Palin’s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High
Cliff
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
"Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
Buerste
"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com...
>
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-favorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin's favorability Ratings At All-Time High"
Yes, you Neo-Socialists HATE her! Good for you, you should, she's an
anti-Neo-Socialist. We like that you hate her!
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorab
> ility-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
No candidate is /not/ going to have "high unfavorable ratings."
The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
States citizens are now dependent on the US treasury for part or all of
their income. The other half is providing all that money to the treasury.
This is causing an even more pronounced split than in, for instance, the
election of 1800.
The real problem with the dependent/provider split is that the political
class in Washington can't even provide the dependents with what they
want, even with the $ trillions it takes in from the producers. These
bureaucrats have borrowed against the next generation of producers to
the tune of $12-14 trillion--which is equal to the annual GDP of the US.
If the dependents could get by with what the providers can reasonably
give them, there prolly wouldn't be a problem. But those days are long
gone.
President Obama's unfavorables are skyrocketing. Palin's unfavorables
are high. Had McCain won the election, his unfavorables would prolly be
even higher still.
I was convinced back in November 08 that no candidate for President
could hope to survive winning that election. Sadly, I think my
conviction was correct.
The next President must address the foundations of 80 years of
populist-bureaucratic decadence. The next President must be a
dirty-hands, no-holds-barred jungle fighter. He/she must embrace being
controversial, and can't be concerned in the least when Mrs. Grundy
squawks.
It's time for America to grow out of her daydreams of utopia.
--
Neolibertarian
"[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
because big government spends too much."
---Ronald Reagan
No-bammer
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
complete opposite.
Worship Palin's Farts
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:i5adn.48967$zN4....@newsfe05.iad...
Palin appeals to you because she has tits. Limbaugh appeals to you because
he has tits.
�n�hw��f
of pure thought with
news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99
> s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
^_^
--
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Cliff
>The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
>States citizens
Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>
>Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>complete opposite.
Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
>of pure thought with
>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99
>> s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>
>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>
>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
Palin may just not know what happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it doubt.
It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for the rethugs
though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
--
Cliff
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
PPOR.
I think you're just making that up.
Of course.
Cliff
>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
>> >States citizens
>>
>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>
>PPOR.
>
>I think you're just making that up.
>
>Of course.
http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_curve.jpg
Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
--
Cliff
�n�hw��f
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f"
> <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>waters of pure thought with
>>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%
>>> 99 s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>
>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>
>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>
> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
> Palin may just not know what happened.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>
> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it
> doubt.
>
> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for the
> rethugs
> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
Rush could stitch together a voodoo doll of Palins kid and stick a
pin in it and she'd say "its just what Rush *does*...he's such a
joker!"
Ya, you betcha.
�n�hw��f
> urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in-
poll/19354785
Only 37% approval rating.
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
> >> >States citizens
> >>
> >> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
> >> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
> >
> >PPOR.
> >
> >I think you're just making that up.
> >
> >Of course.
>
> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_curve.jpg
> Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
Oddly enough, this is a poll is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Right, left; there doesn't seem to be a correlation to intelligence
quotients.
However, there /does/ seem to be a right-left correlation between those
who take their living from the Public Trough, and those who fill the
Public Trough.
Guess which are likely to be on the right, and which are likely to be
left.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>
>> Cliff wrote:
>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>
>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>> complete opposite.
>
> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
Marxist Professors....
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
> of pure thought with
> news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half
>>>> >of United States citizens
>>>>
>>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>>>
>>>PPOR.
>>>
>>>I think you're just making that up.
>>>
>>>Of course.
>>
>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_c
>> urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>
> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in-
> poll/19354785
>
> Only 37% approval rating.
>
Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."
--Joseph T. Chew
Aratzio
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
Only those so desperate to defend her idiotic mouth breathing ever
make that claim. The rest just laugh at her and laugh at those who
support her for being taken in by one of the most hamfisted grifters
to have ever walked the polical stage.
The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
it".
Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
laughing with them.
RD (The Sandman)
news:du3en5dihkopob0h8...@4ax.com:
Actually, no, you guys keep bringing her up.....the conservatives don't.
Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she were simply
dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene in a few short
weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do you.
> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
> it".
Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. In any case, it was her money to do
with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may not
have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to decide.....not
you.
> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
> laughing with them.
Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
Lookout
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>
>>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>>> complete opposite.
>>
>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>
>The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
>Marxist Professors....
You're lying again. Why?
Lookout
Stupid conclusion.
Lookout
Hell no. We WANT her to run!
>
>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>> it".
>
>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. In any case, it was her money to do
>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may not
>have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to decide.....not
>you.
So she lied again. No big deal. She's a conservative christian and
lying is ok.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:39:44 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>>
>>>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>>>> complete opposite.
>>>
>>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>>
>> The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
>> Marxist Professors....
>
> You're lying again. Why?
John R. Carroll
"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
> of pure thought with
> news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half
>>>> >of United States citizens
>>>>
>>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>>>
>>>PPOR.
>>>
>>>I think you're just making that up.
>>>
>>>Of course.
>>
>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_c
>> urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>
> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in-
> poll/19354785
>
> Only 37% approval rating.
>
Former Alaska governor isn't only politician Americans have judged
unqualified for the presidency
Emily Holleman
Feb. 12, 2010 |
According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, the percentage of
Americans who view Sarah Palin as "unqualified to be president" has
skyrocketed.
At the same time, the former Alaska governor's recent antics, including a
speech at the Tea Party Convention, have been generating more buzz about a
possible presidential run in 2012. To put Palin's prospects in perspective,
here's how she stacks up against other White House hopefuls in terms of the
percentage of Americans who judged them unqualified for the Oval Office.
a.. Sarah Palin (February 2010): 71 percent
b.. Ross Perot (May 1994): 64 percent
c.. Dan Quayle (May 1994): 62 percent
d.. Jesse Jackson (June 1987): 46 percent
e.. Pat Robertson (June 1987): 43 percent
(All numbers are taken from ABC News/Washington Post polls).
Obviously, none of those other candidates ran really serious races. But one
who did had similar trouble, with numbers about as bad as Jackson's and
Robertson's, though not Palin's. A June 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
showed that 44 percent of Americans thought then-Sen. Hillary Clinton wasn't
qualified to be president.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/02/12/palin_unqualified/print.html
JC
Aratzio
So, bringing up her hilarious and entertaining antics is fear? Does
than mean the whole ET TC schedule is all fear all the times?
>Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she were simply
>dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene in a few short
>weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do you.
That would make us much smarter than you. *We* want her out in front,
the face of the *opposition*.
Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught with
crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid 100K. You
just can't make shit like that up.
>
>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>> it".
>
>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't.
Her claim was easily debunked, how she claimed she would donate would
have been against campaign finance law.
>In any case, it was her money to do
>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may not
>have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to decide.....not
>you.
Where did I say it was? You really need to practice your reading
skills. That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their funds
to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long run.
>
>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>> laughing with them.
>
>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-bam...@fgi.net> wrote:
> >Cliff wrote:
> >>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-...
> >> "Sarah Palin’s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>
> >Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
> >complete opposite.
>
> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
> --
> Cliff
You mean which southern red-neck bar bathroom stall.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> In article <bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m8v4ga2rsj9dboj...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop7jsr1ooro6mk55...@4ax.com>,
> > > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
> > >> >States citizens
>
> > >> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
> > >> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>
> > >PPOR.
>
> > >I think you're just making that up.
>
> > >Of course.
>
> > Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>
> Oddly enough, this is a poll is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> Right, left; there doesn't seem to be a correlation to intelligence
> quotients.
>
> However, there /does/ seem to be a right-left correlation between those
> who take their living from the Public Trough, and those who fill the
> Public Trough.
>
> Guess which are likely to be on the right, and which are likely to be
> left.
>
> --
> Neolibertarian
>
> "[The American People] know that we don't have deficits
> because people are taxed too little; we have deficits
> because big government spends too much."
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well the right have been peeing in the public trough for years...how
does it taste to you?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> "§nühw¤£f" <snuhw...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
> > of pure thought with
> >news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> >>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
> >>>> <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half
> >>>> >of United States citizens
>
> >>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
> >>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>
> >>>PPOR.
>
> >>>I think you're just making that up.
>
> >>>Of course.
>
> >> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_c
> >> urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>
> > Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
> >http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in-
> > poll/19354785
>
> > Only 37% approval rating.
>
> Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
> possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
> to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Afraid?
Laugh...laugh...laugh...
I really, really hope that she is the Republican runner for President
in 2012.
It will be a Republican bloodbath.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:03:29 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
>
> >> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
> >> of pure thought with
> >>news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> - Show quoted text -
The mentally challenged often have that problem.
Considering how the birthers want to see Obama's BC, how about
producing proof that Palin donated the $100K?
TMT
Ramon F Herrera
What is the one issue in which the leading candidates in 2008 agreed?
- Obama
- Clinton
- McCain
- Giuliani
Furthermore, what is the issue in which the potential 2012
presidential contenders agree?
- Barack Obama
- Sarah Palin
Let's hear it from the horse's mouths. Since I am a well bred
caballero, let's hear from the mare's mouth first:
------------------------
"Sarah Palin finally came out and made her stance on illegal
immigration clear. She is pro amnesty for illegal aliens. In an
interview to Univision she stated unequivocally that she is for a
pathway to citizenship. In the same interview she says she is against
amnesty for illegal aliens. Have your cake and eat it to, I think that
is called.
Back on the same day that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-
presidential candidate I started investigating Palin's past on illegal
immigration. I invited others to send in anything they found. There
was nothing on the record. Many did write in and said that Laura
Ingraham said that one time she was talking to Palin and she said she
was against amnesty. That was the only statement anywhere that could
be found.
Now we know that she is against amnesty, all the while she is for it
with a "pathway to citizenship"."
[More here:]
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002985.html
----------------------------------------------------
Obama said a new immigration system will be difficult to achieve:
"It's going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be
demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for
legalization for those who are already in the United States is
unacceptable. ...
"But ultimately I think the American people want fairness. And we can
create a system in which you have strong border security, we have an
orderly process for people to come in, but we're also giving an
opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able
to achieve a pathway to citizenship so that they don't have to live in
the shadows and their children and their grandchildren can have a full
participation in -- in the United States."
-------------------------
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin?s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
She really does scare you, doesn't she...
Neolibertarian
<6614a698-e84e-42b6...@j1g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then why do you accept their money so eagerly? You like the taste that
much?
Too_Many_Tools
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote innews:du3en5dihkopob0h8...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:03:29 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> > "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
> > probation for writing:
>
> >>news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
>
> >>> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
> >>> of pure thought with
> >>>news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>
> - Show quoted text -
So why are you wasting your breath talking about her Sandie?
Laugh...laugh...laugh..
TMT
Lookout
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>On 2/13/2010 5:39 PM, Lookout wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:39:44 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>>>
>>>>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>>>>> complete opposite.
>>>>
>>>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>>>
>>> The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
>>> Marxist Professors....
>>
>> You're lying again. Why?
>You're showing your ignorance again... WHY?--
Nah..it was a lie and you know it.
Unless you can prove the poll was taken only amongst marxist...are you
saying you have that proof?
Nah..you're just lying again. Why do you lie so much?
Lookout
NONE were serious at all. Not even close.
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>
>>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>>> complete opposite.
>>
>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>
>The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
>Marxist Professors....
I think you are lying again, as usual.
Provide valid link to such a "poll".
Find those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
Tina Fay scares Conservitards....
Cliff
Probably Winger's Disease again.
I doubt they can help it. They HAVE to lie.
There is a parasite that mice get that makes them act stupid to
attract cats - the next stage in the parasite's life cycle. IIRC.
What eats wingers?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com>,
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>> > Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian <cogn...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half of United
>> >> >States citizens
>> >>
>> >> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>> >> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>> >
>> >PPOR.
>> >
>> >I think you're just making that up.
>> >
>> >Of course.
>>
>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_curve.jpg
>> Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>
>Oddly enough, this is a poll is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
That was not a poll.
It was a graph of the IQ curve.
You just fell off on the far, far left.
HTH
>
>Right, left; there doesn't seem to be a correlation to intelligence
>quotients.
Then why are wingers so stupid?
>However, there /does/ seem to be a right-left correlation between those
>who take their living from the Public Trough, and those who fill the
>Public Trough.
IOW The rethugs just lost some elections big time.
Both houses of congress & the WH.
After having both for 8 years & thus creating these disasters
with their venal stupidity.
>Guess which are likely to be on the right, and which are likely to be
>left.
I've noticed that a lot of people on welfare are wingers.
Lazy bums, some of them. Others just plain crazy.
--
Cliff
Cliff
You are projecting again.
Is she better educated or smarter than you are?
--
Cliff
Cliff
"Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
Ham Sandwich + Pet Rock in 2018
>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>> it".
>
>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. In any case, it was her money to do
>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may not
>have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to decide.....not
>you.
So you say she lied again & it's okay?
Because she's a winger & you expect endless lies?
>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>> laughing with them.
>
>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
"You are confused." - Tom Downey
(Of the famed Tom Downey School of Diplomacy)
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>Actually, no, you guys keep bringing her up.....the conservatives don't.
>
>So, bringing up her hilarious and entertaining antics is fear?
She does not seem to have any plan or concepts or grasp of reality at all.
Nothing to discuss or debate.
But she can see the moon from her broom so she's a Space Cadet!
--
Cliff
Cliff
She's got GREAT ratings !!
--
Cliff
�n�hw��f
with news:7haen5pcvl2l8anln...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:03:29 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>> waters of pure thought with
>>> news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over
>>>>>> >half of United States citizens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>>>>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>>>>>
>>>>>PPOR.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you're just making that up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course.
>>>>
>>>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/i
>>>> q_c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>
>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-
>>> in- poll/19354785
>>>
>>> Only 37% approval rating.
>>>
>>
>>Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
>
> Stupid conclusion.
Not quite. Bush was a failure in every sense of the word, yet got
appointed to the office of pResident.
Palin is stupid and charming, like a female version of Chimpy. Chimpy
played "decider" (note his need to make the claim, loudly) but it was
obvious that Cheney was pulling the strings all along. If Caribou
Barbie finds a ruthless & cunning running mate to whisper answers in
her ear...we get what we got with BushCo all over again.
--
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
�n�hw��f
with news:pojfn59jgusm7tnca...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:57:15 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142...
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>> waters of pure thought with
>>> news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over
>>>>>> >half of United States citizens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>>>>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>>>>>
>>>>>PPOR.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you're just making that up.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course.
>>>>
>>>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/i
>>>> q_c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>
>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-
>>> in- poll/19354785
>>>
>>> Only 37% approval rating.
>>>
>>At least Palin's in good company
>>
>>Former Alaska governor isn't only politician Americans have judged
>>unqualified for the presidency
>>Emily Holleman
>>
>>Feb. 12, 2010 |
>>
>>According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, the
>>percentage of Americans who view Sarah Palin as "unqualified to be
>>president" has skyrocketed.
>>
>>
>>
>>At the same time, the former Alaska governor's recent antics,
>>including a speech at the Tea Party Convention, have been
>>generating more buzz about a possible presidential run in 2012. To
>>put Palin's prospects in perspective, here's how she stacks up
>>against other White House hopefuls in terms of the percentage of
>>Americans who judged them unqualified for the Oval Office.
>>
>>
>>
>> a.. Sarah Palin (February 2010): 71 percent
>> b.. Ross Perot (May 1994): 64 percent
>> c.. Dan Quayle (May 1994): 62 percent
>> d.. Jesse Jackson (June 1987): 46 percent
>> e.. Pat Robertson (June 1987): 43 percent
>>
>>
>>(All numbers are taken from ABC News/Washington Post polls).
>>
>>
>>
>>Obviously, none of those other candidates ran really serious
>>races.
>
> NONE were serious at all. Not even close.
>
Ross Perot threw a shitload of money away on "not being serious"
then.
HE WAS ENTERTAINING! A LITTLE DYNAMO!
^_^
>
> But one
>>who did had similar trouble, with numbers about as bad as
>>Jackson's and Robertson's, though not Palin's. A June 2003 CNN/USA
>>Today/Gallup poll showed that 44 percent of Americans thought
>>then-Sen. Hillary Clinton wasn't qualified to be president.
>>
>>http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/02/12/palin_unqualified
>>/print.html
>>
>>JC
>>
>
--
�n�hw��f
Beam Me Up Scotty
The way you Liberals all line up at the public Trough, you must really
like it.
Big Government never tasted sssssooooooo good?
tankfixer
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>
Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you have
to agree that statement appears to be correct....
Aratzio
tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
Great Depression?
Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
improved the situation.
tankfixer
@sneakemail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
> >In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >
> >> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
> >> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
> >>
> >
> >
> >Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you have
> >to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>
> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
> Great Depression?
When will Obama and company START doing something about it besides
paying off their political supporters ?
Aratzio
>In article <k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>@sneakemail.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>> >In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>> >
>> >> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
>> >> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you have
>> >to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>>
>> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> Great Depression?
>
>When will Obama and company START doing something about it besides
>paying off their political supporters ?
So you can't answer the question derived from your previous ignorant
response. No surprise there.
You make claims and when pressed on your own claims, you run and hide.
>
>
>>
>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> improved the situation.
No response: no surprise there.
Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
time" wingnut.
RD (The Sandman)
news:ti8gn5d0hp6stk414...@4ax.com:
Nope, but I am not sure about how she matches up with you.
RD (The Sandman)
news:asjen5l3rorov153o...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:08:05 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>news:du3en5dihkopob0h8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:03:29 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double
>>> secret probation for writing:
>>>
>>>>"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:Xns9D1E67A1C5F8D...@216.196.97.142:
>>>>
>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>>>> waters of pure thought with
>>>>> news:bgbdn55bmh1lcgm3m...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:49:47 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <s58dn5ldqpjmfcfop...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:48:36 -0600, Neolibertarian
>>>>>>>> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >The country is split into polarized halves. A little over half
>>>>>>>> >of United States citizens
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seem to have IQs not much (if any) above 100.
>>>>>>>> Fewer of them are impresed by Palin, rethugs & wingers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PPOR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think you're just making that up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://secularright.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/iq_
>>>>>> c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
>>>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in
>>>>> - poll/19354785
>>>>>
>>>>> Only 37% approval rating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
>>>
>>> Only those so desperate to defend her idiotic mouth breathing ever
>>> make that claim. The rest just laugh at her and laugh at those who
>>> support her for being taken in by one of the most hamfisted grifters
>>> to have ever walked the polical stage.
>>
>>Actually, no, you guys keep bringing her up.....the conservatives
>>don't.
>
> So, bringing up her hilarious and entertaining antics is fear? Does
> than mean the whole ET TC schedule is all fear all the times?
Nope, just wondering you don't simply let her fade off into the sunset.
Is it because she is a woman? A Republican? Has conservative values? Or
simply because she is dumb. If the latter where is your concern and
comments about Paris Hilton? ;)
>>Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she were simply
>>dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene in a few
>>short weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do you.
>
> That would make us much smarter than you.
Oh? I doubt that. ;)
> *We* want her out in front, the face of the *opposition*.
Ahhhh......
> Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught with
> crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid 100K. You
> just can't make shit like that up.
Would you have been happier had she used a telepompter?
>>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>>> it".
>>
>>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't.
>
> Her claim was easily debunked, how she claimed she would donate would
> have been against campaign finance law.
Whatever.....as I said, it was her business.....anyway, why would it be
against campaign finance law....she isn't currently running for anything.
If you spoke and they paid you a fee would you run afoul of campaign
finance if you gave your fee to the Red Cross?
>>In any case, it was her money to do
>>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may
>>not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>decide.....not you.
>
> Where did I say it was?
Where did I claim you did?
> You really need to practice your reading
> skills.
Seems like that advice could apply to both of us, eh?
That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
> the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their funds
> to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long run.
>
>>
>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>>> laughing with them.
>>
>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>
> Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
A classic wingnut.
RD (The Sandman)
news:tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com:
>>>>>> c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
>>>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-in
>>>>> - poll/19354785
>>>>>
>>>>> Only 37% approval rating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
>>>
>>> Only those so desperate to defend her idiotic mouth breathing ever
>>> make that claim. The rest just laugh at her and laugh at those who
>>> support her for being taken in by one of the most hamfisted grifters
>>> to have ever walked the polical stage.
>>
>>Actually, no, you guys keep bringing her up.....the conservatives
>>don't. Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she
>>were simply dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene
>>in a few short weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do
>>you.
>
>
> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would
> promise them
> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>
>
> Ham Sandwich + Pet Rock in 2018
>
>
>>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>>> it".
>>
>>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. In any case, it was her money to
>>do with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may
>>not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>decide.....not you.
>
> So you say she lied again & it's okay?
> Because she's a winger & you expect endless lies?
Neither....I am not a Palin supporter....in any sense.
>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>>> laughing with them.
>>
>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>
> "You are confused." - Tom Downey
> (Of the famed Tom Downey School of Diplomacy)
--
No-bammer
> On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>
>>>Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was the
>>>complete opposite.
>>
>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>
>
> The negative poll was take amongst Harvard graduates that have been
> Marxist Professors....
>
Oh, Some of Buckwheat's buddies.
RD (The Sandman)
news:k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
>>In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>
>>> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would
>>> promise them
>>> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>>>
>>
>>
>>Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you
>>have to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>
> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
> Great Depression?
Well, we aren't out of that hole and he certainly widened it.
> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
> improved the situation.
I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future debt.
Who knows.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 2/13/2010 7:56 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:54:34 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cliff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>>
>>>> Who took the poll? Was it nbc, abc or cbs. I took a poll and it was
>>>> the complete opposite.
>>>
>>> Which southern red-neck bar were you in?
>>
>>
>> Marxist Professors....
>>
>
> Oh, Some of Buckwheat's buddies.
YEP!
--
Neolibertarian
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >However, there /does/ seem to be a right-left correlation between those
> >who take their living from the Public Trough, and those who fill the
> >Public Trough.
>
> IOW The rethugs just lost some elections big time.
> Both houses of congress & the WH.
>
> After having both for 8 years & thus creating these disasters
> with their venal stupidity.
In the 20th Century, the GOP only held Congress for about 25 years all
together.
If you want to assign blame, I'd think that the Dems might need to share
at least SOME of it.
After all, none of these problems arrived recently. Washington has been
marching us to bankruptcy for over 80 years.
> >Guess which are likely to be on the right, and which are likely to be
> >left.
>
> I've noticed that a lot of people on welfare are wingers.
> Lazy bums, some of them. Others just plain crazy.
Your silly anecdotal observations are less than useless to the
discussion.
tankfixer
@sneakemail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:25:15 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
> >In article <k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
> >@sneakemail.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> >> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
> >> writing:
> >>
> >> >In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
> >> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
> >> >
> >> >> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
> >> >> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you have
> >> >to agree that statement appears to be correct....
> >>
> >> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
> >> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
> >> Great Depression?
> >
> >When will Obama and company START doing something about it besides
> >paying off their political supporters ?
>
> So you can't answer the question derived from your previous ignorant
> response. No surprise there.
>
> You make claims and when pressed on your own claims, you run and hide.
It's a false premise to assing all responsability to the previous
administration.
IIRC Obama was party to at least two of those years as a senator.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
> >> improved the situation.
>
> No response: no surprise there.
Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
what McCain would have done.
>
>
> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
> time" wingnut.
I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
Cliff
>Oh, Some of Buckwheat's buddies.
Racist.
Against anyone with an IQ over 80.
--
Cliff
Morton Davis
"Gerald Abrahamson" <jer...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:s78gn5tijeta428t9...@4ax.com...
Posts a sack of shit lying leftard.
Aratzio
One more time:
"her hilarious and entertaining antics"
You do understand that concept?
>Is it because she is a woman? A Republican? Has conservative values? Or
>simply because she is dumb. If the latter where is your concern and
>comments about Paris Hilton? ;)
No, because so many people wish to take her seriously and that just
ups the fun quotient. Making them run around screaming "You morans iz
skeered of hers" as the sole rationale their simple minds can grasp.
Writing notes on your hand like you are a 12 year old cheating on a
test is so very scary.
But fox has come to the rescue, they found some 20 year old tape of
Diane Feinstein with ink on her hand, so Palin is SAVED!!!!
>
>>>Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she were simply
>>>dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene in a few
>>>short weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do you.
>>
>> That would make us much smarter than you.
>
>Oh? I doubt that. ;)
So you imagine having her go away would be good or bad for the left?
>
>
>> *We* want her out in front, the face of the *opposition*.
>
>Ahhhh......
>
>> Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught with
>> crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid 100K. You
>> just can't make shit like that up.
>
>Would you have been happier had she used a telepompter?
I would not care if she did. What is wrong with using a teleprompter?
Specifically explain the negatives of having a prepared speech on a
teleprompter?
Truly one of the stupidest complaints in history. "He uses a
teleprompter!"
Now, whining about someone using a teleprompter in a speech and then
getting caught with crib notes like a 12 year old, that is hilarious.
Crib notes to answer prescreened questions about your "core" values no
less. How stupid is the grifter that she cannot even remember those
formulaic and basic talking points she spews daily?
>
>>>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>>>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>>>> it".
>>>
>>>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't.
>>
>> Her claim was easily debunked, how she claimed she would donate would
>> have been against campaign finance law.
>
>Whatever.....as I said, it was her business.....anyway, why would it be
>against campaign finance law....she isn't currently running for anything.
>If you spoke and they paid you a fee would you run afoul of campaign
>finance if you gave your fee to the Red Cross?
You really should actually have a clue about the subject rather than
hypothesizing about what did not occur.
The clue: "how she claimed she would donate"
>
>>>In any case, it was her money to do
>>>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may
>>>not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>>decide.....not you.
>>
>> Where did I say it was?
>
>Where did I claim you did?
"up to them to decide.....not you."
Did you forget what you wrote? It wqs still there.
>
>> You really need to practice your reading
>> skills.
>
>Seems like that advice could apply to both of us, eh?
"up to them to decide.....not you."
Really, so do please explain where I claimed it was up to me to decide
how people spent their money. You stated it was not up to me, but
where exactly did I claim I had the right?
Unless you confused the concept of laughing at the idiots with some
action to halt their laughable use of their money.
>
>That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
>> the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their funds
>> to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long run.
>>
>>>
>>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>>>> laughing with them.
>>>
>>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>>
>> Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
>
>A classic wingnut.
Have you begun to understand the majority of people laugh at Palin and
are not even slightly afraid of her or are you sticking by your
original concept that somehow the laughter is really fear.
Using your thought process: Jon Stewart, he is so afraid of so many
things because he is entertained by the "morans" and laughs at them.
Aratzio
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
probation for writing:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>>>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>>
>>>> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would
>>>> promise them
>>>> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you
>>>have to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>>
>> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> Great Depression?
>
>Well, we aren't out of that hole and he certainly widened it.
Explain the jobs picture? The number of jobs lost per month under
Shrub was increasing every month. Since Obama has been in office the
losses have been less each month and the general economic consensus is
that losses should end soon.
Is that widening?
As for spending, there were many economist who believed that a larger
stimulus package was needed so that the long term debt would be less.
Get the economy back to growth and the tax base restored sooner. But
the republicans and the blue dog democrats gutted the stimulus and
wasted billions on Tax cuts that do not add jobs and reduced the aid
to states. They also reduced the amount of infrastructure spending
which is second only to foodstamps in stimulative return.
>
>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> improved the situation.
>
>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future debt.
>Who knows.
Yet you and the fellow wingnuts are proud to expound as to how you see
the current administration as failing but do not actually have
anything that you can point to and say "This would have been a better
outcome".
We have one president at a time. Either he is in charge or we are no
longer following the constitution.
Aratzio
Still running, coward.
So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
Great Depression?
See if you can directly answer the question.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> >> improved the situation.
>>
>> No response: no surprise there.
>
>Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
>what McCain would have done.
So, what is your economic policy? Since you claim that the Obama and
now McCain policies would have failed, give everyone the benefit of
your economic analysis:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
>> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
>> time" wingnut.
>
>I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
Wingnut #1 Response: "I know you are but what am I?"
So far I've engaged 3 wingnuts in 3 days and all three have resorted
to that response.
Sad how little they can think for themselves.
tankfixer
That appears to be what Dear Leader is committed to doing, running.
Not leading.
>
> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
> Great Depression?
>
> See if you can directly answer the question.
He has until the next Presidential election, doesn't he.
A total of four years, one of which he has squandered by his whoafull
lack of leadership.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
> >> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
> >> >> improved the situation.
> >>
> >> No response: no surprise there.
> >
> >Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
> >what McCain would have done.
>
> So, what is your economic policy? Since you claim that the Obama and
> now McCain policies would have failed, give everyone the benefit of
> your economic analysis:
Stop mucking about with threats of new laws to regulate everthing under
the sun.
What company wants to invest in expanding when you don't know what new
law might be imposed to "save the planet".
> >>
> >> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
> >> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
> >> time" wingnut.
> >
> >I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
>
> Wingnut #1 Response: "I know you are but what am I?"
>
> So far I've engaged 3 wingnuts in 3 days and all three have resorted
> to that response.
>
> Sad how little they can think for themselves.
I long ago decided that the response to childish insults was ridicule.
Aratzio
More contentless mouth breathing. You have *anything*, cupcake?
>
>>
>> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> Great Depression?
>>
>> See if you can directly answer the question.
>
>He has until the next Presidential election, doesn't he.
>A total of four years, one of which he has squandered by his whoafull
>lack of leadership.
So you admit he has to spend his first term cleaning up from the
previous administration and it may take more than one term to do it.
Yet you are impatient for immediate results.
Cognitive dissonance in the wingnut.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> >> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> >> >> improved the situation.
>> >>
>> >> No response: no surprise there.
>> >
>> >Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
>> >what McCain would have done.
>>
>> So, what is your economic policy? Since you claim that the Obama and
>> now McCain policies would have failed, give everyone the benefit of
>> your economic analysis:
>
>Stop mucking about with threats of new laws to regulate everthing under
>the sun.
Why, the lack of regulation was a major factor in the economic
meltdown. Specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagal and Phil Gramm
insuring his pals on Wall Street did not have regulations on
Derivatives. Couple that with the loosened leverage requirements from
12:1 to 30:1 and you have meltdown.
>What company wants to invest in expanding when you don't know what new
>law might be imposed to "save the planet".
Well, heaven forbid we leave a habitable planet for future generations
when we can fuck them now for a few pennies more.
>
>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
>> >> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
>> >> time" wingnut.
>> >
>> >I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
>>
>> Wingnut #1 Response: "I know you are but what am I?"
>>
>> So far I've engaged 3 wingnuts in 3 days and all three have resorted
>> to that response.
>>
>> Sad how little they can think for themselves.
>
>I long ago decided that the response to childish insults was ridicule.
And yet you still were not thinking for yourself.
tankfixer
I'd note you attack the messenger..
Must be the message hits home..
>
> >
> >>
> >> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
> >> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
> >> Great Depression?
> >>
> >> See if you can directly answer the question.
> >
> >He has until the next Presidential election, doesn't he.
> >A total of four years, one of which he has squandered by his whoafull
> >lack of leadership.
>
> So you admit he has to spend his first term cleaning up from the
> previous administration and it may take more than one term to do it.
It is disingenuous for him or you to claim it is all the previous
administrations fault, Obama was party to some of those decisions you
now wish to find fault with.
> Yet you are impatient for immediate results.
I would expect him to not squander a quarter of the time he is
guaranteed to have.
>
> Cognitive dissonance in the wingnut.
Petty insults...
The staple of the left.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
> >> >> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
> >> >> >> improved the situation.
> >> >>
> >> >> No response: no surprise there.
> >> >
> >> >Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
> >> >what McCain would have done.
> >>
> >> So, what is your economic policy? Since you claim that the Obama and
> >> now McCain policies would have failed, give everyone the benefit of
> >> your economic analysis:
> >
> >Stop mucking about with threats of new laws to regulate everthing under
> >the sun.
>
> Why, the lack of regulation was a major factor in the economic
> meltdown. Specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagal and Phil Gramm
> insuring his pals on Wall Street did not have regulations on
> Derivatives. Couple that with the loosened leverage requirements from
> 12:1 to 30:1 and you have meltdown.
Yet in 2008 the Bush administration asked for the House banking
committee to consider new rules on Fannie Mae and mac...
But the chair refused to even consider the idea, claiming that Fannie
Mae was just fine.
Curiously that same chair had been instrumental in pushing Fannie Mae to
loosen rules on mortgages long before GW Bush became president.
"In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie
to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings
showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to
the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe."
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
>
> >What company wants to invest in expanding when you don't know what new
> >law might be imposed to "save the planet".
>
> Well, heaven forbid we leave a habitable planet for future generations
> when we can fuck them now for a few pennies more.
You would rather starve the populace now...
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
> >> >> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
> >> >> time" wingnut.
> >> >
> >> >I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
> >>
> >> Wingnut #1 Response: "I know you are but what am I?"
> >>
> >> So far I've engaged 3 wingnuts in 3 days and all three have resorted
> >> to that response.
> >>
> >> Sad how little they can think for themselves.
> >
> >I long ago decided that the response to childish insults was ridicule.
>
> And yet you still were not thinking for yourself.
says the person spouting talking points and insults from the left
Aratzio
BWAHAAAAHAAAAAA
Avoid the question and then pretend you had a point.
How stupid are you?
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> >> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> >> Great Depression?
>> >>
>> >> See if you can directly answer the question.
>> >
>> >He has until the next Presidential election, doesn't he.
>> >A total of four years, one of which he has squandered by his whoafull
>> >lack of leadership.
>>
>> So you admit he has to spend his first term cleaning up from the
>> previous administration and it may take more than one term to do it.
>
>It is disingenuous for him or you to claim it is all the previous
>administrations fault, Obama was party to some of those decisions you
>now wish to find fault with.
So what part of the economic/jobs/wars were his fault? Specifically
what did he do to place the country in the current malaise?
>
>
>> Yet you are impatient for immediate results.
>
>I would expect him to not squander a quarter of the time he is
>guaranteed to have.
So the improvement in the single most important area, jobs, is not
sufficient for you? Since taking office the number of jobs lost in the
worst economy since the depression has decreased every month. Quite
soon the economy will begin add jobs.
You do know that it takes a lot more time to fix something than it
does to break it?
>
>>
>> Cognitive dissonance in the wingnut.
>
>Petty insults...
>The staple of the left.
Confusing statements of fact with insults, typical wingnut.
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> >> >> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> >> >> >> improved the situation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No response: no surprise there.
>> >> >
>> >> >Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
>> >> >what McCain would have done.
>> >>
>> >> So, what is your economic policy? Since you claim that the Obama and
>> >> now McCain policies would have failed, give everyone the benefit of
>> >> your economic analysis:
>> >
>> >Stop mucking about with threats of new laws to regulate everthing under
>> >the sun.
>>
>> Why, the lack of regulation was a major factor in the economic
>> meltdown. Specifically the repeal of Glass-Steagal and Phil Gramm
>> insuring his pals on Wall Street did not have regulations on
>> Derivatives. Couple that with the loosened leverage requirements from
>> 12:1 to 30:1 and you have meltdown.
>
>Yet in 2008 the Bush administration asked for the House banking
>committee to consider new rules on Fannie Mae and mac...
>But the chair refused to even consider the idea, claiming that Fannie
>Mae was just fine.
>Curiously that same chair had been instrumental in pushing Fannie Mae to
>loosen rules on mortgages long before GW Bush became president.
Insignificant in comparison to the damage of the unregulated
derivitives and the repackaging loans as securities.
>
>"In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie
>to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings
>showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to
>the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe."
>http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
You do realize the losses af Fannie & Freddie are less than what was
put into just AIG?
>
>
>>
>> >What company wants to invest in expanding when you don't know what new
>> >law might be imposed to "save the planet".
>>
>> Well, heaven forbid we leave a habitable planet for future generations
>> when we can fuck them now for a few pennies more.
>
>You would rather starve the populace now...
Really, you got that? So how do you think I will do this? By insuring
that the environment is habitable?
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
>> >> >> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
>> >> >> time" wingnut.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
>> >>
>> >> Wingnut #1 Response: "I know you are but what am I?"
>> >>
>> >> So far I've engaged 3 wingnuts in 3 days and all three have resorted
>> >> to that response.
>> >>
>> >> Sad how little they can think for themselves.
>> >
>> >I long ago decided that the response to childish insults was ridicule.
>>
>> And yet you still were not thinking for yourself.
>
>says the person spouting talking points and insults from the left
That is just sad. You make a statement based upon stupid reasoning and
I point out your stupidity and somehow you being stupid is a talking
point of the left.
Honestly, I can't say I've seen anyone, right or left, that has used
your stupidity as a talking point.
No-bammer
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
>>of pure thought with
>>
>>
>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99
>>>s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>
>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>
>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>
>
> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
> Palin may just not know what happened.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>
> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it doubt.
>
> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for the rethugs
> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
Sounds more like you Left Wingers that can't tell fantasy from reality
and think that Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.
RD (The Sandman)
news:i18hn59m5jdqukeop...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>> q_ c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up this:
>>>>>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-low-
>>>>>>> in - poll/19354785
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only 37% approval rating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why are you guys so afraid of her? ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Only those so desperate to defend her idiotic mouth breathing ever
>>>>> make that claim. The rest just laugh at her and laugh at those who
>>>>> support her for being taken in by one of the most hamfisted
>>>>> grifters to have ever walked the polical stage.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, no, you guys keep bringing her up.....the conservatives
>>>>don't.
>>>
>>> So, bringing up her hilarious and entertaining antics is fear? Does
>>> than mean the whole ET TC schedule is all fear all the times?
>>
>>Nope, just wondering you don't simply let her fade off into the
>>sunset.
>
> One more time:
> "her hilarious and entertaining antics"
> You do understand that concept?
>
>>Is it because she is a woman? A Republican? Has conservative values?
>>Or simply because she is dumb. If the latter where is your concern
>>and comments about Paris Hilton? ;)
>
> No, because so many people wish to take her seriously and that just
> ups the fun quotient.
That's true.
Making them run around screaming "You morans iz
> skeered of hers" as the sole rationale their simple minds can grasp.
>
> Writing notes on your hand like you are a 12 year old cheating on a
> test is so very scary.
>
> But fox has come to the rescue, they found some 20 year old tape of
> Diane Feinstein with ink on her hand, so Palin is SAVED!!!!
>
>
>>
>>>>Many conservatives don't support her either. Ergo, if she were
>>>>simply dropped as a subject, she would fade from the public scene in
>>>>a few short weeks. However, you guys don't want that to happen, do
>>>>you.
>>>
>>> That would make us much smarter than you.
>>
>>Oh? I doubt that. ;)
>
> So you imagine having her go away would be good or bad for the left?
I really don't care about either side. Just find it amusing how you
folks on the left respond to her every move. ;)
>>> *We* want her out in front, the face of the *opposition*.
>>
>>Ahhhh......
>>
>>> Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught with
>>> crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid 100K.
>>> You just can't make shit like that up.
>>
>>Would you have been happier had she used a telepompter?
>
> I would not care if she did. What is wrong with using a teleprompter?
> Specifically explain the negatives of having a prepared speech on a
> teleprompter?
Why should I? I was the one with the question. ;)
> Truly one of the stupidest complaints in history. "He uses a
> teleprompter!"
>
> Now, whining about someone using a teleprompter in a speech and then
> getting caught with crib notes like a 12 year old, that is hilarious.
I agree.
> Crib notes to answer prescreened questions about your "core" values no
> less. How stupid is the grifter that she cannot even remember those
> formulaic and basic talking points she spews daily?
>
>>
>>>>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>>>>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>>>>> it".
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't.
>>>
>>> Her claim was easily debunked, how she claimed she would donate
>>> would have been against campaign finance law.
>>
>>Whatever.....as I said, it was her business.....anyway, why would it
>>be against campaign finance law....she isn't currently running for
>>anything. If you spoke and they paid you a fee would you run afoul of
>>campaign finance if you gave your fee to the Red Cross?
>
> You really should actually have a clue about the subject rather than
> hypothesizing about what did not occur.
You are one arrogant asshole, you know it. You are also pretty close to
going back in the Bozo Bin for it. It you wish to debate lets do so. If
you wish to simply make inane comments.....
> The clue: "how she claimed she would donate"
She can claim she wishes to do whatever she wants to. She can do with
her fees just about anything she wants to......and you seem to have a
problem with that. Oh, well......
>>>>In any case, it was her money to do
>>>>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may
>>>>not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>>>decide.....not you.
>>>
>>> Where did I say it was?
>>
>>Where did I claim you did?
>
> "up to them to decide.....not you."
> Did you forget what you wrote? It wqs still there.
I see it.....now where does it say that you had decided? I simply said
it wasn't your place.... If you are going to whine about something that
is said, it would help if you understood it first. ;)
>>> You really need to practice your reading
>>> skills.
>>
>>Seems like that advice could apply to both of us, eh?
>
> "up to them to decide.....not you."
> Really, so do please explain where I claimed it was up to me to decide
> how people spent their money. You stated it was not up to me, but
> where exactly did I claim I had the right?
Again, reading comprehension. I haven't said that you did.
> Unless you confused the concept of laughing at the idiots with some
> action to halt their laughable use of their money.
>
>>
>>That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
>>> the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their funds
>>> to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long run.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>>>>> laughing with them.
>>>>
>>>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>>>
>>> Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
>>
>>A classic wingnut.
>
> Have you begun to understand the majority of people laugh at Palin and
> are not even slightly afraid of her or are you sticking by your
> original concept that somehow the laughter is really fear.
Nope, just asked you a question.... You appear unable to really
understand it or answer it.
> Using your thought process: Jon Stewart, he is so afraid of so many
> things because he is entertained by the "morans" and laughs at them.
>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:j99hn5lqf07bbffhm...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:01:07 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>>news:k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>>> writing:
>>>
>>>>In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>>>
>>>>> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would
>>>>> promise them
>>>>> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you
>>>>have to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>>>
>>> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>>> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>>> Great Depression?
>>
>>Well, we aren't out of that hole and he certainly widened it.
>
> Explain the jobs picture? The number of jobs lost per month under
> Shrub was increasing every month. Since Obama has been in office the
> losses have been less each month and the general economic consensus is
> that losses should end soon.
>
> Is that widening?
Have you thought much about how they are counting those jobs? Thought
not.
> As for spending, there were many economist who believed that a larger
> stimulus package was needed so that the long term debt would be less.
Interesting....borrowing mmore money results in less long term debt.
Damn, perhaps I should have bought that 2 million dollar house after all.
> Get the economy back to growth and the tax base restored sooner. But
> the republicans and the blue dog democrats gutted the stimulus and
> wasted billions on Tax cuts that do not add jobs and reduced the aid
> to states. They also reduced the amount of infrastructure spending
> which is second only to foodstamps in stimulative return.
Damn, that means that if just the bluedogs and the few republicans
hanging around can do all that, then perhaps 41 is a bigger number than
59. Who'da thunk it?
>>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>>> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>>> improved the situation.
>>
>>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future debt.
>>Who knows.
>
> Yet you and the fellow wingnuts are proud to expound as to how you see
> the current administration as failing but do not actually have
> anything that you can point to and say "This would have been a better
> outcome".
>
> We have one president at a time. Either he is in charge or we are no
> longer following the constitution.
Agreed. Although, on a lot of things I don't agree with him, however, as
you stated he is in charge not me. I will certainly be glad when he
feels it becomes his charge and not Bush's. ;)
Gray Ghost
news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>
> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfav
> orability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>
What a coincidence, so are Obama's!
--
God, guns and guts made America great.
And Janet Napolitano nervous.
Which should tell you all you need to know about Democrats. How can one
restore America to greatness if greatness makes you uncomfortable?
Aratzio
So you are amused by people laughing at the grifter?
>
>>>> *We* want her out in front, the face of the *opposition*.
>>>
>>>Ahhhh......
>>>
>>>> Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught with
>>>> crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid 100K.
>>>> You just can't make shit like that up.
>>>
>>>Would you have been happier had she used a telepompter?
>>
>> I would not care if she did. What is wrong with using a teleprompter?
>> Specifically explain the negatives of having a prepared speech on a
>> teleprompter?
>
>Why should I? I was the one with the question. ;)
Which I answered and then added my own question.
So what is the negative of using a teleprompter?
>
>> Truly one of the stupidest complaints in history. "He uses a
>> teleprompter!"
>>
>> Now, whining about someone using a teleprompter in a speech and then
>> getting caught with crib notes like a 12 year old, that is hilarious.
>
>I agree.
>
>> Crib notes to answer prescreened questions about your "core" values no
>> less. How stupid is the grifter that she cannot even remember those
>> formulaic and basic talking points she spews daily?
>>
>>>
>>>>>> The "populist" required a $100,000 speaking fee before she would
>>>>>> address her adoring morons. They believed she was going to "donate
>>>>>> it".
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Her claim was easily debunked, how she claimed she would donate
>>>> would have been against campaign finance law.
>>>
>>>Whatever.....as I said, it was her business.....anyway, why would it
>>>be against campaign finance law....she isn't currently running for
>>>anything. If you spoke and they paid you a fee would you run afoul of
>>>campaign finance if you gave your fee to the Red Cross?
>>
>> You really should actually have a clue about the subject rather than
>> hypothesizing about what did not occur.
>
>You are one arrogant asshole, you know it. You are also pretty close to
>going back in the Bozo Bin for it. It you wish to debate lets do so. If
>you wish to simply make inane comments....
Pointing out that you didn't understand the discussion is not my
problem. Why discuss an issue with someone that is ignorant of the
issue? Your hypotheticals have nothing to do with reality.
>
>> The clue: "how she claimed she would donate"
>
>She can claim she wishes to do whatever she wants to. She can do with
>her fees just about anything she wants to......and you seem to have a
>problem with that. Oh, well......
No, the specific manner was not going to be legal. Have you missed
that part? Have you not bothered to relieve your ignorance of the
facts?
>
>>>>>In any case, it was her money to do
>>>>>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or may
>>>>>not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>>>>decide.....not you.
>>>>
>>>> Where did I say it was?
>>>
>>>Where did I claim you did?
>>
>> "up to them to decide.....not you."
>> Did you forget what you wrote? It wqs still there.
>
>I see it.....now where does it say that you had decided? I simply said
>it wasn't your place.... If you are going to whine about something that
>is said, it would help if you understood it first. ;)
I never said anything to indicate my desire to decide anything for the
idiots. You were the one that made the statement indicating that I
was.
>
>>>> You really need to practice your reading
>>>> skills.
>>>
>>>Seems like that advice could apply to both of us, eh?
>>
>> "up to them to decide.....not you."
>> Really, so do please explain where I claimed it was up to me to decide
>> how people spent their money. You stated it was not up to me, but
>> where exactly did I claim I had the right?
>
>Again, reading comprehension. I haven't said that you did.
"not you"
English?
For it to be not up to me, I would have had to first make a claim of
rights. Your presumption that I was deciding anything is wrong. As I
stated.
"Where did I say it was?"
Unless you would like to offer an alternative to your presumption the
statement stands as correct.
>
>> Unless you confused the concept of laughing at the idiots with some
>> action to halt their laughable use of their money.
>>
>>>
>>>That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
>>>> the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their funds
>>>> to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long run.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them from
>>>>>> laughing with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>>>>
>>>> Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>
>>>A classic wingnut.
>>
>> Have you begun to understand the majority of people laugh at Palin and
>> are not even slightly afraid of her or are you sticking by your
>> original concept that somehow the laughter is really fear.
>
>Nope, just asked you a question.... You appear unable to really
>understand it or answer it.
No, you asked a question that was directly answered now and in the
past. Yet you have stood by your claim that people who laugh at Palin
are in fact afraid of her. Facts contrary have failed at any point to
sway that opinion of yours. An opinion when taken to its conclusion
means that people like Jon Stewart are fearful of the people they
mock.
Seriously, believing mockery to be fear is stupid.
Aratzio
Feel free to explain how your knowledge of the subject is superior.
The job losses per month is accurate. The rate of loss has declined
every month.
Unless you are confusing the unemployment numbers with the job loss
numbers? While they are related they are not the same.
Now, since you avoided the question with your red herring, is the
lessing every month of the rate of job loss a widening or not?
>
>> As for spending, there were many economist who believed that a larger
>> stimulus package was needed so that the long term debt would be less.
>
>Interesting....borrowing mmore money results in less long term debt.
>Damn, perhaps I should have bought that 2 million dollar house after all.
It would cause the economy to turn around sooner. Thus lessening the
need for longer term stimulus and an increase in interest payments.
You do understand that a significant amount of the current deficits
are being driven by a decreased tax base?
>
>> Get the economy back to growth and the tax base restored sooner. But
>> the republicans and the blue dog democrats gutted the stimulus and
>> wasted billions on Tax cuts that do not add jobs and reduced the aid
>> to states. They also reduced the amount of infrastructure spending
>> which is second only to foodstamps in stimulative return.
>
>Damn, that means that if just the bluedogs and the few republicans
>hanging around can do all that, then perhaps 41 is a bigger number than
>59. Who'da thunk it?
Given current Senate rules 41 can obstruct any bill.
However you did not address the actual point with your new red
herring. The facts re that if the economy is back to growth the tax
base increases and the deficits decrease. Therefore an initially
larger stimulus made up of actual economically stimulative spending
would in fact have lessened the long term debt and interest.
The longer the recession goes the greater the debt since tax receipts
are severely depressed.
>
>>>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>>>> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>>>> improved the situation.
>>>
>>>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future debt.
>>>Who knows.
>>
>> Yet you and the fellow wingnuts are proud to expound as to how you see
>> the current administration as failing but do not actually have
>> anything that you can point to and say "This would have been a better
>> outcome".
>>
>> We have one president at a time. Either he is in charge or we are no
>> longer following the constitution.
>
>Agreed. Although, on a lot of things I don't agree with him, however, as
>you stated he is in charge not me. I will certainly be glad when he
>feels it becomes his charge and not Bush's. ;)
Just as soon as the economy is out of the ICU, people are working and
we are out of Iraq.
Unless you think any of those 3 most critical things on the agenda are
in fact Obama's fault?
RD (The Sandman)
news:b75jn5t1hug07326u...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>> /i q_ c urve.jpg Oddly most rethugs are on the left.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just searching on "Palins favorability ratings" brings up
>>>>>>>>> this:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.aolnews.com/the-grid/article/sarah-palin-hits-new-lo
>>>>>>>>> w- in - poll/19354785
Yep. Actually, I am laughing at both sides but you only represent one so
that is all you see. ;)
>>>>> *We* want her out in front, the face of the *opposition*.
>>>>
>>>>Ahhhh......
>>>>
>>>>> Fuck, the entertainment value alone is worth it. Getting caught
>>>>> with crib notes on your hand at a speech where you are being paid
>>>>> 100K. You just can't make shit like that up.
>>>>
>>>>Would you have been happier had she used a telepompter?
>>>
>>> I would not care if she did. What is wrong with using a
>>> teleprompter? Specifically explain the negatives of having a
>>> prepared speech on a teleprompter?
>>
>>Why should I? I was the one with the question. ;)
>
> Which I answered and then added my own question.
>
> So what is the negative of using a teleprompter?
Nothing....nor have I claimed one.
You said if she donated her fee it would be against campaign finance
laws. I asked why since she isn't a candidate. As long she acts as an
individual or contributes to a PAC, she is fine. Ergo, the question
about if you donated to the Red Cross. You aren't a candidate either
IIRC.
>>> The clue: "how she claimed she would donate"
>>
>>She can claim she wishes to do whatever she wants to. She can do with
>>her fees just about anything she wants to......and you seem to have a
>>problem with that. Oh, well......
>
> No, the specific manner was not going to be legal.
That's fair. The fact that she wishes to donate isn't.
Have you missed
> that part? Have you not bothered to relieve your ignorance of the
> facts?
>
>>
>>>>>>In any case, it was her money to do
>>>>>>with as she pleased. Those that contributed to that fee may or
>>>>>>may not have gotten their money's worth, but that is up to them to
>>>>>>decide.....not you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did I say it was?
>>>>
>>>>Where did I claim you did?
>>>
>>> "up to them to decide.....not you."
>>> Did you forget what you wrote? It wqs still there.
>>
>>I see it.....now where does it say that you had decided? I simply
>>said it wasn't your place.... If you are going to whine about
>>something that is said, it would help if you understood it first. ;)
>
> I never said anything to indicate my desire to decide anything for the
> idiots. You were the one that made the statement indicating that I
> was.
Nope, my comment simply said it wasn't your place to decide. I made no
comment as to whether or not you had or whether or not you would.
>>>>> You really need to practice your reading
>>>>> skills.
>>>>
>>>>Seems like that advice could apply to both of us, eh?
>>>
>>> "up to them to decide.....not you."
>>> Really, so do please explain where I claimed it was up to me to
>>> decide how people spent their money. You stated it was not up to me,
>>> but where exactly did I claim I had the right?
>>
>>Again, reading comprehension. I haven't said that you did.
>
> "not you"
> English?
>
> For it to be not up to me, I would have had to first make a claim of
> rights.
Nope.
> Your presumption that I was deciding anything is wrong.
I made no presumption as to that.
> As I
> stated.
> "Where did I say it was?"
Answered....
> Unless you would like to offer an alternative to your presumption the
> statement stands as correct.
Whatever....
>>> Unless you confused the concept of laughing at the idiots with some
>>> action to halt their laughable use of their money.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That was a statement as to the severe lack of intelligence on
>>>>> the part of her supporters. I am quite pleased they used their
>>>>> funds to support her. Less money for viable candidates in the long
>>>>> run.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Classic wingnut: Inability to differentiate laughing at them
>>>>>>> from laughing with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why describe yourself like that? No self esteem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Classic wingnut: "I know you are but what am I?"
>>>>
>>>>A classic wingnut.
>>>
>>> Have you begun to understand the majority of people laugh at Palin
>>> and are not even slightly afraid of her or are you sticking by your
>>> original concept that somehow the laughter is really fear.
>>
>>Nope, just asked you a question.... You appear unable to really
>>understand it or answer it.
>
> No, you asked a question that was directly answered now and in the
> past. Yet you have stood by your claim that people who laugh at Palin
> are in fact afraid of her.
I did? I asked a question.....either you can answer it or you can't.
Either you are the representative of "you guys" or you aren't.
Facts contrary have failed at any point to
> sway that opinion of yours.
Unless you have followed this thread and seen what I agree with, you have
no idea what my real opinion is.
An opinion when taken to its conclusion
> means that people like Jon Stewart are fearful of the people they
> mock.
Even Stewart doesn't sniff after her every move like a dog in rut.
> Seriously, believing mockery to be fear is stupid.
Yep.....damn, another point in which we are in agreement. Scary shit,
eh? ;)
>>> Using your thought process: Jon Stewart, he is so afraid of so many
>>> things because he is entertained by the "morans" and laughs at them.
>>>
>>>
>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:416jn5ltt25q4376d...@4ax.com:
I asked if you thought about how that number was derived. You could say
"yes" or "no".
> Unless you are confusing the unemployment numbers with the job loss
> numbers? While they are related they are not the same.
>
> Now, since you avoided the question with your red herring, is the
> lessing every month of the rate of job loss a widening or not?
Spending money like it is going out of style is. A 14.3 trillion dollar
lid that will soon be raised again, is. Trying to pass the Democrat's
version of healthcare is. The jobs issue never really came up as a
priority until the election in Massachusetts was lost.
>>> As for spending, there were many economist who believed that a
>>> larger stimulus package was needed so that the long term debt would
>>> be less.
>>
>>Interesting....borrowing mmore money results in less long term debt.
>>Damn, perhaps I should have bought that 2 million dollar house after
>>all.
>
> It would cause the economy to turn around sooner.
Perhaps....perhaps not. No one really knows....including those economists
when other economists disagree with them.
Thus lessening the
> need for longer term stimulus and an increase in interest payments.
Since the money isn't there to pay for that stimulus, after awhile even
China will tire of lending us money. And printing large amounts of money
to cover that debt will simply deflate the dollar and make more nations
look for a different currency as a standard.
> You do understand that a significant amount of the current deficits
> are being driven by a decreased tax base?
Yep.....I also realize that only sector that pays taxes is the private
one. Adding government jobs puts some people to work but it does nothing
to put more monies into the treasury. It only adds to the cost.
>>> Get the economy back to growth and the tax base restored sooner. But
>>> the republicans and the blue dog democrats gutted the stimulus and
>>> wasted billions on Tax cuts that do not add jobs and reduced the aid
>>> to states. They also reduced the amount of infrastructure spending
>>> which is second only to foodstamps in stimulative return.
>>
>>Damn, that means that if just the bluedogs and the few republicans
>>hanging around can do all that, then perhaps 41 is a bigger number
>>than 59. Who'da thunk it?
>
> Given current Senate rules 41 can obstruct any bill.
Not true. It can kill filibustering but there is a way around it. Most
Democrats, however, feel that is a nuclear option and bi-partisanship
would be even further away.
> However you did not address the actual point with your new red
> herring. The facts re that if the economy is back to growth the tax
> base increases and the deficits decrease. Therefore an initially
> larger stimulus made up of actual economically stimulative spending
> would in fact have lessened the long term debt and interest.
Depends on where that stimulus was spent. Unless jobs increase in the
private sector, all you are doing is adding cost.
> The longer the recession goes the greater the debt since tax receipts
> are severely depressed.
Then let's see job growth in the private sector rather than the public
one. Raising taxes on the wealthy to support a single payer health plan
is NOT a way to increase that job growth.
>>>>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and
>>>>> policy expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would
>>>>> have improved the situation.
>>>>
>>>>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future
>>>>debt. Who knows.
>>>
>>> Yet you and the fellow wingnuts are proud to expound as to how you
>>> see the current administration as failing but do not actually have
>>> anything that you can point to and say "This would have been a
>>> better outcome".
>>>
>>> We have one president at a time. Either he is in charge or we are no
>>> longer following the constitution.
>>
>>Agreed. Although, on a lot of things I don't agree with him, however,
>>as you stated he is in charge not me. I will certainly be glad when
>>he feels it becomes his charge and not Bush's. ;)
>
> Just as soon as the economy is out of the ICU, people are working and
> we are out of Iraq.
Agreed.....but those people need to be in the private sector.
> Unless you think any of those 3 most critical things on the agenda are
> in fact Obama's fault?
Nope, I believe those problems are the result of errors on BOTH sides of
the aisle, not just one.
Aratzio
You answered your own question. At that point your mind is made up and
it is time to return to the point you avoided.
>
>> Unless you are confusing the unemployment numbers with the job loss
>> numbers? While they are related they are not the same.
>>
>> Now, since you avoided the question with your red herring, is the
>> lessing every month of the rate of job loss a widening or not?
>
>Spending money like it is going out of style is. A 14.3 trillion dollar
>lid that will soon be raised again, is. Trying to pass the Democrat's
>version of healthcare is. The jobs issue never really came up as a
>priority until the election in Massachusetts was lost.
So, is the job lose widening or not. You stated:
"Well, we aren't out of that hole and he certainly widened it."
The deficit is widening, but what is your alternative given both the
economic and job situation? Do you have some magic that would relieve
either of those without a significant intervention by the government?
And as to the original point:
"How long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of the
previous 8 years?"
>
>>>> As for spending, there were many economist who believed that a
>>>> larger stimulus package was needed so that the long term debt would
>>>> be less.
>>>
>>>Interesting....borrowing mmore money results in less long term debt.
>>>Damn, perhaps I should have bought that 2 million dollar house after
>>>all.
>>
>> It would cause the economy to turn around sooner.
>
>Perhaps....perhaps not. No one really knows....including those economists
>when other economists disagree with them.
So you think less spending and a longer recession is going to cause
less deficit in the long run?
>
> Thus lessening the
>> need for longer term stimulus and an increase in interest payments.
>
>Since the money isn't there to pay for that stimulus, after awhile even
>China will tire of lending us money. And printing large amounts of money
>to cover that debt will simply deflate the dollar and make more nations
>look for a different currency as a standard.
Yes, your point? The alternative is what, specifically?
Just imagine if the previous 8 years had expended as much effort on
fiscal responsibility as they did talking about fiscal responsibility.
In the words of the puppetmaster "Deficits don't matter".
So the problem is how to dig the country out of the hole that it was
left in by the previous administration.
>
>> You do understand that a significant amount of the current deficits
>> are being driven by a decreased tax base?
>
>Yep.....I also realize that only sector that pays taxes is the private
>one. Adding government jobs puts some people to work but it does nothing
>to put more monies into the treasury. It only adds to the cost.
Since government employment is only marginally up that has little
effect one way or the other. However, government employment under the
previous administration was up much more than "marginally".
>
>>>> Get the economy back to growth and the tax base restored sooner. But
>>>> the republicans and the blue dog democrats gutted the stimulus and
>>>> wasted billions on Tax cuts that do not add jobs and reduced the aid
>>>> to states. They also reduced the amount of infrastructure spending
>>>> which is second only to foodstamps in stimulative return.
>>>
>>>Damn, that means that if just the bluedogs and the few republicans
>>>hanging around can do all that, then perhaps 41 is a bigger number
>>>than 59. Who'da thunk it?
>>
>> Given current Senate rules 41 can obstruct any bill.
>
>Not true. It can kill filibustering but there is a way around it. Most
>Democrats, however, feel that is a nuclear option and bi-partisanship
>would be even further away.
Cannot change the rules without 67 votes. Which means only 34 need
vote against the rule change. So explain how a group with 41 votes
will allow themselves to me marginalized even further by agreeing to
the Senate Rules change?
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm
:The Senate has a process in place for amending rules; this process requires
:a two-thirds [67] vote. According to Congressional Quarterly, from 1919-1971,
:there were nine filibusters relating to Rule 22; in each case, there were
:insufficient votes to invoke cloture.
>
>> However you did not address the actual point with your new red
>> herring. The facts re that if the economy is back to growth the tax
>> base increases and the deficits decrease. Therefore an initially
>> larger stimulus made up of actual economically stimulative spending
>> would in fact have lessened the long term debt and interest.
>
>Depends on where that stimulus was spent. Unless jobs increase in the
>private sector, all you are doing is adding cost.
"actual economically stimulative spending"
Infrastructure, unemployment and food stamps being 3 highly
stimulative spending.
Food Stamps are about $1.75 per dollar of stimulus ($2.00 being break
even)
Infrastructure is around $1.50
I don't know for sure but I believe tax cuts are less than $1.20
Issue right now is that those with jobs and paying taxes are saving
money which is not very stimulative. Tax cuts are just going to waste
due to the shitty economy. Tax cuts work best when the economy is
still growing.
>
>> The longer the recession goes the greater the debt since tax receipts
>> are severely depressed.
>
>Then let's see job growth in the private sector rather than the public
>one. Raising taxes on the wealthy to support a single payer health plan
>is NOT a way to increase that job growth.
There is no job growth in th eprivate sector, it is still shedding
jobs. Decreasingly but until that turns around the Government has to
spend money.
>
>>>>>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and
>>>>>> policy expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would
>>>>>> have improved the situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future
>>>>>debt. Who knows.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you and the fellow wingnuts are proud to expound as to how you
>>>> see the current administration as failing but do not actually have
>>>> anything that you can point to and say "This would have been a
>>>> better outcome".
>>>>
>>>> We have one president at a time. Either he is in charge or we are no
>>>> longer following the constitution.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Although, on a lot of things I don't agree with him, however,
>>>as you stated he is in charge not me. I will certainly be glad when
>>>he feels it becomes his charge and not Bush's. ;)
>>
>> Just as soon as the economy is out of the ICU, people are working and
>> we are out of Iraq.
>
>Agreed.....but those people need to be in the private sector.
How do you propose to get private sector hiring without money flowing
in the economy?
>
>> Unless you think any of those 3 most critical things on the agenda are
>> in fact Obama's fault?
>
>Nope, I believe those problems are the result of errors on BOTH sides of
>the aisle, not just one.
There is one President at a time and he is responsible.
RD (The Sandman)
news:o6hjn592etakjptcv...@4ax.com:
Then why did you spend most of this post mentioning the last 8 years? It
was problems on both sides of the aisle no matter which president was in
charge. If one wishes to place the whole enchilada on Bush because he
was president, then it is fair that Obama accept the problems that exist
since his inaugeration.
Aratzio
>Then why did you spend most of this post mentioning the last 8 years? It
>was problems on both sides of the aisle no matter which president was in
>charge. If one wishes to place the whole enchilada on Bush because he
>was president, then it is fair that Obama accept the problems that exist
>since his inaugeration.
*SIGH*
The current president is responsible for the clean-up. The previous
president is responisble for the mess.
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
>>>of pure thought with
>>>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99
>>>>s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>
>>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>>
>>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>>
>>
>> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
>> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
>> Palin may just not know what happened.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>>
>> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it doubt.
>>
>> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for the rethugs
>> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
>
>Sounds more like you Left Wingers that can't tell fantasy from reality
>and think that Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.
Tina Fey MADE Palin famous !!!
Palin owes it all to Tina Fey.
Tina Fey for Pres in 2017 !!!
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the waters
>>>of pure thought with
>>>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99
>>>>s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>
>>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>>
>>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>>
>>
>> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
>> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
>> Palin may just not know what happened.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>>
>> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it doubt.
>>
>> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for the rethugs
>> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
>
>Sounds more like you Left Wingers that can't tell fantasy from reality
>and think that Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.
Palin can see the moon from her broom so she's a
Space Cadet, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80%99s-unfav
>> orability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>
>
>What a coincidence, so are Obama's!
While nobody is perfect many rethugs had far lower
ratings at the end of their first year in office.
And his are far higher than Palins <VBG>.
--
Cliff
�n�hw��f
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:35:12 -0600, No-bammer <no-b...@fgi.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Cliff wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f"
>>> <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>>>waters of pure thought with
>>>>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%80
>>>>>%99 s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>>
>>>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
>>> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
>>> Palin may just not know what happened.
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>>>
>>> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often it
>>> doubt.
>>>
>>> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for
>>> the rethugs
>>> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
>>
>>Sounds more like you Left Wingers that can't tell fantasy from
>>reality and think that Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.
>
> Tina Fey MADE Palin famous !!!
> Palin owes it all to Tina Fey.
>
> Tina Fey for Pres in 2017 !!!
She's too smart for the wingnut vote...
--
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
�n�hw��f
thought with news:r4njn51f10chghpsr...@4ax.com:
Theres a reason fast food is popular in america: people want instant
gratification/results.
Word.
RD (The Sandman)
news:r4njn51f10chghpsr...@4ax.com:
Aahhh, agreement on that point if you assign responsibility only to the
master of the ship of state.
Stuart Wheaton
What gets me is that she wasn't writing things she needed to be sure she
got right, like how much oil we actually import from Brazil or the GDP
of Iceland...
She had to write a cheat sheet to hit the basic plain vanilla Republican
talking points!
Yes, that girl IS too stupid to be allowed anywhere near the Oval office.
Cliff
She could pretend to be Palin.
They would never know.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In article <6vggn5p88442naufd...@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>@sneakemail.com says...
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:25:15 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>> >In article <k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>> >@sneakemail.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> >> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> >> writing:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
>> >> >> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you have
>> >> >to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>> >>
>> >> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> >> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> >> Great Depression?
>> >
>> >When will Obama and company START doing something about it besides
>> >paying off their political supporters ?
>>
>> So you can't answer the question derived from your previous ignorant
>> response. No surprise there.
>>
>> You make claims and when pressed on your own claims, you run and hide.
>
>It's a false premise to assing all responsability to the previous
>administration.
Good point.
Just BECAUSE they & the rethugs caused the problems is no
reason to blame them.
They know better than to ass responsability. Not while a winger is
left to lie.
>IIRC Obama was party to at least two of those years as a senator.
Water want over Niagara Falls too.
It's all water's fault for falling.
And these disasters were a decade in the planning & execution.
Or more. Ever since the rethugs invented free money .....
>> >> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> >> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> >> improved the situation.
>>
>> No response: no surprise there.
>
>Since Obama is pretty much following the same course I think you know
>what McCain would have done.
Unresponsive & evasive.
>> Well, cupcake, you are not showing much in the way of intelligence or
>> balls. Just mewling and whining like the average "all stupid, all the
>> time" wingnut.
>
>I can't help what you are, only you can change that.
He keeps whining & mewing.
--
Cliff
�n�hw��f
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:42:11 -0600, "�n�hw��f"
> <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>waters of pure thought with
>>news:rgvkn5hlahl3kvpa4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:35:12 -0600, No-bammer
>>> <no-b...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cliff wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:58:50 -0600, "�n�hw��f"
>>>>> <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> clouded the
>>>>>>waters of pure thought with
>>>>>>news:h12an5p6hrdjiruce...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/11/sarah-palin%E2%
>>>>>>>80 %99 s-unfavorability-ratings-at-all-time-high/
>>>>>>> "Sarah Palin�s Unfavorability Ratings At All-Time High"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hell, even her *kids* are dissapointed with her:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/palin_embarassed.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some probably already suspected she was their mother. OTOH
>>>>> they may have been told they were found under cabbages or
>>>>> Palin may just not know what happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-4zDjt37M
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose with wingers such matters as parentage are often
>>>>> it doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is sad to see her using the latest to drop as a prop for
>>>>> the rethugs
>>>>> though. Did Rush call it a "retard"?
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnBgqCAZWaY
>>>>
>>>>Sounds more like you Left Wingers that can't tell fantasy from
>>>>reality and think that Tina Fey is Sarah Palin.
>>>
>>> Tina Fey MADE Palin famous !!!
>>> Palin owes it all to Tina Fey.
>>>
>>> Tina Fey for Pres in 2017 !!!
>>
>>She's too smart for the wingnut vote...
>
> She could pretend to be Palin.
> They would never know.
She was really good...Palin went on SNL then decided to...QUIT going
along with the script...
Cliff
>That appears to be what Dear Leader is committed to doing, running.
>Not leading.
Herr shrubbie in his bunker & SureShot hiding in his
undisclosed locations.
Where are they today?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>What company wants to invest in expanding when you don't know what new
>law might be imposed to "save the planet".
Why invest?
What planet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I long ago decided that the response to childish insults was ridicule.
So you are happy with what you get.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I'd note you attack the messenger..
>Must be the message hits home..
You are gibbering & frothing again.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Yet in 2008 the Bush administration asked for the House banking
>committee to consider new rules on Fannie Mae and mac...
>But the chair refused to even consider the idea, claiming that Fannie
>Mae was just fine.
>Curiously that same chair had been instrumental in pushing Fannie Mae to
>loosen rules on mortgages long before GW Bush became president.
>
>"In 1991, Frank and former Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., lobbied for Fannie
>to soften rules on multi-family home mortgages although those dwellings
>showed a default rate twice that of single-family homes, according to
>the Nov. 22, 1991, Boston Globe."
>http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
1991.
2008.
No more red lining.
It was not those that had been red lined that caused the problems.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in
>news:k0egn5p62fopjbmis...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:44:10 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>In article <tm8gn5pgsdl92ph64...@4ax.com>,
>>>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>>
>>>> "Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would
>>>> promise them
>>>> jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Given the performance of the current resident of the whitehouse you
>>>have to agree that statement appears to be correct....
>>
>> So, how long did Obama and company have to clean up the mistakes of
>> the previous 8 years and dig the US out of the deepest hole since the
>> Great Depression?
>
>Well, we aren't out of that hole and he certainly widened it.
The utter failure of the entire banking system plus 50%+ unemployment
was an option, right?
Where were you when the rethugs ran up their first 11 + trillion dollars in
debts? In line for your free money, right?
IIRC Obama has spent less than 300 billion of the stimulus money.
>> Maybe you can use your finely honed skills as an economic and policy
>> expert and explain how the policies of McCain/Palin would have
>> improved the situation.
>
>I doubt it would have made much difference other than less future debt.
>Who knows.
Less GDP, less taxes, more debt.
--
Cliff
Beam Me Up Scotty
The whole plan was to spread the risk from those risky loans across to
the rest of the good loans, I remember someone publicly saying it in
that way..... we got it and it crashed the entire market.
--
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Have you thought much about how they are counting those jobs?
About half of all US manufacturing jobs were lost under bushco
& the rethugs.
We had about half as many people making things when the rethugs
got tossed out compared to when they siezed power.
This was profitable for their $$ backers. In the short term.
You can do a lot of damage when you can make $1 by destroying
$1000.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>And printing large amounts of money
>to cover that debt will simply deflate the dollar and make more nations
>look for a different currency as a standard.
What a relief !!!
Most worried it would cause inflation.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>Yep.....I also realize that only sector that pays taxes is the private
>one.
False.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The longer the recession goes the greater the debt since tax receipts
>> are severely depressed.
>
>Then let's see job growth in the private sector rather than the public
>one. Raising taxes on the wealthy to support a single payer health plan
>is NOT a way to increase that job growth.
The rethug plan to just kill them off ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Since government employment is only marginally up
After the rethugs had about doubled it while removing the work (regulation)
they should have been doing ....
--
Cliff