolled, leaders
of climate centers have stepped down and renounced their claims, etc.
The question is, how have you missed all of this? Or is your gullible
meter stuck on HIGH?
AGWK is political rhetoric with just enough cherrypicked science
thrown in to make it believeable...to gullible liberals. So, how does
that snake oil taste, anyway?
--
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace
will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will
blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy,
while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn.
-- John Muir
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:W_KdnccD555F5V7W...@giganews.com...
>> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 8:28 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of
>>>> the ticket needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>>>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>>>> qualifications.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you might see her campaigning for someone else, but not on
>>> the ticket.
>>
>> That's probably more likely.
>> She's a great draw, sort of like booth babes at a trade show.
>>
>
Why would you care about that Roger? Doesn't the Bible say something about
coveting thy neighbor's wife?
> I don't blame Bill, Hillary would give anyone E.D.!!!!
I don't recall hearing anything about E.D., just the opposite.
Why don't you post a pic of your woman Roger and we'll see how she stacks
up.
--
John R. Carroll
RogerN
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> RogerN wrote:
>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>> news:W_KdnccD555F5V7W...@giganews.com...
>>> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>>> On Apr 11, 8:28 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of
>>>>> the ticket needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>>>>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>>>>> qualifications.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you might see her campaigning for someone else, but not on
>>>> the ticket.
>>>
>>> That's probably more likely.
>>> She's a great draw, sort of like booth babes at a trade show.
>>>
>>
>> It's really sad that Hitlary makes Monica lewinski look good.
>
> Why would you care about that Roger? Doesn't the Bible say something about
> coveting thy neighbor's wife?
I covet a picture of Hillary to scare the rodents away from my equipment.
>> I don't blame Bill, Hillary would give anyone E.D.!!!!
>
> I don't recall hearing anything about E.D., just the opposite.
I wasn't talking about Hillary getting an erection, I doubt she'd have a
problem.
> Why don't you post a pic of your woman Roger and we'll see how she stacks
> up.
>
> --
> John R. Carroll
She looks better than Hillary for sure, but her husband doesn't look to
good! :-)
RogerN
Chief Egalitarian
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:_badnaGKItU-61_W...@giganews.com...
Fey's a washed up douche bag who got a second life thanks to Palin. Not
quite as pretty as Sarah, but good enough for her resurrected act. Otherwise
some Hollywood street people Obama voters would be pouring gasoline on her
and setting her a fire by now. She should thank the hand that feeds her.
Hawke
> On Apr 11, 6:13 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> It could have been worse for them, you know. The government could have
>> followed the advice of the republicans and just let GM go bankrupt. Then
>> the bond holders would have lost everything. You think they would have
>> preferred we did it that way? Or do you think they are going to be
>> happier having GM be profitable very soon and them not losing their
>> entire investment, and making some money as well? Sometimes a half a
>> loaf is a lot better than nothing.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> It does not work that way. The stockholders would have lost
> everything. The bond holders just like other creditors would have
> received their portion of the assets.
>
> Personally I do not think GM is going to be profitable. If I had GM
> stock, I would sell it.
>
> Dan
>
You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have heard
the president of GM saying just last week that he expected the company
to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is turning around
and will be a profitable company again. All it took was some backing
from the government to keep it going long enough to come back. And you
think that was a mistake? I don't think giving advice to the government
on how to deal with financial problems is your line of work. You better
stick with what you do now.
Hawke
Hawke
> On Apr 11, 6:22 pm, Hawke<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
>> But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would make a
>> fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
> one of the left wing.
> But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
> national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
> electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
>
>
Hey Dan,
If you are able to tell that Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in the
requisites to be a successful president of the United States then I
doubt that you qualify a right winger. Because the people who think
she'd make a fine president are nothing but right wingers. Nobody else
would think that but them. So I think you're okay.
Hawke
Hawke
>>> I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
>>> one of the left wing.
>>> But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
>>> national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
>>> electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
>>
>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the
>> ticket
>> needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>> qualifications.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>>
>
> True she doesn't have a resume' to impress a liberal but she has more
> character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
>
> RogerN
>
>
How do you figure that? It appears that all she's out for is self
aggrandizement and personal profit. So where's all this character you
see in her? For one thing she's already been caught in numerous lies.
Not to mention plenty of other signs that she's not of high moral character.
Hawke
Chief Egalitarian
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hq0ot1$63e$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Talk to your hand Hack, while you stare at your pin-up poster of Pelosi. Why
does it smell like fish wherever she goes?
Hawke
>> Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions, who is incapable of
>> acknowledging good faith of anyone not sharing her preconceived notions.
>> Latest example is her telling quote about "snake oil science":
>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2010/02/08/1130212/palin-calls-global-warming-
>> studies.html
>>
>> Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current prevailing
>> theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is lost on Ms.
>> Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her circlejerk
>> choir, and rest of the world be damned.
>
> You seem to have missed the memo, PK. In the past year, dozens of
> scandals have broken out over anthropogenic global warming(kumbaya).
> Have you missed every single one of them? Heads have rolled, leaders
> of climate centers have stepped down and renounced their claims, etc.
> The question is, how have you missed all of this? Or is your gullible
> meter stuck on HIGH?
>
> AGWK is political rhetoric with just enough cherrypicked science
> thrown in to make it believeable...to gullible liberals. So, how does
> that snake oil taste, anyway?
I see that you didn't read my post on Koch Industries so I understand
why you are so ill informed. The whole anti global warming effort is
bought and paid for by the coal industry and other energy producers.
They have spent over 50 million dollars to sucker rubes like you into
believing that the finest climate scientists in the world are idiots who
don't know what they are doing. And you went for it like a fly to shit.
You and your ilk prove P.T. Barnum's maxim about fools is as appropriate
now as it was when he first said it. You will always be the last person
to get what's going on. I wonder what you'll be saying this summer when
new records for heat are being set once again. Just another coincidence?
Hawke
Hawke
>>
>> Hey Dan,
>>
>> If you are able to tell that Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in the
>> requisites to be a successful president of the United States then I
>> doubt that you qualify a right winger. Because the people who think
>> she'd make a fine president are nothing but right wingers. Nobody else
>> would think that but them. So I think you're okay.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Talk to your hand Hack, while you stare at your pin-up poster of Pelosi.
> Why does it smell like fish wherever she goes?
Uh, she has a cunt?
Hawke
Cliff
wrote:
> 30 million+ illegal mexxkins citizens
The ones that had been illegal to hire til Ronnie Raygun gutted the laws?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
>national office.
She would have to take an income cut.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>news:e4adnbLIDNt9x1_W...@giganews.com...
>> dca...@krl.org wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:22 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>>> The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
>>>> But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would make a
>>>> fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>>>>
>>>> Hawke
>>>
>>> I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
>>> one of the left wing.
>>> But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
>>> national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
>>> electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
>>
>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the
>> ticket
>> needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>> qualifications.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>>
>
>True she doesn't have a resume' to impress a liberal but she has more
>character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
IOW She's dumb, utterly ignorant, a slow learner & lies a lot.
Thanks for clearing that up.
>RogerN
--
Cliff
Cliff
<prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote:
>Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions
I did not know she was in jail ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
<prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:23:17 -0500, RogerN wrote:
>
>>>>>They think Sarah Palin would make a fine
>>>>> president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>
>> True she doesn't have a resume' to impress a liberal but she has more
>> character then all the liberals in the USA combined.
>
>Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions, who is incapable of
>acknowledging good faith of anyone not sharing her preconceived notions.
>Latest example is her telling quote about "snake oil science":
>
>http://www.adn.com/2010/02/08/1130212/palin-calls-global-warming-
>studies.html
[
Former Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch
of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state
that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations. Palin spoke before
a logging conference in Redding, a town of 90,000 about 160 miles north of the
state capital. The media were barred from the event, but The Associated Press
bought a $74 ticket to attend.
....
She criticized what she said were heavy-handed environmental laws. As Alaska
governor, for example, she said she sued the federal government to overturn the
listing of polar bears as a threatened species.
....
"And it didn't make any sense because it was based on these global warming
studies that now we're seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science."
....
"The weather will not change with the proposals," she said.
]
Nary a clue. Not a one.
>Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current prevailing
>theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is lost on Ms.
>Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her circlejerk
>choir, and rest of the world be damned.
Alaska already has climate refugees.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Przemek Klosowski <prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote in
>news:hpu6gr$9i6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions, who is incapable of
>> acknowledging good faith of anyone not sharing her preconceived
>> notions. Latest example is her telling quote about "snake oil
>> science":
>>
>> http://www.adn.com/2010/02/08/1130212/palin-calls-global-warming-
>> studies.html
>>
>> Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current
>> prevailing theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is
>> lost on Ms. Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her
>> circlejerk choir, and rest of the world be damned.
>
>Since it has been scientifically proven that algore's Global Warming scam
>is just that - a scam - then anyone who continues to believe in it is,
>quite obviously, a total idiot.
You lie on all counts.
>Whether the climate cools or heats, the concept of a purely human cause
>is nothing short of egoistic bigotry. Perhaps this is the appeal to
>Socialists, Communists, and other "Progressives".
You lie on all counts.
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
Which, like any good winger, she will repeat endlessly.
>Not to mention plenty of other signs that she's not of high moral character.
>
>Hawke
She's not a learner.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Apr 11, 8:28 pm, "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> You might see her as a VP candidate again but only if the top of the ticket
>> needs to rally the base late to get out the vote.
>> It certainly won't be because of her credentials, experience or
>> qualifications.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>
>I think you might see her campaigning for someone else, but not on the
>ticket.
>
> Dan
The someone else could get bush & sureshot too ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
><dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 11, 6:22 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>> The problem is everyone knows better except the right wing.
>>> But what do you expect from them. They think Sarah Palin would make a
>>> fine president. Just like they thought George Bush would.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>>I do not know if I qualify as one of the right wing. Damn sure not
>>one of the left wing.
>>But I think that Sarah Palin will not ever be a candidate for any
>>national office. I think the right wing does not think that she is
>>electable, but they enjoy teasing the Democrats.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. She's already been a candidate for
>national office. So she didn't win, she's still a proven vote-getter
>and crowd pleaser. I know that the party establishment will work
>against her, but that's mostly because they know she'd be out of
>control.
Teabaggers vs. rethugs .... will we ever see the day?
>The idea that somebody enjoys teasing the dems with her
>candidacy is ludicrous, her running would have every dem giddy with
>glee. Have you forgotten how O schooled those old GOP hands? Think
>what he could do with an airhead like Palin. It would be glorious, and
>every serious GOPer's worst nightmare.
>
>Wayne
--
Cliff
dca...@krl.org
> You're not much into investing are you? If you were you would have heard
> the president of GM saying just last week that he expected the company
> to go back to profitability in the next quarter. GM is turning around
> and will be a profitable company again. All it took was some backing
> from the government to keep it going long enough to come back. And you
> think that was a mistake? I don't think giving advice to the government
> on how to deal with financial problems is your line of work. You better
> stick with what you do now.
>
> Hawke
Actually I have a lot of investments. I am retired and the income
from my investments is more than my pension and Social Security
combined.
I would buy Ford before I bought GM or Chrysler. If I were looking to
buy car companies right now, I would be looking at Toyota. They have
better long term prospects than GM.
Dan
RogerN
Cliff seems obsessed with her so I'm just stirring crap. I barely recognize
her if I see her on TV, only listened to her a little when she was running
for VP and none since then. I do like that she believes in the
Constitution, gun rights, and is pro-life though. At least that's what I
heard, haven't listened to her more than a minute since the election, but
Cliff seems to have an obsession.
But as far as being out for self, what about Obama? He doesn't seem to care
in the least what the majority wants in America, he just wants to pile his
crap on others. Why did Obama even covet the job of President? Why did
someone with his 5 minutes of experience think themselves qualified to be
President? He was the candidate to get the black vote and the liberal vote,
that's about the extent of his qualifications.
RogerN
dca...@krl.org
> Hey Dan,
>
> If you are able to tell that Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in the
> requisites to be a successful president of the United States then I
> doubt that you qualify a right winger. Because the people who think
> she'd make a fine president are nothing but right wingers. Nobody else
> would think that but them. So I think you're okay.
>
> Hawke
I think that at least 80% of the GOP would agree with me. It is the
vocal far right that is provoking the Democrats. Lots of noise, but
not many people.
Dan
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>On Apr 12, 11:37 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hey Dan,
>>
>> If you are able to tell that Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in the
>> requisites to be a successful president of the United States then I
>> doubt that you qualify a right winger. Because the people who think
>> she'd make a fine president are nothing but right wingers. Nobody else
>> would think that but them. So I think you're okay.
>>
>> Hawke
>
>I think that at least 80% of the GOP would agree with me.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/palin-poll-zogby-romney/2010/01/27/id/348220
"Sarah Palin's recent book success and her new high-profile role on
Fox News are having a stunning impact on her political standing, with
a Newsmax-Zogby poll showing the former Alaska governor now leading
the GOP field as the party's preferred candidate for president."
> It is the
>vocal far right that is provoking the Democrats.
No, it is the vocal far right that is driving mainstream gop farther
right. Check out McCain's battle to keep his seat.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/13/facing-toughest-election-bid-mccain-moves-right-issues/
> Lots of noise, but not many people.
Nonsense. Here's a current example of how it works: a few rightards
call black congress members n*ggers. No big surprise there, I heard
two idiots I know use that word just last week. It's part of their
vocabulary, and pretty common at the tea party level of (not)
thinking. But then the more mainstream right falls all over themselves
pretending that even the far right doesn't talk like that. Denial of
the undeniable is becoming more acceptable among those formerly
assumed to be sensible.
The trends are obvious. They could easily reverse though if the
economy improves before the next election.
Wayne
Chief Egalitarian
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hq0qbl$7u8$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Uh, she is a cunt?
>
True dat, but answer the question.
Cliff
>Cliff seems to have an obsession.
She's so dumb it's often funny <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Whats wrong with them voting?
Even dumb wingers get to vote (if they can find their way
to the polls with help).
>and the liberal vote,
IOW The non-lying-winger, non-scum, non-ignorant & the educated vote.
Funny how that worked out, eh?
>that's about the extent of his qualifications.
>
>RogerN
>
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Apr 12, 11:37 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
IIRC about 20% of republicans would consider voting for Palin.
Not the top fifth .....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:43:14 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
><dca...@krl.org> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 12, 11:37�pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hey Dan,
>>>
>>> If you are able to tell that Sarah Palin is sadly lacking in the
>>> requisites to be a successful president of the United States then I
>>> doubt that you qualify a right winger. Because the people who think
>>> she'd make a fine president are nothing but right wingers. Nobody else
>>> would think that but them. So I think you're okay.
>>>
>>> Hawke
>>
>>I think that at least 80% of the GOP would agree with me.
>
>
>http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/palin-poll-zogby-romney/2010/01/27/id/348220
>"Sarah Palin's recent book success and her new high-profile role on
>Fox News are having a stunning impact on her political standing, with
>a Newsmax-Zogby poll showing the former Alaska governor now leading
>the GOP field as the party's preferred candidate for president."
That's pretty funny.
She came in at the bottom at the SOUTHERN rethug thing.
And we all know how Newsmax lies anyway.
http://politicalwire.com/
" .. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin fell to third place with 15% of the vote, down
from 18% a month earlier. ..."
>> It is the
>>vocal far right that is provoking the Democrats.
>
>No, it is the vocal far right that is driving mainstream gop farther
>right. Check out McCain's battle to keep his seat.
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/13/facing-toughest-election-bid-mccain-moves-right-issues/
He's running AGAINST Palin's teabagger, right?
>> Lots of noise, but not many people.
>
>Nonsense. Here's a current example of how it works: a few rightards
>call black congress members n*ggers. No big surprise there, I heard
>two idiots I know use that word just last week. It's part of their
>vocabulary, and pretty common at the tea party level of (not)
>thinking. But then the more mainstream right falls all over themselves
>pretending that even the far right doesn't talk like that. Denial of
>the undeniable is becoming more acceptable among those formerly
>assumed to be sensible.
>
>The trends are obvious. They could easily reverse though if the
>economy improves before the next election.
As long as we don't repeat (as the rethugs desire) what the rethugs did
to create & then prolong the Great Depression ...
>Wayne
--
Cliff
Hawke
Dan,
I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt? If
you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the right
thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to investing you
have to be aware that things are improving all over the place. At some
point credit for that is going to have to go to Obama's handling of the
economy. Of course, there will be those who will not admit that no
matter what.
Hawke
Hawke
> Former Gov. Sarah Palin called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch
> of snake oil science" Monday during a rare appearance in California, a state
> that has been at the forefront of environmental regulations. Palin spoke before
> a logging conference in Redding, a town of 90,000 about 160 miles north of the
> state capital. The media were barred from the event, but The Associated Press
> bought a $74 ticket to attend.
> ....
> She criticized what she said were heavy-handed environmental laws. As Alaska
> governor, for example, she said she sued the federal government to overturn the
> listing of polar bears as a threatened species.
> ....
> "And it didn't make any sense because it was based on these global warming
> studies that now we're seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science."
> ....
> "The weather will not change with the proposals," she said.
> ]
>
> Nary a clue. Not a one.
>
>> Even if one's view on global warming is opposed to the current prevailing
>> theory, it is unwise to dismiss it summarily---but this is lost on Ms.
>> Palin. She has her gut feeling and she's preaching to her circlejerk
>> choir, and rest of the world be damned.
>
> Alaska already has climate refugees.
Redding, Ca. is only 70 miles north of where I live. I wouldn't spend a
minute driving or a nickel for a ticket to see Sarah Palin. She's a
perfect example of what you call an "airhead". She should be a blond.
She's nothing more than an ignorant, bible thumping, self promoting,
egotist. No wonder she's the darling of the right wing.
Hawke
Hawke
I think you're right about Palin provoking the Democrats. She comes
across as the female version of George W. Bush. Everything that
Democrats hated about Bush; his cockiness and arrogance, his overt
religiousness, his lack of curiosity, his ignorance, and his my way or
the highway attitude, are all seen in Palin too. So the idea of her
being a leader of the right wing is especially galling to the left.
She's nothing but George Bush in a skirt. After his disastrous
presidency the thought of Palin being in power truly scares a lot of people.
She doesn't worry me because I know she's not going anywhere
politically. No way would the country ever elect her president and there
is nowhere else she could get elected after quitting half way through
her one term as governor. So she's a no threat to being elected to
anything. Right now she's enjoying her 15 minutes of fame and cashing
in on it. She's made 12 million already since she quit her job as
governor so it's clear what she was after. My prediction is that she's
not going to be heard of much longer. She'll have made her millions but
once it's clear she's never going to be elected to anything it'll be the
end of her.
Hawke
Hawke
> Cliff seems obsessed with her so I'm just stirring crap. I barely recognize
> her if I see her on TV, only listened to her a little when she was running
> for VP and none since then. I do like that she believes in the
> Constitution, gun rights, and is pro-life though. At least that's what I
> heard, haven't listened to her more than a minute since the election, but
> Cliff seems to have an obsession.
If you watch the news, read the papers, or listen to the radio, then you
are continually hearing about Palin. I'd say she's in the news second
only to Obama. She's the defacto head of the right wing right now. I've
heard her so many times that she's just boring. Same thing all the time
so I don't want to hear it but it's pretty hard to get away from it.
Like it or not she's in the news all the time.
>
> But as far as being out for self, what about Obama? He doesn't seem to care
> in the least what the majority wants in America, he just wants to pile his
> crap on others. Why did Obama even covet the job of President? Why did
> someone with his 5 minutes of experience think themselves qualified to be
> President? He was the candidate to get the black vote and the liberal vote,
> that's about the extent of his qualifications.
>
> RogerN
>
>
What you and a lot of others don't seem to understand is the role that
your elected officials are supposed to play. Do you think when you elect
someone to office they are just supposed to take a poll of what the
majority of their voters want and then just go along with that? Because
that's not how most people do it. You elect someone and then they do
what they think is right not just what the majority says.
Obama came to the White House with an agenda that he wanted to put in
place. He made it clear what he wanted to do when he was elected. One of
his plans were to do things the opposite of what Bush had done as
president. Another one of his main and stated goals was to pass health
care reform, and that is what he did. Does he take a poll and ask the
public if they want this? No. He told everyone what he was going to do
and now he's done it. He did what he said he was going to do and it
didn't matter what a poll says. Except for the poll that matters, the
election. Obama got elected to change health care in this country.
That is what leadership is all about. Obama is leading. At this point
qualifications are meaningless. He has the job, he has his agenda, and
he's working to make it happen. He knew from day one he was going to
have people like you who do not want him to make the changes he intended
to make. What you and your gang don't understand is that you are not the
majority anymore. You are part of the minority. Your side was soundly
defeated in the last presidential election. You are supposed to take
turns. When your side wins, like with Bush, you get to do what you think
is best. When your side loses your opponents get to do what they think
is best, whether you like it or not. What you are not supposed to do is
try to destroy the other side when you have been voted out.
Unfortunately, the right wing doesn't want to get that. Maybe that is
why you have to do it Obama's way now. We tried it your way for eight
years and it it turned out like crap. So quit the belly-aching and try
to win in the next election. Sour grapes has gotten you nowhere.
Hawke
John R. Carroll
The sooner GM kicks the bucket, and they will, the better.
--
John R. Carroll
Chief Egalitarian
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:uuqdndHc_4A3tFvW...@giganews.com...
Amen
dca...@krl.org
> Dan,
>
> I would buy Ford before I bought GM too but the reason I brought it up
> is because of the announcement by GM last week that they would soon be
> returning to profitability. Can we agree that having a profitable GM
> once again is a better alternative than to have had them go bankrupt? If
> you can admit that then you have to agree the government did the right
> thing in helping them out. If you are paying attention to investing you
> have to be aware that things are improving all over the place. At some
> point credit for that is going to have to go to Obama's handling of the
> economy. Of course, there will be those who will not admit that no
> matter what.
>
> Hawke
I agree that a profitable GM is better than having them go bankrupt.
And if GM does become profitable and stay that way, the government did
the right thing.
And if GM does not become and stay profitable, the government did the
wrong thing. I think we will know the answer in about three years.
My preference is that they stay profitable. But I think it is too
early to be sure what will happen.
Dan
Chief Egalitarian
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:tqd8s55ch3a1515o5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 04:11:07 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
> <prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote:
>
>>Sarah Palin is a populist with strong convictions
>
> I did not know anything
> --
> Cliff
of course!
Cliff
She might be. Anybody checked both ends?
But if so it would be a disservice to blonds worldwide.
>She's nothing more than an ignorant, bible thumping, self promoting,
>egotist. No wonder she's the darling of the right wing.
I'd like to see her trying to chew gum.
>
>Hawke
--
Cliff
Dänk 1010011010
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>
> news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
>
> > Leading indicators ....
>
> > The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
> > (see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
> > numbers already (after only about a year).
>
> Really, liar? Let's compare Obama's imaginary 11,000 to Bush's real 14,000.
> Or maybe to the entire year before Obama announced he would seek his party's
> nomination and tanked the economy.
Don't forget that currency devaluation makes the raw numbers
meaningless. The Dow Jones average is simply an average price of
selected stocks, denominated in dollars. Double the number of dollars
in circulation, and the price of stocks - and everything else -
doubles as well.
Now suppose you were to calculate the value of stocks in euros or
ounces of gold or barrels of oil, then the Dow Jones average may not
have increased at all.
Currency devaluation is a favorite of tin-pot dictators, since the
increased currency units in circulation creates an illusion of
wealth. Double the number of dollars or pesos or bolivars in
circulation, and government revenues double, budgets double, salaries
and stock prices double, and so on. The actual VALUE (purchasing
power) of the currency units declines, but this does not matter
because people think they are getting 'free' money. It also allows
politicians to avoid raising taxes, since the devaluation reduces
purchasing power exactly the same as higher taxes.
Ed Huntress
"D�nk 1010011010" <dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:937a6c1c-7f8e-4a3f...@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 11, 8:54 am, "Chief Egalitarian" <Egal@legal_egal.law> wrote:
> "Cliff" <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>
> news:t140s519biitckhrq...@4ax.com...
>
> > Leading indicators ....
>
> > The DJIA hit 11,000. That's better than any day under bushco
> > (see rethug economy disasters) and almost back in Clinton era
> > numbers already (after only about a year).
>
> Really, liar? Let's compare Obama's imaginary 11,000 to Bush's real
> 14,000.
> Or maybe to the entire year before Obama announced he would seek his
> party's
> nomination and tanked the economy.
>Don't forget that currency devaluation makes the raw numbers
>meaningless. The Dow Jones average is simply an average price of
>selected stocks, denominated in dollars. Double the number of dollars
>in circulation, and the price of stocks - and everything else -
>doubles as well.
Horseshit. 'Back to basic monetary economics for you.
>Now suppose you were to calculate the value of stocks in euros or
>ounces of gold or barrels of oil, then the Dow Jones average may not
>have increased at all.
Then look up the numbers and see if you're right. More horseshit...
>Currency devaluation is a favorite of tin-pot dictators, since the
>increased currency units in circulation creates an illusion of
>wealth. Double the number of dollars or pesos or bolivars in
>circulation, and government revenues double, budgets double, salaries
>and stock prices double, and so on.
Here's the dollars in circulation since 1980:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2?cid=29
Now, show us where revenues, salaries, and so on have doubled since 2000.
> The actual VALUE (purchasing
>power) of the currency units declines, but this does not matter
>because people think they are getting 'free' money. It also allows
>politicians to avoid raising taxes, since the devaluation reduces
>purchasing power exactly the same as higher taxes.
You don't understand inflation. Please learn about velocity and money growth
relative to output.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
How much inflation have you seen since buchco?
But we do need to get the median real wage up .. it
fell all the time under bushco while the very rich got richer.
We needed more right-wing billionaires, right?
--
Cliff
RogerN
My side doesn't even run, we're usually stuck between some poor excuses for
candidates on both sides, just hope to pick the lesser of two evils. Our
government is supposed to by the people and for the people, not Obama
cramming his personal agenda down everyone's throats against the will of
Democrats and Republicans. Obama crammed his health care through likely at
the expense of other Democrats come November but his job wasn't up for vote
so he didn't care about what he did to the other Democrats. Just stab all
your supporters in the back and legalize a bunch of Mexicans in time for
next presidential vote.
RogerN
Hawke
No one knows the future, which is why there is risk involved in all
investments. The government took a risk in backstopping GM. How's that
going to turn out? We don't know. We won't know for several years. But
right now it looks like it was the right move. I call them like I see
them. Now it looks like it was a smart move to help out GM. In a few
years it may fall apart again. If it does I'll be the first to say it
was a mistake to put money into that firm. But right now it's looking
like Obama's financial moves have been right. Just as it's perfectly
clear that the moves the Bush administration did turned out badly. Facts
are facts. The republicans had at least seven years to try out their
trickle down or supply side, free market economic ideas. They didn't
work. I said they wouldn't right from the get go. Now I'm saying Obama
is doing the right things. In a few years we'll see if I was right
again. But I'm getting pretty good at the predictions game. I guess old
age is good for something.
Hawke
P
>
> What you and a lot of others don't seem to understand is the role that
> your elected officials are supposed to play. Do you think when you elect
> someone to office they are just supposed to take a poll of what the
> majority of their voters want and then just go along with that? Because
> that's not how most people do it. You elect someone and then they do
> what they think is right not just what the majority says.
Yeah, heaven forbid they should do anything they SAID they would prior to
being elected
>
> Obama came to the White House with an agenda that he wanted to put in
> place. He made it clear what he wanted to do when he was elected. One of
> his plans were to do things the opposite of what Bush had done as
> president.
Wow! THAT'S REALLY SPECIFIC!
>Another one of his main and stated goals was to pass health
> care reform, and that is what he did. Does he take a poll and ask the
> public if they want this? No. He told everyone what he was going to do
> and now he's done it. He did what he said he was going to do and it
> didn't matter what a poll says. Except for the poll that matters, the
> election. Obama got elected to change health care in this country.
>
>
> That is what leadership is all about. Obama is leading. At this point
> qualifications are meaningless. He has the job, he has his agenda, and
> he's working to make it happen. He knew from day one he was going to
> have people like you who do not want him to make the changes he intended
> to make. What you and your gang don't understand is that you are not the
> majority anymore. You are part of the minority. Your side was soundly
You are so out of touch that you really don't have any idea!
Cliff
>the lesser of two evils
the lesser of two weevils
Cliff
>> Obama came to the White House with an agenda that he wanted to put in
>> place. He made it clear what he wanted to do when he was elected. One of
>> his plans were to do things the opposite of what Bush had done as
>> president.
>
>Wow! THAT'S REALLY SPECIFIC!
And we all know how well the rethug lies & schemes worked out.
--
Cliff