Obama's Train Wreck of a Town Hall in Ohio
Burled Frau
Earlier this week, during a radio interview, I had said that Obama's
appearance for Martha Coakley on Sunday was one of the least effective stump
appearances I had seen from a president. A lot of factors contributed to
that - Coakley's literally yawn-inducing speech, the decision to use the
president as an attack dog in the race, the president (or his
speechwriter's) odd fixation on Scott Brown's truck, and so on.
But perhaps Obama is in a "stump slump." Maybe it's me; maybe I can't see
any Obama speech as a good one these days. But today in Ohio, it seemed like
the president was way off his game. I thought he was defensive, prickly,
almost indignant that he's found himself in the tough spot that he's in.
He began by talking about how much he didn't like being in Washington, and
apparently said something about the job being stifling. Sir, you spent two
years trying to get this job.
One of his rallying cries as, "This is not about me!" Yes, Mr. President,
but it's about the decisions you make and the policies you're trying to
enact.
He made a reference to bankers who "click their heels and watch their stocks
skyrocket." Was he going with a Dorothy in Oz metaphor? Do bankers click
their heels?
"I won't stop fighting to bring back jobs here," worked as an applause line,
but I wondered how it worked outside the venue. That insinuates he's been
doing it for the first year, as unemployment has steadily increased. He's
calling on Congress to "pass a jobs bill." I thought the stimulus was
supposed to do that.
As Caleb Howe noticed, he said "I won't stop fighting to open up government"
while breaking the promise about health care bill negotiations being on
C-SPAN.
I realize he's using it to justify a new tax on banks, but I think "we want
our money back" is a dangerous chant for a man who so steadily expands
government spending.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZmMTRiODhmNDRlOTE5NDZjYmNmZGNmZWNiYjg4M2M=
Too_Many_Tools
LOL..so why does Obama mops the floor with the Republicans everytime
they have a faceoff?
Laugh...laugh..laugh...
TMT
Burled Frau
"Observer" <noone@nowhere> wrote in message
news:qc79m5dqt239ar41m...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 12:23:09 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>>they have a faceoff?
>
> Why does 0bama mops the floor, at all?
>
>>Laugh...laugh..laugh...
>
> Indeed.
>
Why does he chokes his chicken at all?
Buerste
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f44e9d5-9a7e-4ae4...@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
LOL..so why does Obama mops the floor with the Republicans everytime
they have a faceoff?
Laugh...laugh..laugh...
TMT
*****************************************
You fringe fools would say that even if Obammy farted in the microphone and
fell on the floor drooling. Do you have a splatter shield on your TV when
you watch President Wee-Wee?
Hawke
I know guys like you are starved for information being that you only get
information from Fox News or Rush, so I guess you didn't hear what
REPUBLICANS were saying privately about the meeting with Obama. From
what reporters said they heard from republicans who attended the
meeting, they said they didn't think they would do it again because of
how bad Obama made them look. They invited Obama to the retreat but he
insisted that it would be on TV. They didn't want to but agreed. Now we
see why. When confronted by Obama on the issues they came out the
losers. I know to you guys Obama got destroyed but to everyone else who
saw it the losers were the republicans. Not one of them looked to be
able to even find his jock strap let alone carry it. He knew more about
every issue than the whole crowd of republicans did. Obama won the thing
easily. But I don't expect any right winger would admit it even if polls
showed he won by a wide margin. Denying reality is something right
wingers are masters at. Like saying Palin did well in the Katie Couric
interview.
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hk33pg$e7i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Boy, are you going to have a big let down when you finally wake up!
Buerste
Obammy sure do talk purdy...but he lies, lies, lies! But, since the
fringies don't know the 'dif, they just suck it up and splatter their TVs.
HH&C
> Buerste wrote:
>
> > "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:7f44e9d5-9a7e-4ae4...@28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > LOL..so why does Obama mops the floor with the Republicans everytime
> > they have a faceoff?
>
> > Laugh...laugh..laugh...
>
> > TMT
> > *****************************************
>
> > You fringe fools would say that even if Obammy farted in the microphone
> > and fell on the floor drooling. Do you have a splatter shield on your
> > TV when you watch President Wee-Wee?
>
> I know guys like you are starved for information being that you only get
> information from Fox News or Rush, so I guess you didn't hear what
> REPUBLICANS were saying privately about the meeting with Obama. From
> what reporters said they heard from republicans who attended the
> meeting, they said they didn't think they would do it again because of
> how bad Obama made them look.
So?
They'll look even worse if they go along with legislation that is bad
for America, and will find themselves out of work in this "worst
economy ever."
Then how will they look?
> They invited Obama to the retreat but he
> insisted that it would be on TV. They didn't want to but agreed. Now we
> see why. When confronted by Obama on the issues they came out the
> losers.
They still have their jobs.
> I know to you guys Obama got destroyed but to everyone else who
> saw it the losers were the republicans. Not one of them looked to be
> able to even find his jock strap let alone carry it.
Did 0bama and Napolitano let them try to light it on fire?
> He knew more about
> every issue than the whole crowd of republicans did.
Sure. He created the issue. Just like he had the CDC play up the
H1N1 because he needed some kind of health care crisis to puch his
agenda.
> Obama won the thing easily.
I know to you guys Obama won, but to everyone else who
saw it the loser was a democrat.
> But I don't expect any right winger would admit it even if polls
> showed he won by a wide margin. Denying reality is something right
> wingers are masters at. Like saying Palin did well in the Katie Couric
> interview.
>
> Hawke
Little raptor, 0bama was unable to force through health care with a
super majority. Now he will have to work with the republicans if he
wants the bipartisanship that he campaigned on and repeated in his
unState of the Union address.
BTW, I heard soooo many lies in that speech. It was as if he were
campaigning again, which was one of the points he tried to make...
stop the 24/7 campaigning.
Keep drinking the kool-aid, little raptor.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
*Snicker*...and this from a supposely successful businessman.
So when are you and Gunner going to get together on deciding his
compensation for working for you?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are right Hawke....Obama mopped the floor with them.
If that was the Republican Party's brightest, no wonder the Party is
DOA.
TMT
Hawke
We're not talking about the State of the Union speech. We're talking
about the question and answer session at the republican retreat. Obama
took every question any republican had and by all accounts he made mince
meat out of them. I doubt you saw any of it and don't know what
happened, which in your mind makes you eminently qualified to comment on
the gathering.
But to those of us who saw it there was no doubt who the smartest, and
most knowledgeable guy in the room was. I'm sorry to break the news to
the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
Obama is the real deal. He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
ahead and it's going to be successful. By the time his first term is up
the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
better. This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
time turns the basket case into a successful business. That's what Obama
is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't. He'll succeed in spite of the
republicans heel dragging. So you guys lose again. First you have your
republican president fail miserably then you have a Democrat follow him
, do a really good job and make him look like crap. Really, how can you
guys stand so many defeats?
Hawke
Buerste
First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists
Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy"
seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government
bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into
crisis and economic collapse.
In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting
rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed
this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of
George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were
Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an
ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder
Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox
Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.
All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE --
set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which
Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely
responsible for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid
registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent
people -- thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud
and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.
The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives --
typically featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of
election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of
"racism" and "disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests,
violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in
the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees now seek to overwhelm the nation's
understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the
stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of
fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly
in Third World countries.
Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial
support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party,"
through whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a
blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
acing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from
independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican
opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of
the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.
"At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we're not in a
health-care crisis," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at
Georgetown University in Washington. "You do need a crisis to generate
movement in Congress and to help build a consensus."
"You do need a crisis..."
If you don't happen to have a real one -- invent one.
Remember what Rahm Emanuel said last November -- "You never want a serious
crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do
things you think you could not do before."
Everything with these people is a crisis -- and it's no accident.
This bunch are all proponents of the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured
Crisis.
The American electorate has watched in amazement for a year as Obama has
created unprecedented havoc and outrage throughout the nation.
And yet, the actual result of 2009's non-stop crises has been not just the
dramatic transfer of wealth and power away from citizens and small
businesses and into the hands of government, but also the beginnings of a
profound transformation of America's economic and governmental system.
Is it possible that Obama is intentionally creating crises for the purpose
of converting America into a full-fledged socialist state? To many, such a
conclusion sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory, but for those
knowledgeable about the modern history of the radical left, creating crises
is simply how things get done.
Indeed, in one of its most powerful issues ever, the January 2010 edition of
Whistleblower magazine -- titled "The Crisis Creators" -- documents
conclusively that the Obama administration's primary modus operandi of
governance is the transformation of America through wreaking havoc.
Following the classic radical-left strategy of the manufactured crisis,
Obama and Congress are creating crises in every area of life and policy.
They're wreaking havoc throughout America's capitalist, free-enterprise
system by taking over major industries like banking, auto and healthcare.
And by multiplying the national debt so astronomically that the only
mathematically possible way to pay it off is with the printing press, which
translates directly into the "grand theft" of Americans' hard-earned wealth
through major inflation.
But it not just the economy. They're wreaking havoc also on America's
national security, prosecuting U.S. soldiers for being too rough on
terrorists, but rewarding confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
with a civilian trial in New York City and affording him all the powerful
legal rights of an American citizen. And by badmouthing and apologizing for
America overseas and bowing before Muslim kings, while scandalously snubbing
leaders of America's few remaining allies like the U.K. and Israel.
They're creating crises in the nation's energy policy by stubbornly adhering
to the controversial and now utterly discredited "global warming" theory and
pursuing economically catastrophic legislation like "cap and trade."
They're creating havoc in education by putting radical homosexual activist
Kevin Jennings, notorious for sexually corrupting children, in charge of the
safety of the nation's public schools.
In every area imaginable, as "The Crisis Creators" documents, Obama is
busily engaged in undermining and destroying the nation's key
institutions -- or as Obama himself euphemistically put it a few days before
being elected president, "We are five days away from fundamentally
transforming the United States of America."
"Of course, the government could easily create a simple safety net to help
the small percentage of Americans who don't have health insurance," added
Kupelian. "But they've never been interested in that. They're interested
only in creating the illusion of a systemic and fatal healthcare crisis as a
means of forcing socialism down free Americans' throats.
"And that's just one example. Manufacturing crises to force 'change' is how
the radical left has operated for decades, and now that Obama, Pelosi and
Reid are in power, fake crises and their terrible 'solutions' dominate life
in America."
Anyone wonder why the left is hated by normal people?
HH&C
Then why can't he get anything done?
> I'm sorry to break the news to
> the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
> Obama is the real deal.
He's the real bad New Deal. No thanks.
> He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
> ahead and it's going to be successful.
Yes and no.
> By the time his first term is up
> the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
> better.
If he stays out of the way it will.
> This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
> crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
> time turns the basket case into a successful business.
Except that this "company" can print it's own money. Doesn't need a
business plan to sell to a lender.
You are the lender.
I am the lender.
> That's what Obama
> is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
> you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't.
You're putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I don't want him to
fail America. That's why I'm against his policies.
> He'll succeed in spite of the
> republicans heel dragging. So you guys lose again. First you have your
> republican president fail miserably then you have a Democrat follow him
> , do a really good job and make him look like crap. Really, how can you
> guys stand so many defeats?
>
> Hawke
Preventing bad programs from passing is defeat? I measure that
differently.
Hawke
>>> Keep drinking the kool-aid, little raptor.
>> We're not talking about the State of the Union speech. We're talking
>> about the question and answer session at the republican retreat. Obama
>> took every question any republican had and by all accounts he made mince
>> meat out of them. I doubt you saw any of it and don't know what
>> happened, which in your mind makes you eminently qualified to comment on
>> the gathering.
>>
>> But to those of us who saw it there was no doubt who the smartest, and
>> most knowledgeable guy in the room was.
>
> Then why can't he get anything done?
That's a change of the subject. As you can see from above I was talking
about Obama's ability, which he showed very well on Friday. As to why he
can't get anything done, you know the answer. It's because all
republican senators vote as a block to stop everything he proposes. But
why ask that when you know it's the republicans blocking his every proposal?
>> I'm sorry to break the news to
>> the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
>> Obama is the real deal.
>
> He's the real bad New Deal. No thanks.
I guess you think a president McCain, who would have governed much like
Bush, would be a better choice? Did you think Bush would be a good
president in 2001? I know I didn't.
>> He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
>> ahead and it's going to be successful.
>
> Yes and no.
If you don't let him try to change things then how do you expect things
to improve, just all by themselves? Do nothing and hope our problems
will resolve themselves. Or a crazier idea, do what the republicans want
to do, which we already tried and it failed.
>> By the time his first term is up
>> the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
>> better.
>
> If he stays out of the way it will.
You like the Herbert Hoover approach. Just stand back and things will
get better without doing anything. Sure, that always works.
>> This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
>> crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
>> time turns the basket case into a successful business.
>
> Except that this "company" can print it's own money. Doesn't need a
> business plan to sell to a lender.
>
> You are the lender.
>
> I am the lender.
None of us likes the hole financial hole the country is in. The
difference is people like me, and the administration, know that whether
you like it or not when the economy is this bad the government has to
spend. It's like in WWII. We didn't want to go into debt to win the war
but we didn't have much choice. It's the same here. Either you sit
around and do nothing an hope for the best or you use the government to
turn things around. At which point you pay off the debt and change
policies so you don't go into debt again except for real emergencies.
Bush sent us into debt and there was no emergency like it was for Obama.
Proving again that republicans are worse at managing the economy than
the Democrats. That's something you should keep in mind. The republicans
just tried their hand at running the country. The question is why would
you trust them again. Did you not notice what they did to us?
>> That's what Obama
>> is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
>> you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't.
>
> You're putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I don't want him to
> fail America. That's why I'm against his policies.
You're against his policies. You were for republican policies. They
failed but you don't want the Democrat to even try his plans. You just
judge them before even trying them. That's exactly like Limbaugh.
>> He'll succeed in spite of the
>> republicans heel dragging. So you guys lose again. First you have your
>> republican president fail miserably then you have a Democrat follow him
>> , do a really good job and make him look like crap. Really, how can you
>> guys stand so many defeats?
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Preventing bad programs from passing is defeat? I measure that
> differently.
The problem is that you don't know a good program from a bad one. We had
years of bad ones and you didn't make a peep about them. Even now I'm
sure you would support the republican's plan to turn the country around.
But even you should know that you don't go to the people who ruined
things and then go back to them to fix what they broke. You only have
two choices; go back to the republicans and let them do some more of
what they did under Bush or let the Democrats try their hand at it. But
you won't let them try. I think you're just afraid that if Obama gets
his way things are going to get better and just like the republicans you
don't want that to happen because it would be good for Democrats and
bad for the republicans.
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkahpr$42o$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
0bama's a loser. In case you stupid libs can't comprehend that, let me say
it in your own language, 0bama's a looser.
He accomplished nothing, zero. A democrap President with a democrap
majority, still blaming Bush, still blaming Republicans. He should just
tattoo a giant "L" on his forehead.
Always trying to compare himself to Bush. Too bad Bush couldn't run again,
even though the stupid ass libs voted for 0bama because they thought it was
their only hope to finally beat him. Google is a wonderful historian, go
back and look at all of the "he's our only hope of beating Bush" posts.
0bama leads the party of losers.
This is the year of the Republicans. 0bama is finished. That's all she wrote
and both of TMT's mommies are singing. Quite loudly, I must add.
HH&C
> HH&C wrote:
> >>> Keep drinking the kool-aid, little raptor.
> >> We're not talking about the State of the Union speech. We're talking
> >> about the question and answer session at the republican retreat. Obama
> >> took every question any republican had and by all accounts he made mince
> >> meat out of them. I doubt you saw any of it and don't know what
> >> happened, which in your mind makes you eminently qualified to comment on
> >> the gathering.
>
> >> But to those of us who saw it there was no doubt who the smartest, and
> >> most knowledgeable guy in the room was.
>
> > Then why can't he get anything done?
>
> That's a change of the subject.
Being smart is useless if you can't manage people.
> As you can see from above I was talking
> about Obama's ability, which he showed very well on Friday. As to why he
> can't get anything done, you know the answer. It's because all
> republican senators vote as a block to stop everything he proposes. But
> why ask that when you know it's the republicans blocking his every proposal?
He doesn't need a single Republican if he could only manage pople in
his own party.
> >> I'm sorry to break the news to
> >> the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
> >> Obama is the real deal.
>
> > He's the real bad New Deal. No thanks.
>
> I guess you think a president McCain, who would have governed much like
> Bush, would be a better choice?
Slow train wreck instead of a fast train wreck. Yes, McCain would
have been better.
> Did you think Bush would be a good
> president in 2001? I know I didn't.
Yes.
> >> He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
> >> ahead and it's going to be successful.
>
> > Yes and no.
>
> If you don't let him try to change things then how do you expect things
> to improve, just all by themselves?
Let the bad banks fail. FDIC instead of bonuses to bad bankers.
Would have been far cheaper in the long run.
> Do nothing and hope our problems
> will resolve themselves. Or a crazier idea, do what the republicans want
> to do, which we already tried and it failed.
Don't lie to me. You guys are fond of pointing out that Bush started
the bailouts.
> >> By the time his first term is up
> >> the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
> >> better.
>
> > If he stays out of the way it will.
>
> You like the Herbert Hoover approach. Just stand back and things will
> get better without doing anything. Sure, that always works.
Direct help to the individual instead of banks.
> >> This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
> >> crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
> >> time turns the basket case into a successful business.
>
> > Except that this "company" can print it's own money. Doesn't need a
> > business plan to sell to a lender.
>
> > You are the lender.
>
> > I am the lender.
>
> None of us likes the hole financial hole the country is in.
Obama sees it as a golden opportunity to change America to a socialist
state... to finish the work FDR started.
> The
> difference is people like me, and the administration, know that whether
> you like it or not when the economy is this bad the government has to
> spend.
Why?
> It's like in WWII.
This is nothing like WW-II.
> We didn't want to go into debt to win the war
> but we didn't have much choice. It's the same here.
You bitch about war spending now, but claim it was a good thing then.
> Either you sit
> around and do nothing an hope for the best or you use the government to
> turn things around. At which point you pay off the debt and change
> policies so you don't go into debt again except for real emergencies.
> Bush sent us into debt and there was no emergency like it was for Obama.
When does 0bama stop his "illegal" wars, as you like to call them?
> Proving again that republicans are worse at managing the economy than
> the Democrats.
Years of bad policy came to a head when Bush was president. You take
a snapshot in time and pin it all on one individual. At least you try
to. Even when you know it was impossible for one individual to be
responsible for this entire mess, you try to pn it on one person.
So don't lie to me anymore about it. Come clean. The truth will set
you free.
> That's something you should keep in mind.
That's something you should keep in mind, too.
> The republicans
> just tried their hand at running the country. The question is why would
> you trust them again.
I don't. I am a Tea Party member. I just spent my breaks yesterday
calling the Ohio GOP about them running a failed RINO that I voted out
ion 2006. Yes, I put a democrat in the US Senate because I wouldn't
vote for a RINO again.
That's something you dummies need to understand - there are no safe
seats in the 2010 elections. And the Dems who just backed away from
the health bill and think it will be OK are fooling themselves.
They're through, too.
> Did you not notice what they did to us?
Indeed. Mike Dewine (R) won't be doing anything to anyone again.
> >> That's what Obama
> >> is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
> >> you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't.
>
> > You're putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I don't want him to
> > fail America. That's why I'm against his policies.
>
> You're against his policies. You were for republican policies.
You'll have to be more specific. I was and am for taking Saddam out.
We did that years ago. Mission Complete. Get out of Iraq now.
Let the CIA and their drones take care of the Taliban in Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
I was and am against the prescription drug benefit. I was and am
against open borders.
Pull our tropps out of Germany (Gr. didn't support taking out Saddam)
and put them on our southern border.
> They
> failed but you don't want the Democrat to even try his plans. You just
> judge them before even trying them. That's exactly like Limbaugh.
I listened to NPR talk about Greece this morning. Greece is carrying
4X the debt the EU allows because of social spending. Nine (9)
austerity probrams have failed over the past ten (10) years because
the workers demanded entitlement programs. The average Greek pays
about $2,500USD in bribes eac year for licenses, medical care, etc.
And medical care is FREE in Greece.
Is Greece too big to fail?
So, NO. I don't want more socialism in America.
Lech Walesa has been very vocal about where he sees America heading.
He was the guy who put his head on the chopping block going against
the communists in Poland. Prolly an inconvenient fact for lefties.
> >> He'll succeed in spite of the
> >> republicans heel dragging. So you guys lose again. First you have your
> >> republican president fail miserably then you have a Democrat follow him
> >> , do a really good job and make him look like crap. Really, how can you
> >> guys stand so many defeats?
>
> >> Hawke
>
> > Preventing bad programs from passing is defeat? I measure that
> > differently.
>
> The problem is that you don't know a good program from a bad one.
The real problem is that I do. I wish I were as ignorant as you.
> We had
> years of bad ones and you didn't make a peep about them.
You lie.
> Even now I'm
> sure you would support the republican's plan to turn the country around.
I see no Republican plans. What are they? Where can I read about
them?
> But even you should know that you don't go to the people who ruined
> things and then go back to them to fix what they broke.
I place the blame on both parties, so you are in fact putting the
people who've ruined things in charge of fixing things.
> You only have two choices;
I have many choices.
> go back to the republicans and let them do some more of
> what they did under Bush or let the Democrats try their hand at it.
Why do you limit yourself to such pathetic choices?
> But
> you won't let them try. I think you're just afraid that if Obama gets
> his way things are going to get better and just like the republicans you
> don't want that to happen because it would be good for Democrats and
> bad for the republicans.
>
> Hawke
Things will get better regardless. Obama will just slow the recovery
down.
The best situation is to have no clear majority in either party, and
vote out RINOs and socialists. Go conservative.
HH&C
> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
I have absolutely no problem voting out RINOs. None whatsoever.
Eregon
ac91-b2c...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> He doesn't need a single Republican if he could only manage pople in
> his own party.
He does now! <GRIN>
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:6290c4d3-cac8-47e8-
> ac91-b2cbe5448...@b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
> > He doesn't need a single Republican if he could only manage pople in
> > his own party.
>
> He does now! <GRIN>
Well...
He wanted the bill passed in ONE (1) WEEK!
His own majority wouldn't give it to him.
Hawke
> 0bama's a loser. In case you stupid libs can't comprehend that, let me
> say it in your own language, 0bama's a looser.
>
> He accomplished nothing, zero. A democrap President with a democrap
> majority, still blaming Bush, still blaming Republicans. He should just
> tattoo a giant "L" on his forehead.
>
> Always trying to compare himself to Bush. Too bad Bush couldn't run
> again, even though the stupid ass libs voted for 0bama because they
> thought it was their only hope to finally beat him. Google is a
> wonderful historian, go back and look at all of the "he's our only hope
> of beating Bush" posts. 0bama leads the party of losers.
>
> This is the year of the Republicans. 0bama is finished. That's all she
> wrote and both of TMT's mommies are singing. Quite loudly, I must add.
People might believe you if you actually supported at least some of the
claims you make. But, damn, you make all kinds of claims and not a one
of them has a single fact to back it up. Obama is a loser you say. But
the facts say he has won every step of his life. Did great in college.
Did great in law school. Got to be a U.S. senator. Got to be president
of the U.S. Gee, the facts say he's a hell of a winner. You say the
opposite. But you got not one fact, boy. You're just wishing.
Obama has had one year in office and you say he's finished. As usual,
not a fact in sight. Year of republicans you say? They are minorities in
both houses and the president is a Democrat. What are the republicans
going to accomplish this year? I say nothing. They only have the power
to block things. That's not doing anything positive, which they never
do. So the facts say you have nothing. But go ahead and keep on making
your wild claims. Nobody with a brain believes a word you say. When you
have some facts get back to me.
Hawke
Hawke
> Being smart is useless if you can't manage people.
Where do you get the idea Obama can't manage people well? Just because
he can't get 58 Democrat and 2 Independent senators all to agree on a
bill? Who do you think could get that done?
>> As you can see from above I was talking
>> about Obama's ability, which he showed very well on Friday. As to why he
>> can't get anything done, you know the answer. It's because all
>> republican senators vote as a block to stop everything he proposes. But
>> why ask that when you know it's the republicans blocking his every proposal?
>
> He doesn't need a single Republican if he could only manage pople in
> his own party.
How naive can you be? You have 60 supposed Democrats and you have to
have every single one agree with you. Only republicans vote like that.
Democrats may make up 60 in number but there is no guarantee they will
all agree. Senators don't do that unless they have an "R" by their name.
>>>> I'm sorry to break the news to
>>>> the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
>>>> Obama is the real deal.
>>> He's the real bad New Deal. No thanks.
>> I guess you think a president McCain, who would have governed much like
>> Bush, would be a better choice?
>
> Slow train wreck instead of a fast train wreck. Yes, McCain would
> have been better.
Sure he would. You thought Bush was capable too. You messed up pretty
bad on that one, didn't you? Now you say McCain would have been better.
Based on you judgment on Bush you see why I don't have much faith in
your choice in McCain either.
>> Did you think Bush would be a good
>> president in 2001? I know I didn't.
>
> Yes.
Thanks for being honest.
>>>> He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
>>>> ahead and it's going to be successful.
>>> Yes and no.
>> If you don't let him try to change things then how do you expect things
>> to improve, just all by themselves?
>
> Let the bad banks fail. FDIC instead of bonuses to bad bankers.
> Would have been far cheaper in the long run.
If you let the bad banks fail you would have had a bankrupt FDIC. You
would also have had a systemic bank failure. Everything is connected and
if you let too much of the structure fail the whole thing goes. I'll
hand it to Bush on that one. His people did the right thing. If they let
it go the whole thing would have come down and if you think things are
bad now you have no idea how much worse it would be.
>> Do nothing and hope our problems
>> will resolve themselves. Or a crazier idea, do what the republicans want
>> to do, which we already tried and it failed.
>
> Don't lie to me. You guys are fond of pointing out that Bush started
> the bailouts.
True, and as I said, he did the right thing. I don't think you have any
concept of what a systemic banking failure would be like. At least
Bush's people were not willing to risk having that happen. That was the
right move.
>>>> By the time his first term is up
>>>> the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
>>>> better.
>>> If he stays out of the way it will.
>> You like the Herbert Hoover approach. Just stand back and things will
>> get better without doing anything. Sure, that always works.
>
> Direct help to the individual instead of banks.
If you didn't keep the banks solvent there wouldn't have been any way to
help individuals. By helping the banks we did help the individual. The
banking system has to be kept safe and sound. During the Depression it
failed. No one in power is going to let that happen again.
>>>> This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
>>>> crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
>>>> time turns the basket case into a successful business.
>>> Except that this "company" can print it's own money. Doesn't need a
>>> business plan to sell to a lender.
>>> You are the lender.
>>> I am the lender.
>> None of us likes the hole financial hole the country is in.
>
> Obama sees it as a golden opportunity to change America to a socialist
> state... to finish the work FDR started.
You don't seem to understand the fact that after FDR the U.S. was a much
better country. The reason he is rated as a great president is because
what he did made America better for everyone. You're just afraid of
changing the country and want to keep things like they are forever. So
sorry, but we're moving ahead even if you are too scared to. If you call
doing things to help all Americans socialism, so be it. It's called
progress. Obama is trying to make progress in making America better. I
know you want it to stay the same but you can't have your way. You had
your way from 2000 to 2008. Now it's our turn.
>> The
>> difference is people like me, and the administration, know that whether
>> you like it or not when the economy is this bad the government has to
>> spend.
>
> Why?
Simple. Because in a recession the consumer and business are not
spending. That leaves only the government to keep the economy going. It
has to do it until the other two sectors get going. It's basic
economics. Didn't you learn that in school?
>> It's like in WWII.
>
> This is nothing like WW-II.
It's called an emergency. That's what I meant. You have to do things in
an emergency you wouldn't do normally. This is an economic emergency.
>> We didn't want to go into debt to win the war
>> but we didn't have much choice. It's the same here.
>
> You bitch about war spending now, but claim it was a good thing then.
I'm saying it's the same in both situations. Both were dire emergencies.
We had to go into deficits to win the war and now we have to go into a
deficit until the economy gets back on track. It's simple really.
>> Either you sit
>> around and do nothing an hope for the best or you use the government to
>> turn things around. At which point you pay off the debt and change
>> policies so you don't go into debt again except for real emergencies.
>> Bush sent us into debt and there was no emergency like it was for Obama.
>
> When does 0bama stop his "illegal" wars, as you like to call them?
Good question? I wish I knew. I have said this is Obama's first big
mistake. He should have started a draw down in both wars immediately. We
are getting nothing out of either effort. After years of this it's clear
the military isn't going to solve anything.
>> Proving again that republicans are worse at managing the economy than
>> the Democrats.
>
> Years of bad policy came to a head when Bush was president. You take
> a snapshot in time and pin it all on one individual. At least you try
> to. Even when you know it was impossible for one individual to be
> responsible for this entire mess, you try to pn it on one person.
Bush had eight years to engineer the country into a problem. We didn't
have this trouble in Clinton's last years. It was brought on by
conservative ideas being put in place when the republicans had the whole
government under their control. Bush put trickle down economics, supply
side, or whatever you want to call it, in place. It took some time for
it to work. Now we have the results. It was a disaster. That's all.
> So don't lie to me anymore about it. Come clean. The truth will set
> you free.
>
>> That's something you should keep in mind.
>
> That's something you should keep in mind, too.
>
>> The republicans
>> just tried their hand at running the country. The question is why would
>> you trust them again.
>
> I don't. I am a Tea Party member. I just spent my breaks yesterday
> calling the Ohio GOP about them running a failed RINO that I voted out
> ion 2006. Yes, I put a democrat in the US Senate because I wouldn't
> vote for a RINO again.
So I guess republicans are not conservative enough for you? If you are
willing to vote out a republican at least that is something. Most
republicans won't vote for anyone else no matter how bad they do. I've
voted for the person not the party for decades. Political parties have
not been good for the country, in my view.
> That's something you dummies need to understand - there are no safe
> seats in the 2010 elections. And the Dems who just backed away from
> the health bill and think it will be OK are fooling themselves.
> They're through, too.
>
>> Did you not notice what they did to us?
>
> Indeed. Mike Dewine (R) won't be doing anything to anyone again.
He's just one example of why I don't like republicans.
>>>> That's what Obama
>>>> is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
>>>> you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't.
>>> You're putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I don't want him to
>>> fail America. That's why I'm against his policies.
>> You're against his policies. You were for republican policies.
>
> You'll have to be more specific. I was and am for taking Saddam out.
> We did that years ago. Mission Complete. Get out of Iraq now.
I agree to get out of Iraq now. But I disagreed with going in to begin
with. No country has the right to unilaterally invade others that pose
no military threat to them. Clearly Iraq was never a threat to us so we
had no right to invade just because we don't like the leaders.
> Let the CIA and their drones take care of the Taliban in Afghanistan
> and Pakistan.
Another useless policy that will accomplish nothing but to create more
America hating Muslims.
> I was and am against the prescription drug benefit. I was and am
> against open borders.
I am against open borders too. I lived in southern California for
decades and saw what allowing millions of Mexicans did. They need to
shut that down. But I'm not holding my breath.
> Pull our tropps out of Germany (Gr. didn't support taking out Saddam)
> and put them on our southern border.
That's fine with me.
>> They
>> failed but you don't want the Democrat to even try his plans. You just
>> judge them before even trying them. That's exactly like Limbaugh.
>
> I listened to NPR talk about Greece this morning. Greece is carrying
> 4X the debt the EU allows because of social spending. Nine (9)
> austerity probrams have failed over the past ten (10) years because
> the workers demanded entitlement programs. The average Greek pays
> about $2,500USD in bribes eac year for licenses, medical care, etc.
> And medical care is FREE in Greece.
>
> Is Greece too big to fail?
Other countries have failed in the past. They are still here. Countries
don't go away because they screwed up their finances. They have to fix
them sooner or later. Greece has made mistakes. They will have to pay
the piper now and change their policies. We need to do the same.
> So, NO. I don't want more socialism in America.
You think Social Security, Medicare, and social safety nets are
socialism? You understand that most Americans want those programs and
that you are out of the mainstream in your thinking?
> Lech Walesa has been very vocal about where he sees America heading.
> He was the guy who put his head on the chopping block going against
> the communists in Poland. Prolly an inconvenient fact for lefties.
I don't know how much faith I would put in him judging our country. What
makes him an expert on America? But any fool can see we have been
spending more than we take in for a long time. That has to end some
time, one way or another.
>>>> He'll succeed in spite of the
>>>> republicans heel dragging. So you guys lose again. First you have your
>>>> republican president fail miserably then you have a Democrat follow him
>>>> , do a really good job and make him look like crap. Really, how can you
>>>> guys stand so many defeats?
>>>> Hawke
>>> Preventing bad programs from passing is defeat? I measure that
>>> differently.
>> The problem is that you don't know a good program from a bad one.
>
> The real problem is that I do. I wish I were as ignorant as you.
You'd be a lot smarter if you were as ignorant as me. Besides that you
think you are an expert on things you don't know much about. Tell me
what you are trained in. I bet it isn't American government.
>> We had
>> years of bad ones and you didn't make a peep about them.
>
> You lie.
Only if the truth is a lie to you.
>> Even now I'm
>> sure you would support the republican's plan to turn the country around.
>
> I see no Republican plans. What are they? Where can I read about
> them?
You expect anyone to listen to you when you don't even know what
republicans believe in? The republicans have their alternatives to
everything Obama has proposed from health care reform to climate change
to the budget. Simply put they are basically the opposite of everything
Obama is trying to do.
>> But even you should know that you don't go to the people who ruined
>> things and then go back to them to fix what they broke.
>
> I place the blame on both parties, so you are in fact putting the
> people who've ruined things in charge of fixing things.
>> You only have two choices;
>
> I have many choices.
Not realistic ones when only one party or the other wins 98% of the time.
>> go back to the republicans and let them do some more of
>> what they did under Bush or let the Democrats try their hand at it.
>
> Why do you limit yourself to such pathetic choices?
Cuz we're in a two party system, Bro.
>> But
>> you won't let them try. I think you're just afraid that if Obama gets
>> his way things are going to get better and just like the republicans you
>> don't want that to happen because it would be good for Democrats and
>> bad for the republicans.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Things will get better regardless. Obama will just slow the recovery
> down.
That's Herbert Hoover thinking. Just what he said about FDR.
> The best situation is to have no clear majority in either party, and
> vote out RINOs and socialists. Go conservative.
Sorry but we had conservatives in control from 2000 until 2008. Just ask
the republicans who were in power if they were conservatives and almost
all of them will say yes. So conservatives had their chance. Which you
just gloss over. They tried conservative policies for years and they
failed badly. Now we are trying liberal policies. You just don't want to
give the other side a chance even when your side did a shitty job. But
like they say, elections matter. Your side lost so you have to watch the
other side rule for a while. Too bad isn't it?
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkclcc$1ns$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> 0bama's a loser. In case you stupid libs can't comprehend that, let me
>> say it in your own language, 0bama's a looser.
>>
>> He accomplished nothing, zero. A democrap President with a democrap
>> majority, still blaming Bush, still blaming Republicans. He should just
>> tattoo a giant "L" on his forehead.
>>
>> Always trying to compare himself to Bush. Too bad Bush couldn't run
>> again, even though the stupid ass libs voted for 0bama because they
>> thought it was their only hope to finally beat him. Google is a wonderful
>> historian, go back and look at all of the "he's our only hope of beating
>> Bush" posts. 0bama leads the party of losers.
>>
>> This is the year of the Republicans. 0bama is finished. That's all she
>> wrote and both of TMT's mommies are singing. Quite loudly, I must add.
>
>
> People might believe you if you actually supported at least some of the
> claims you make. But, damn, you make all kinds of claims and not a one of
> them has a single fact to back it up. Obama is a loser you say. But the
> facts say he has won every step of his life. Did great in college. Did
> great in law school.
You make all kinds of claims but offer zero to back them up. You are another
zero like 0bama. Sounds like 0zero actually had poor grades and was accepted
into law school based on affirmative action quotas. What were his "great"
grades in college school? What were his great grades in law school?
> Got to be a U.S. senator.
Easy enough in Illinois, if you want the job and are willing to suck cock.
Illinois is not known for their high standards for politicians.
> Got to be president of the U.S. Gee, the facts say he's a hell of a
> winner. You say the opposite. But you got not one fact, boy. You're just
> wishing.
He got to be a zero President by hypnotizing a bunch of zeros like you. He
accomplished nothing, ran the country into the ground, can't even get his
own party top agree with him on anything, and failed to deliver on any of
his promises. A big loser zero, yet you sit there telling everyone what a
success he is. You haven't mentioned a single accomplishment of the big
loser zero since he's been President. He's the zero President and you have
nothing to back up any of your claims of success.
>
> Obama has had one year in office and you say he's finished. As usual, not
> a fact in sight. Year of republicans you say? They are minorities in both
> houses and the president is a Democrat. What are the republicans going to
> accomplish this year? I say nothing. They only have the power to block
> things. That's not doing anything positive, which they never do. So the
> facts say you have nothing. But go ahead and keep on making your wild
> claims. Nobody with a brain believes a word you say. When you have some
> facts get back to me.
>
> Hawke
0bama's through. He's a lame duck. He's done nothing positive and will never
accomplish anything worth any mention. His pages in history will be filled
with question marks and zeroes. Your only argument for 0bama is to claim
that he's no worse than the democrats and Republicans in the House. Great
accomplishment! The big loser zero. Just like you, you took your best shot
at trying to convince the group that 0bama is not a zero, and you failed.
You're a big zero too.
>
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkcofj$605$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>> Being smart is useless if you can't manage people.
Or if you can't manage your quoting properly. So that makes you a loser like
0zero.
Hawke
Oops, you did it again. You just made all kinds of claims about Obama
being a zero but you provided no proof, just your opinions. You are
making lots of predictions about his future, which you say will be a
failure but you have no concrete facts just your ridiculously biased and
uninformed opinions. Like this one, it's easy to become a senator from
Illinois. Even a retard knows that is not true. You WISH Obama would
fail. But you can't prove he's failed at anything. So all you can do is
blow a lot of hot air, stinky too. Your ability to convince anyone of
anything is what is a zero. You can't back up anything you say because
you have nothing but your opinions and no way to back them up. You're a
total lightweight.
Hawke
Hawke
The joke is you. What is a fool, that has accomplished nothing of note
in their life, doing criticizing someone like Obama? Why don't you
criticize Peyton Manning too? That would be about as absurd as your
ragging on Obama. You couldn't play football worth shit compared to
Manning and you can't do anything at all compared to Obama yet you do
nothing but nag, nag, nag. Your opinion of Obama is no more accurate
than your opinion of George Bush in 2001. You just have no idea what you
are talking about. But that never stops you. What you are is obvious to
anyone, an angry loser. Try finding something positive to do. It'll take
your mind off criticizing your betters.
Hawke
HH&C
> > Being smart is useless if you can't manage people.
>
> Where do you get the idea Obama can't manage people well? Just because
> he can't get 58 Democrat and 2 Independent senators all to agree on a
> bill? Who do you think could get that done?
Obama. I just love it when he gets that far away stare and all you
libs think he's an intellectual because of it.
> >> As you can see from above I was talking
> >> about Obama's ability, which he showed very well on Friday. As to why he
> >> can't get anything done, you know the answer. It's because all
> >> republican senators vote as a block to stop everything he proposes. But
> >> why ask that when you know it's the republicans blocking his every proposal?
>
> > He doesn't need a single Republican if he could only manage pople in
> > his own party.
>
> How naive can you be?
How naive do you want me to be?
> You have 60 supposed Democrats and you have to
> have every single one agree with you. Only republicans vote like that.
> Democrats may make up 60 in number but there is no guarantee they will
> all agree. Senators don't do that unless they have an "R" by their name.
You'd thnk with all that stimulus money he could buy every damned one
of them.
> >>>> I'm sorry to break the news to
> >>>> the right wing folks but this is a read them and weep message to you.
> >>>> Obama is the real deal.
> >>> He's the real bad New Deal. No thanks.
> >> I guess you think a president McCain, who would have governed much like
> >> Bush, would be a better choice?
>
> > Slow train wreck instead of a fast train wreck. Yes, McCain would
> > have been better.
>
> Sure he would. You thought Bush was capable too.
Still do.
> You messed up pretty bad on that one, didn't you?
He wasn't the one trying to pass porkulus health care in the middle of
financial "crisis."
> Now you say McCain would have been better.
And I said why. Did you read that part?
Why don't you try staring off into the distance and I might think you
are a genious.
> Based on you judgment on Bush you see why I don't have much faith in
> your choice in McCain either.
I have no faith in your judgement. You gave us Obama.
> >> Did you think Bush would be a good
> >> president in 2001? I know I didn't.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Thanks for being honest.
You can expect that from me.
> >>>> He's going ahead with his agenda full steam
> >>>> ahead and it's going to be successful.
> >>> Yes and no.
> >> If you don't let him try to change things then how do you expect things
> >> to improve, just all by themselves?
>
> > Let the bad banks fail. FDIC instead of bonuses to bad bankers.
> > Would have been far cheaper in the long run.
>
> If you let the bad banks fail you would have had a bankrupt FDIC.
Put money into it. Then the money passes to those who own it, not to
the bankers who failed.
> You
> would also have had a systemic bank failure. Everything is connected and
> if you let too much of the structure fail the whole thing goes. I'll
> hand it to Bush on that one. His people did the right thing. If they let
> it go the whole thing would have come down and if you think things are
> bad now you have no idea how much worse it would be.
We need honest money.
> >> Do nothing and hope our problems
> >> will resolve themselves. Or a crazier idea, do what the republicans want
> >> to do, which we already tried and it failed.
>
> > Don't lie to me. You guys are fond of pointing out that Bush started
> > the bailouts.
>
> True, and as I said, he did the right thing. I don't think you have any
> concept of what a systemic banking failure would be like. At least
> Bush's people were not willing to risk having that happen. That was the
> right move.
Fair enough. At what point is a regulated bank allowed to fail?
> >>>> By the time his first term is up
> >>>> the country will have made a big turn around and will be looking much
> >>>> better.
> >>> If he stays out of the way it will.
> >> You like the Herbert Hoover approach. Just stand back and things will
> >> get better without doing anything. Sure, that always works.
>
> > Direct help to the individual instead of banks.
>
> If you didn't keep the banks solvent there wouldn't have been any way to
> help individuals. By helping the banks we did help the individual. The
> banking system has to be kept safe and sound. During the Depression it
> failed. No one in power is going to let that happen again.
And now we reward bad bankers ith bonuses while everyone else is
taking a hit on pay... if they have a job.
> >>>> This is like a near bankrupt company that had incompetent and
> >>>> crooked owners who got replaced by a really good businessman, who in
> >>>> time turns the basket case into a successful business.
> >>> Except that this "company" can print it's own money. Doesn't need a
> >>> business plan to sell to a lender.
> >>> You are the lender.
> >>> I am the lender.
> >> None of us likes the hole financial hole the country is in.
>
> > Obama sees it as a golden opportunity to change America to a socialist
> > state... to finish the work FDR started.
>
> You don't seem to understand the fact that after FDR the U.S. was a much
> better country. The reason he is rated as a great president is because
> what he did made America better for everyone. You're just afraid of
> changing the country and want to keep things like they are forever. So
> sorry, but we're moving ahead even if you are too scared to. If you call
> doing things to help all Americans socialism, so be it. It's called
> progress. Obama is trying to make progress in making America better. I
> know you want it to stay the same but you can't have your way. You had
> your way from 2000 to 2008. Now it's our turn.
Many other countries have been down that road. Why can't we be better
than that?
> >> The
> >> difference is people like me, and the administration, know that whether
> >> you like it or not when the economy is this bad the government has to
> >> spend.
>
> > Why?
>
> Simple. Because in a recession the consumer and business are not
> spending. That leaves only the government to keep the economy going. It
> has to do it until the other two sectors get going. It's basic
> economics. Didn't you learn that in school?
No. I learned to balance my check book because if I didn't bad things
were going to start happening to me. Two semesters in accounting and
one in economics.
> >> It's like in WWII.
>
> > This is nothing like WW-II.
>
> It's called an emergency. That's what I meant. You have to do things in
> an emergency you wouldn't do normally. This is an economic emergency.
Caused by social engineering... putting people in homes that they
could not afford, cannot afford, and which they've walked away from.
> >> We didn't want to go into debt to win the war
> >> but we didn't have much choice. It's the same here.
>
> > You bitch about war spending now, but claim it was a good thing then.
>
> I'm saying it's the same in both situations. Both were dire emergencies.
> We had to go into deficits to win the war and now we have to go into a
> deficit until the economy gets back on track. It's simple really.
Its simpler to let GM fail. And why did we bail out Chrysler again?
> >> Either you sit
> >> around and do nothing an hope for the best or you use the government to
> >> turn things around. At which point you pay off the debt and change
> >> policies so you don't go into debt again except for real emergencies.
> >> Bush sent us into debt and there was no emergency like it was for Obama.
>
> > When does 0bama stop his "illegal" wars, as you like to call them?
>
> Good question? I wish I knew. I have said this is Obama's first big
> mistake. He should have started a draw down in both wars immediately. We
> are getting nothing out of either effort. After years of this it's clear
> the military isn't going to solve anything.
Diplomacy failed and diplomatic meddling in warfare is causing the
military to fail. Same old story. Same old song and dance, my
friend.
> >> Proving again that republicans are worse at managing the economy than
> >> the Democrats.
>
> > Years of bad policy came to a head when Bush was president. You take
> > a snapshot in time and pin it all on one individual. At least you try
> > to. Even when you know it was impossible for one individual to be
> > responsible for this entire mess, you try to pn it on one person.
>
> Bush had eight years to engineer the country into a problem.
Are you saying that Bush NEVER tried to reign in the easly lending?
Are you saying that Bush NEVER tried to reform Social Security?
> We didn't
> have this trouble in Clinton's last years.
Yes we did. There were lots of warnings.
> It was brought on by
> conservative ideas being put in place when the republicans had the whole
> government under their control. Bush put trickle down economics, supply
> side, or whatever you want to call it, in place. It took some time for
> it to work. Now we have the results. It was a disaster. That's all.
You've been brain washed.
> > So don't lie to me anymore about it. Come clean. The truth will set
> > you free.
>
> >> That's something you should keep in mind.
>
> > That's something you should keep in mind, too.
>
> >> The republicans
> >> just tried their hand at running the country. The question is why would
> >> you trust them again.
>
> > I don't. I am a Tea Party member. I just spent my breaks yesterday
> > calling the Ohio GOP about them running a failed RINO that I voted out
> > ion 2006. Yes, I put a democrat in the US Senate because I wouldn't
> > vote for a RINO again.
>
> So I guess republicans are not conservative enough for you?
You shouldn't have to guess.
> If you are
> willing to vote out a republican at least that is something. Most
> republicans won't vote for anyone else no matter how bad they do.
Ditto most democrats.
> I've
> voted for the person not the party for decades. Political parties have
> not been good for the country, in my view.
Given your views you should have said, "...for the person, not the
party, but they were all democrats anyway..."
> > That's something you dummies need to understand - there are no safe
> > seats in the 2010 elections. And the Dems who just backed away from
> > the health bill and think it will be OK are fooling themselves.
> > They're through, too.
>
> >> Did you not notice what they did to us?
>
> > Indeed. Mike Dewine (R) won't be doing anything to anyone again.
>
> He's just one example of why I don't like republicans.
He's one example why I won't vote for RINOs. There are many others
like him.
> >>>> That's what Obama
> >>>> is doing for the country. Instead of being happy he's doing a good job
> >>>> you want him to fail. Too bad. He won't.
> >>> You're putting Rush Limbaugh's words in my mouth. I don't want him to
> >>> fail America. That's why I'm against his policies.
> >> You're against his policies. You were for republican policies.
>
> > You'll have to be more specific. I was and am for taking Saddam out.
> > We did that years ago. Mission Complete. Get out of Iraq now.
>
> I agree to get out of Iraq now. But I disagreed with going in to begin
> with. No country has the right to unilaterally invade others that pose
> no military threat to them. Clearly Iraq was never a threat to us so we
> had no right to invade just because we don't like the leaders.
Ahhh. But Saddam had agreements that he wasn't living up to.
> > Let the CIA and their drones take care of the Taliban in Afghanistan
> > and Pakistan.
>
> Another useless policy that will accomplish nothing but to create more
> America hating Muslims.
Impossible. If they all hate us now, how can more of them hate us?
I just don't see a downside to the drones.
> > I was and am against the prescription drug benefit. I was and am
> > against open borders.
>
> I am against open borders too. I lived in southern California for
> decades and saw what allowing millions of Mexicans did. They need to
> shut that down. But I'm not holding my breath.
Vote out the local officials who run "sanctuary cities." Start there.
> > Pull our tropps out of Germany (Gr. didn't support taking out Saddam)
> > and put them on our southern border.
>
> That's fine with me.
>
> >> They
> >> failed but you don't want the Democrat to even try his plans. You just
> >> judge them before even trying them. That's
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkfbem$2i5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>>> Got to be a U.S. senator.
>>
>> Easy enough in Illinois, if you want the job and are willing to suck
>> cock. Illinois is not known for their high standards for politicians.
>>
>> Hawke
Still can't find any accomplishments of 0bama? I see. You forgot to post his
"great" college grades again too. Post them right here, just below his list
of accomplishments, since he became President----->
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkfc0a$3i8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I have no aspirations to lowering myself to the likes of 0bama or some
worthless paralegal hack. But you said you were a paralegal, so why aren't
you President, you loser? My PoliSci degree was a hobby to see how many
loose liberal broads I could bed, there were so many that I lost count. Got
my share of them just in time, before they turned into liberal sows.
As for football, I played my share and was pretty damn good too. But we
weren't talking about football, so your failure at football must still be
bugging you if it still lurks in the back of your mind enough to bring it up
out of thin air.
Obama is a loser, and despite your trying to deflect away his failures with
references to Bush, Manning, or all the other failures in politics, you
still haven't been able to prove any of your assertions that 0bama is a
auccessful President. He's a loser like you, only worse, because even though
he made President and you didn't, you're only half the zero that he is.
Burled Frau
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0165c95b-d943-43fd...@n7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 4:05 pm, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>> > Being smart is useless if you can't manage people.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea Obama can't manage people well? Just because
>> he can't get 58 Democrat and 2 Independent senators all to agree on a
>> bill? Who do you think could get that done?
>
> Obama. I just love it when he gets that far away stare and all you
> libs think he's an intellectual because of it.
The only reason 0zero is having trouble managing 58 democrats is that he
thought that there would only be one from each State, and he hasn't figured
out yet where the extra one came from.
HH&C
> Still can't find any accomplishments of 0bama? I see. You forgot to post his
> "great" college grades again too. Post them right here, just below his list
> of accomplishments, since he became President----->
Well, for one, he was voted President. Then he gave himself a B+.
He buzzed the Statue of Liberty without getting shot down.
I think that's it.
But that should be enough for any kool-aid drinker.
Hawke
Didn't you see Obama's speech today? I guess not. Because if you had you
would have heard him rattle off a list of his accomplishments from the
last year. There were a lot of them. Too bad you missed it. But you were
watching Fox, right? Check out some real news sources and you can hear
Obama's speech and find out what he's done this year. It's a lot. You're
just not informed about the facts. For a change.
Hawke
Hawke
It's clear that you can only dream of accomplishing anything close to
what Obama has done. U.S. senator, U.S. president, what more do you
want? Those are supreme accomplishments. Let's hear yours. You seem to
think Obama's are nothing. If that is true then yours must really be
something. You wouldn't be the kind of person who has done nothing at
all in his own life but is criticizing the shit out of people who have
done great things, would you? A person who does nothing himself and
criticizes others who have done far more is a real asshole, right? Since
you think your not an asshole tell us how you have out done Obama in
life achievements. I can hardly wait to hear what you have done that is
better than becoming president of the U.S. It must really be something.
Unless you're just living in a fantasy world and are a really petty guy
who is frustrated and angry at being a total loser. Three guesses what
you are.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Three guesses what you are.
>
> Hawke
He's a nym-shifting troll.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> Burled Frau wrote:
>
> > "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
Little raptor, you could have provided a link. I mean, if such a list
of accomplishments existed.
HH&C
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:09:51 -0800, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Three guesses what you are.
>
> > Hawke
>
> He's a nym-shifting troll.
Says Alberto Cur-Lee.
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yeh. You gotta wonder what kind of schools he attended in his youth.
Burled Frau
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1453788-cd14-4b02...@19g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
0zero's accomplishments must be some kind of vapor. They look like smoke
rings.
Hawke
All I can tell you is that I saw him on TV speaking yesterday and he
gave a list of what he has accomplished. It wasn't a short list. I'm
sure you can find the speech on line if you want to. But even you should
know that Obama's political opponents are trying to minimize everything
he has accomplished and to make him look bad every chance they get. If
you know someone is out to ruin someone you stop listening to their
criticisms because they would turn the best thing in the world into
trash if they could. Obama has done a lot in the first year. Some say
he's tried to do too much, but those people don't want him to accomplish
anything because they want his job. Things in the country are starting
to slowly turn around. Obama is reversing what Bush did that got us in
this mess. All he needs is the time to do it. But at least we're finally
moving in the right direction. Which, if you think about it, is really a
pretty big improvement. You won't hear that from any republicans though.
Hawke
Hawke
You couldn't see the forest for the trees. So it's no wonder that you
wouldn't be able to see anything. Besides, you would deny any
accomplishment by Obama just because you don't want him to have any.
Asking you what did Obama accomplish would be like asking Hitler what
was good about Jews.
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkkj5p$rmm$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
It's not as if you weren't given an opportunity to provide a list of
accomplishments. The only requirement would be for you to type them in and
hit "send". You could copy and paste them from some other file you have them
saved in. Type or paste 0bama's accomplishments as President below, right
here -->
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hkkiuh$rmm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
OK, we get it. He has accomplished so much and the list is so long that it's
hard to remember just a few accomplishments, let's say half a dozen or less.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He's a loser for not having any accomplishments and you're a
loser for not being able to list any. Maybe you should trade that TV in for
a new crack pipe.
Hawke
Why? You would just deny they were accomplishments. Like if I told you
that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year and
now it is growing. You would just pretend he did nothing. If I told you
that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic failure the
day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say that was not
an accomplishment. I could tell you that our relations with numerous
foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you would deny that.
So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone what Obama has done
when you are only going to deny it. Just like I'm not going to tell you
Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything because you will say
everything she has done is a great thing. You're just a waste of time
because you spend so much time in a conservative fantasy world of your
own creation.
Hawke
Hawke
Actually, you're a loser because you aren't even capable of using Google
to find out about the speech I was referring to. You could hear the
whole list if you wanted but you are too lazy or too dumb to do it on
your own. I'm not going to do your work for you. But it's much easier
for you to just claim there are no accomplishments than to actually look
them up.
Hawke
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hknha5$j3t$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Couldn't find any either, huh? You're both losers.
Burled Frau
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hknhet$j3t$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
It's your claim. If you can't back it up then it must not have happened, you
loser. Thanks for playing, we have some parting gifts for you, backstage.
HHnC
> Burled Frau wrote:
>
> > "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
> >> Burled Frau wrote:
>
Failure is not in the eye of the beholder?
> Like if I told you
> that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year and
> now it is growing.
Growing? Growing where?
> You would just pretend he did nothing.
He tried ramming something down our throats that we didn't want.
He'll get his in 2010. Hell, he's a lame duck now that he doesn't
have a super majority.
Do you think he'll ever learn to play nice, or do we get more of his
ego on the next state of the union.
> If I told you
> that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic failure the
> day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say that was not
> an accomplishment.
Even better; they've recovered so much that they are giving themselves
unprecedented bonuses.
Yippee!!!
> I could tell you that our relations with numerous
> foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you would deny that.
But I want us to have rocky relations with certain countries.
Countries that don't deserve normal relations with us.
> So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone what Obama has done
> when you are only going to deny it.
Oh, he's done it. That's why he lacks support.
> Just like I'm not going to tell you
> Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything because you will say
> everything she has done is a great thing.
She hasn't accomplished a damned thing since she quit her day job.
> You're just a waste of time
> because you spend so much time in a conservative fantasy world of your
> own creation.
Me too, little raptor.
> Hawke
Hawke
>> Why? You would just deny they were accomplishments. Like if I told you
>> that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year
>> and now it is growing. You would just pretend he did nothing. If I
>> told you that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic
>> failure the day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say
>> that was not an accomplishment. I could tell you that our relations
>> with numerous foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you
>> would deny that. So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone
>> what Obama has done when you are only going to deny it. Just like I'm
>> not going to tell you Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything
>> because you will say everything she has done is a great thing. You're
>> just a waste of time because you spend so much time in a conservative
>> fantasy world of your own creation.
>>
>> Hawke
>
>
> Couldn't find any either, huh? You're both losers.
Just what I thought. You couldn't see them even when right in front of
your eyes. No wonder you are a Bush lover. Two losers.
Hawke
Hawke
>> Why? You would just deny they were accomplishments.
>
> Failure is not in the eye of the beholder?
In the eye of a closed minded man there is nothing. Fat Frau is in
denial of anything done by Obama in his life. He would behold nothing
that a normal person would see easily. So there is no point showing him
anything. He'll just deny it exists.
>> Like if I told you
>> that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year and
>> now it is growing.
>
> Growing? Growing where?
According to Alan Greenspan the recession ended in July. We have had
economic growth since then. Last quarter growth was measured at 5.7%.
You should either keep up with what is going on or just ask me because I do.
>> You would just pretend he did nothing.
>
> He tried ramming something down our throats that we didn't want.
Something you didn't want. But you and your cronies are the minority.
Most of us want health care reform. We'll get it too.
> He'll get his in 2010. Hell, he's a lame duck now that he doesn't
> have a super majority.
Why do you say things that are wrong so much? Obama has a super
majority. He just doesn't have a filibuster proof majority. Fifty nine
seats in the senate is the second greatest majority in decades. So the
majority is a super one. And you don't know what lame duck means.
> Do you think he'll ever learn to play nice, or do we get more of his
> ego on the next state of the union.
He tried to play nice with the republicans. I think that's over now. But
I predict that by next year's state of the union address he's going to
be in better shape than he is now because the country will be better off
after another year with republicans in the minority.
>> If I told you
>> that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic failure the
>> day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say that was not
>> an accomplishment.
>
> Even better; they've recovered so much that they are giving themselves
> unprecedented bonuses.
>
> Yippee!!!
Guess who is working with the financial industry to derail any new
regulations of the industry? Republican house leader John Boehner met
with the heads of the financial industry last week to see how they could
work together to prevent any new regulations of the industry. You liked
what happened that nearly destroyed our financial house? The republicans
did and are working to return to a non regulated financial industry. I
hope you have all your assets in gold.
>> I could tell you that our relations with numerous
>> foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you would deny that.
>
> But I want us to have rocky relations with certain countries.
> Countries that don't deserve normal relations with us.
Who cares what you want? You are no expert on international relations.
Obama is doing a far better job at dealing with every nation than Bush
did. Which is the point. Everyone hated Bush. That makes working with
them pretty hard. They like Obama.
>> So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone what Obama has done
>> when you are only going to deny it.
>
> Oh, he's done it. That's why he lacks support.
You mean support from teapartyers and from people like you and Fat Frau?
Who cares? He's still got lots of support from people like me and
millions of others. Obama is very popular except with former Bush
followers. What a surprise.
>> Just like I'm not going to tell you
>> Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything because you will say
>> everything she has done is a great thing.
>
> She hasn't accomplished a damned thing since she quit her day job.
She's made herself a bundle of money.
>> You're just a waste of time
>> because you spend so much time in a conservative fantasy world of your
>> own creation.
>
> Me too, little raptor.
I'm sorry to hear that. That's a pathetic place to be.
Hawke
HHnC
> >> Why? You would just deny they were accomplishments.
>
> > Failure is not in the eye of the beholder?
>
> In the eye of a closed minded man there is nothing. Fat Frau is in
> denial of anything done by Obama in his life. He would behold nothing
> that a normal person would see easily. So there is no point showing him
> anything. He'll just deny it exists.
Obama's life is a mystery. He wants it that way. Who are we to deny
him that?
> >> Like if I told you
> >> that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year and
> >> now it is growing.
>
> > Growing? Growing where?
>
> According to Alan Greenspan the recession ended in July.
What official standing does Greenspan have? Where did Bernanke go?
> We have had
> economic growth since then. Last quarter growth was measured at 5.7%.
> You should either keep up with what is going on or just ask me because I do.
We have had stimulus rammed down our throats. Subtract that out.
> >> You would just pretend he did nothing.
>
> > He tried ramming something down our throats that we didn't want.
>
> Something you didn't want. But you and your cronies are the minority.
Yeh. Let me rephrase that... the people that will be paying for it
didn't want it.
> Most of us want health care reform. We'll get it too.
You could have had it yesterday. All you have to do is pay for it.
> > He'll get his in 2010. Hell, he's a lame duck now that he doesn't
> > have a super majority.
>
> Why do you say things that are wrong so much? Obama has a super
> majority. He just doesn't have a filibuster proof majority.
And you finally admit that Obama didn't need a single Republican to
pass his health bill. I knew you would slip up sooner or later.
> Fifty nine
> seats in the senate is the second greatest majority in decades. So the
> majority is a super one. And you don't know what lame duck means.
It means the next three years of Obama, listening to two (2) speeches
a day about how he is trying to clean up someone else's mess.
Wha, wha, wha.
> > Do you think he'll ever learn to play nice, or do we get more of his
> > ego on the next state of the union.
>
> He tried to play nice with the republicans. I think that's over now. But
> I predict that by next year's state of the union address he's going to
> be in better shape than he is now because the country will be better off
> after another year with republicans in the minority.
So despite government interference, the business people of America
will lift us out of this recession?
> >> If I told you
> >> that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic failure the
> >> day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say that was not
> >> an accomplishment.
>
> > Even better; they've recovered so much that they are giving themselves
> > unprecedented bonuses.
>
> > Yippee!!!
>
> Guess who is working with the financial industry to derail any new
> regulations of the industry? Republican house leader John Boehner met
> with the heads of the financial industry last week to see how they could
> work together to prevent any new regulations of the industry. You liked
> what happened that nearly destroyed our financial house? The republicans
> did and are working to return to a non regulated financial industry. I
> hope you have all your assets in gold.
Lots of Republicans are going to find themselves in the unemployment
line. That's the purge I'm talking about.
> >> I could tell you that our relations with numerous
> >> foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you would deny that.
>
> > But I want us to have rocky relations with certain countries.
> > Countries that don't deserve normal relations with us.
>
> Who cares what you want? You are no expert on international relations.
I'm still an instrument of national policy, for the next seven years
anyway.
> Obama is doing a far better job at dealing with every nation than Bush
> did. Which is the point. Everyone hated Bush. That makes working with
> them pretty hard. They like Obama.
Yep. Iran is so impressed with him that they've pushing forward with
developing nukes. Russia and Germany are so impressed with him that
they don't want Obama's sanctions on Iran. Even Chaves and Castro are
in love with Obama and want to normalize relations.
Hi, hi.
> >> So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone what Obama has done
> >> when you are only going to deny it.
>
> > Oh, he's done it. That's why he lacks support.
>
> You mean support from teapartyers and from people like you and Fat Frau?
Yes. Millions of us.
> Who cares? He's still got lots of support from people like me and
> millions of others. Obama is very popular except with former Bush
> followers. What a surprise.
Cite?
> >> Just like I'm not going to tell you
> >> Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything because you will say
> >> everything she has done is a great thing.
>
> > She hasn't accomplished a damned thing since she quit her day job.
>
> She's made herself a bundle of money.
So she's part of the economic recovery you and Greenspan claim has
happened?
> >> You're just a waste of time
> >> because you spend so much time in a conservative fantasy world of your
> >> own creation.
>
> > Me too, little raptor.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. That's a pathetic place to be.
>
> Hawke
Have you run out of Kool-aid yet?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Hawke: Leave the attributes in your postings. Whoever you're
castigating is in my bozo filter.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHnC
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:59:38 -0800, Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Why? You would just deny they were accomplishments. Like if I told you
> >>> that when he took office the economy was contracting at 6% per year
> >>> and now it is growing. You would just pretend he did nothing. If I
> >>> told you that the financial markets were on the brink of catastrophic
> >>> failure the day he took over and now they are stabilized you would say
> >>> that was not an accomplishment. I could tell you that our relations
> >>> with numerous foreign countries had improved due to his diplomacy you
> >>> would deny that. So no, I'm not going to waste time telling someone
> >>> what Obama has done when you are only going to deny it. Just like I'm
> >>> not going to tell you Sarah Palin has not accomplished anything
> >>> because you will say everything she has done is a great thing. You're
> >>> just a waste of time because you spend so much time in a conservative
> >>> fantasy world of your own creation.
>
> >>> Hawke
>
> >> Couldn't find any either, huh? You're both losers.
>
> > Just what I thought. You couldn't see them even when right in front of
> > your eyes. No wonder you are a Bush lover. Two losers.
>
> > Hawke
>
> Hawke: Leave the attributes in your postings. Whoever you're
> castigating is in my bozo filter.
Poor baby. Afraid he will have to answer for his lies.
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible: Slavery good. Gays bad. Snakes talk.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Burled Frau
"HHnC" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2d192cb-de5d-4a53...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
As if Hack even has any idea what Curls means by attribute.
In the mean time, Hack can post 0zero's Presidential accomplishments below.
We don't need them all, just maybe 6 or 7.
ROFL! Post them right here Hackey-sack of shit ->