Congressional pay raise
Lloyd Parsons
So far I've found some articles claiming they did and others saying no
they didn't. Virtually none of the articles are from any of the usual
sources.
Frank Ketchum
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-3DE7...@port80.individual.net...
Congress gets automatic pay raises without having to vote on it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4863877.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/10/senate-votes-congress-automatic-pay-raise/
In January 2009, a $4,700 automatic raise to bring the pay to $174,000.
Lloyd Parsons
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
I saw those, they are about the 2009 pay raise. But there are other
articles saying the 2010 pay raise won't happen and point to some bill
that was passed. Here's a link to one of those :
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-zero-pay-raise-for-congress-too/
I know that they snookered themselves into an auto pay raise scenario
back when Nixon was President. But I thought it was also tied to a COLA
based on a CPI that was figured differently from the one used for all
other entitlements.
Even assuming an auto pay raise, it if is based on CPI and the claim is
that no other entitlement gets a raise because there was no inflation,
then what basis for size of pay raise is there?
Frank Ketchum
>
> I saw those, they are about the 2009 pay raise. But there are other
> articles saying the 2010 pay raise won't happen and point to some bill
> that was passed. Here's a link to one of those :
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-zero-pay-raise-for-congress-too/
I hadn't heard of this. I guess it is not too surprising given that this is
an election year with the economy in the toilet, it might be hard for
incumbents to try to justify taking a pay raise amid the carnage.
> Even assuming an auto pay raise, it if is based on CPI and the claim is
> that no other entitlement gets a raise because there was no inflation,
> then what basis for size of pay raise is there?
Well congressional pay is not an entitlement, it is their paycheck. What
basis is there to determine the size? They are determining how much they
make so there isn't really any basis necessary (a pretty sweet deal imho).
I guess I don't understand the reason for the questions you are asking.
Lloyd Parsons
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-FBDD...@port80.individual.net...
> >
> > I saw those, they are about the 2009 pay raise. But there are other
> > articles saying the 2010 pay raise won't happen and point to some bill
> > that was passed. Here's a link to one of those :
> >
> > http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-zero-pay-raise-for-congress-too/
>
> I hadn't heard of this. I guess it is not too surprising given that this is
> an election year with the economy in the toilet, it might be hard for
> incumbents to try to justify taking a pay raise amid the carnage.
>
Which is what brought me to the question to begin with. Some sources
are claiming they did get a pay raise, but yet there is that info at
that link that indicates they didn't.
>
> > Even assuming an auto pay raise, it if is based on CPI and the claim is
> > that no other entitlement gets a raise because there was no inflation,
> > then what basis for size of pay raise is there?
>
> Well congressional pay is not an entitlement, it is their paycheck. What
> basis is there to determine the size? They are determining how much they
> make so there isn't really any basis necessary (a pretty sweet deal imho).
>
> I guess I don't understand the reason for the questions you are asking.
I asked because I'm concerned as to whether they got a pay raise or not.
If they did, while denying it to SS and Military retirement, then I need
to get more politically active and see about bringing some congress
critters back home and replacing them wholesale.
Actually, I think we should do that regardless!! :)
Frank Ketchum
>
> I asked because I'm concerned as to whether they got a pay raise or not.
> If they did, while denying it to SS and Military retirement, then I need
> to get more politically active and see about bringing some congress
> critters back home and replacing them wholesale.
>
> Actually, I think we should do that regardless!! :)
Are you a recipient of social security and military retirement?
What good would it do to replace one group of criminals with a different
group of criminals? The problem we have is with the gullibility of the
voting public. The criminals that we have in congress are there because
they were sent there by the voting public.
Lloyd Parsons
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-794E...@port80.individual.net...
> >
> > I asked because I'm concerned as to whether they got a pay raise or not.
> > If they did, while denying it to SS and Military retirement, then I need
> > to get more politically active and see about bringing some congress
> > critters back home and replacing them wholesale.
> >
> > Actually, I think we should do that regardless!! :)
>
> Are you a recipient of social security and military retirement?
>
Yes. So is my mother via my late dad's ss and military retirement. And
probably a few other relatives for that matter.
> What good would it do to replace one group of criminals with a different
> group of criminals? The problem we have is with the gullibility of the
> voting public. The criminals that we have in congress are there because
> they were sent there by the voting public.
All too true, unfortunately. And because of the voting public's apathy
about it, you and I will most likely not see the day that the voting
public finally gets tired enough or fed up with it to actually do
anything about it.
something like tilting at windmills I suppose... :)
Frank Ketchum
>
> All too true, unfortunately. And because of the voting public's apathy
> about it, you and I will most likely not see the day that the voting
> public finally gets tired enough or fed up with it to actually do
> anything about it.
>
> something like tilting at windmills I suppose... :)
I don't know. We have basically ran up our federal debt to the point where
our creditors (China mainly) are warning us that they don't think we can pay
it back. If deficit spending continues down the path it currently is on ,
China may decide that they are done buying up our treasury bills and
possibly dump what they currently hold. This would be the day of reckoning
for our economy and politicians. At that point, many many Americans are in
for a painful crash course on economics and may finally have enough of
hucksters promising to exponentially grow government by borrowing.
BigSlicer
I am all for Congressional Pay raises. Considering the hours and
responsiblity, they are way underpaid.
now onto some golf discussion please!
----�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Lloyd Parsons
"BigSlicer" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
I've already done my golf comments for this month! :)
And looking at the forecast, I may have already done all the golfing I'm
going to do this month too... :(
Please feel free to send any and all the money needed to give them that
raise then. Personally I think that they don't need taxpayer money to
get paid, 'cause they are all getting enough from the 'special
interests' as it is!
BigSlicer
> In article <248a17x...@recgroups.com>,
> "BigSlicer" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4 2010 10:39 AM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >
> > > Did our Congress critters get one this year?
> > >
> > > So far I've found some articles claiming they did and others saying no
> > > they didn't. Virtually none of the articles are from any of the usual
> > > sources.
> >
> > I am all for Congressional Pay raises. Considering the hours and
> > responsibility, they are way underpaid.
> >
> > now onto some golf discussion please!
> >
> I've already done my golf comments for this month! :)
>
> And looking at the forecast, I may have already done all the golfing I'm
> going to do this month too... :(
>
> Please feel free to send any and all the money needed to give them that
> raise then. Personally I think that they don't need taxpayer money to
> get paid, 'cause they are all getting enough from the 'special
> interests' as it is!
My apologies to all for OT discussion, so this will be my final word here.
Despite what you allude to, they are not all getting special interest
money. Some are honest to the letter. There are some I disagree with on
both sides, but I do not doubt their passion and sincerity. Corruption
is a given, get over it. We must never stop our efforts to eradicate
this, but there will always be politicians with their hands out, on both
sides of the aisle.
For the job they do, these guys deserve a whole lot more than what they
get. Tiger gets more for one win then these guys get for a whole term.
You have your views, I have mine. They are doing some good stuff. It is
not easy to undo the total disaster GWB left us with. Health care will
pass, thank God. I do not mind paying a few thousand more each year, if
lives will be saved. As a Christian, I have to look beyond myself, why
can't the wingnuts who always proclaim their faith realize WJWD when it
comes to health care. And after health care, we can focus on the
environment. And then maybe focus on gay rights, liberalization of drug
laws, and who knows what else. This is called progress. You might want
to call it socialism, so be it. Capitalism is one gigantic failure, greed
killed it. The free market has failed miserably. I am ready for change,
I am still glad I went with Obama. Things will turn around, how can
anyone so naive to think that eight years of GWB and his fellow wingnut
idiots can be undone in one year.
You have the last word.
-----�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Lloyd Parsons
"BigSlicer" <a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
We will have to agree to disagree here. I think that many go to
Congress with very good intentions, but the corrupting nature of the
campaign funding screws that view pretty quickly.
Unfortunate for us.
> For the job they do, these guys deserve a whole lot more than what they
> get. Tiger gets more for one win then these guys get for a whole term.
>
I want them to get enough less that they won't want to stay in office
too damn long. That is the crux of the biggest problem in congress.
> You have your views, I have mine. They are doing some good stuff. It is
> not easy to undo the total disaster GWB left us with. Health care will
> pass, thank God. I do not mind paying a few thousand more each year, if
> lives will be saved. As a Christian, I have to look beyond myself, why
> can't the wingnuts who always proclaim their faith realize WJWD when it
> comes to health care. And after health care, we can focus on the
> environment. And then maybe focus on gay rights, liberalization of drug
> laws, and who knows what else. This is called progress. You might want
> to call it socialism, so be it. Capitalism is one gigantic failure, greed
> killed it. The free market has failed miserably. I am ready for change,
> I am still glad I went with Obama. Things will turn around, how can
> anyone so naive to think that eight years of GWB and his fellow wingnut
> idiots can be undone in one year.
>
> You have the last word.
>
We are pretty close together here. I voted for Obama and don't regret
it. I do disagree with some of his policies and views, but that would
be true regardless of who got the nod.
And yes, greed certainly got in the way. The reason trickle down isn't
working is 'cause damn little trickles, and what does, trickles
somewhere else. There is no 'corporate citizen' these days, although
they mouth the words.
assim...@borg.org
On 4-Jan-2010, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@mac.com> wrote:
> All too true, unfortunately. And because of the voting public's apathy
> about it, you and I will most likely not see the day that the voting
> public finally gets tired enough or fed up with it to actually do
> anything about it.
>
> something like tilting at windmills I suppose... :)
maybe, matbe not: http://tinyurl.com/nz3wnm
--
bill-o
Hor...@net.net
<a5a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote this crap:
>I am all for Congressional Pay raises. Considering the hours and
>responsiblity, they are way underpaid.
Your credibility has hit a new low.
Vote for Palin-Ahhnold in 2012.
Hor...@Horvath.net
My T-shirt says, "This shirt is the
ultimate power in the universe."
Howard Brazee
>I am all for Congressional Pay raises. Considering the hours and
>responsiblity, they are way underpaid.
Garbage men have long hours and responsibility. They also do less
harm to us.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Carbon
I believe that something like this will inevitably happen, regardless of
which faction controls the government. The dollar will continue to
devalue relative to other currencies. We will respond with denial, and
of course by printing more money. Every extra truckload we print will
make the crash worse.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I believe things are going to get very,
very bad.
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4b43d6c1$0$4882$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> I believe that something like this will inevitably happen, regardless of
> which faction controls the government. The dollar will continue to
> devalue relative to other currencies. We will respond with denial, and
> of course by printing more money. Every extra truckload we print will
> make the crash worse.
>
> I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I believe things are going to get very,
> very bad.
I don't think it is inevitable. What we need are some grown ups running our
government who will institute sustainable spending levels coupled with
taxation levels that encourage economic growth rather than punish it coupled
with a monetary policy aimed at stabilizing the purchasing power of the
dollar. Roughly the exact opposite is the case currently. If that were to
happen, we will be able to outgrow the current batch of wrong-headed
policies. As they say, a growing economy can cover for a multitude of sins.
In order for it to happen, the voting public is going to have to wise up a
bit and not fall for such vacuous nonsense like "change you can believe in".
The concept that growing government at exponential rates and being able to
pay for it as we go ought to have caused more skepticism last summer (along
with a whole lot of other issues). I guess we have more education to do
yet.
Carbon
"Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much more
of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to the
election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In many cases
he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and his handlers.
But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
set of problems.
Moderate
It is obvious that Obama is in so far over his head that his administration
is a disaster.
Hope and change is now hope and pray.
annika1980
> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much more
> of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to the
> election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In many cases
> he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and his handlers.
>
> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
> set of problems.
It's funny to hear the wingnuts bitch about the lack of change when
most of them voted for John McCain.
Carbon
More bias.
Carbon
There are those who will always hate him, either because he is Black or
because he is a Democrat, or both.
assim...@borg.org
It's not bitching, just I told you so. None who would see couldn't tell that
O was just another politician.
--
bill-o
Carbon
I knew he was much more of a conservative than he was made out to be,
especially before the election. He's pragmatic, which the true believers
on the left cannot stomach. Even before he won the election I said here
that I believed one of his biggest challenges would be dealing with
pissed off liberals who felt betrayed by his, how do I say it...
rationality.
It's interesting that there was complete silence from the Right after
Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Why? Because his speech was
undeniably excellent. To those ideologues who persist in the naive
fantasy that Obama is stupid, observe that he completely shut down all
criticism.
Frank Ketchum
>
> There are those who will always hate him, either because he is Black or
> because he is a Democrat, or both.
I don't hate him. I disagree with him based on policy if you can comprehend
that.
Frank Ketchum
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5dc41ca0-5a35-4323...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 9:54 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> It's funny to hear the wingnuts bitch about the lack of change when
> most of them voted for John McCain.
It's not bitching about lack of change Einstein, it is pointing out that you
swallowed his bullshit hook line and sinker.
Frank Ketchum
>
> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much more
> of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to the
> election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In many cases
> he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and his handlers.
The left was fooled? Gee, what a shock.
>
> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
> set of problems.
I don't recall you saying during the election that it didn't matter who won.
Interesting.
Moderate
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5dc41ca0-5a35-4323...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
**********************************
It is funny that the left won't admit they were duped. Now they see how
stupid they looked complaining about President Bush.
Moderate
You played the race card? If you think Obama is following Bush's policies
why did you hate Bush? Because he was White?
Moderate
How is that fiscal responsibility going? How is that open government thing
going? How is the economy doing? How is that national security going?
How is unemployment going? How is getting Bin Ladin going? How is that
getting rid of corruption in government going? Close Gitmo, Keep it open,
Close Gitmo, Keep it open. What week is this? How much cheaper is health
care going to be? Oops, more expensive?
Yesterday the Democrats announced the Republicans will be excluded from all
future hearings on health care. They are raising the cost of health care.
Bias?
BAR
says...
Carbon is just trying to back-date an opinion.
BAR
sparky@_engineer_.com says...
I think the reality of why "Why can't we be friends?" isn't working is
in the Muslim world is starting to hit the liberals square in the face
and they can't comprehend that the US's problems where not caused by a
single man, George W. Bush, but by our very existence and our freedoms.
They liberals deluded themselves into believing that by throwing George
W. Bush out of office, he couldn't run again any way, they were
attempting to show the world that we were going to be nicer to everyone.
The world leaders have now found that they can walk all over Obama by
convincing him to do this or do that in the name of improving the USA's
image. When in reality these world leaders are just looking for a
economic or military advantage over the USA.
Obama is incapable of protecting the citizens of the USA against our
enemies. Our enemies are all other countries in the world.
Frank Ketchum
>
> I knew he was much more of a conservative than he was made out to be,
> especially before the election. He's pragmatic, which the true believers
> on the left cannot stomach. Even before he won the election I said here
> that I believed one of his biggest challenges would be dealing with
> pissed off liberals who felt betrayed by his, how do I say it...
> rationality.
>
> It's interesting that there was complete silence from the Right after
> Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Why? Because his speech was
> undeniably excellent. To those ideologues who persist in the naive
> fantasy that Obama is stupid, observe that he completely shut down all
> criticism.
It is funny how you miss the point that his ability to give speeches is the
reason why he won the election. Now that we have had time to see how his
policies work, we see what he is good at - giving speeches. Form over
substance.
Shut down all criticism? What world do you live in?
BAR
says...
It seems that Carbon has become a true believer. Praise be the Obama.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>How is that fiscal responsibility going? How is that open government thing
>going? How is the economy doing? How is that national security going?
>How is unemployment going? How is getting Bin Ladin going? How is that
>getting rid of corruption in government going? Close Gitmo, Keep it open,
>Close Gitmo, Keep it open. What week is this? How much cheaper is health
>care going to be? Oops, more expensive?
>
>Yesterday the Democrats announced the Republicans will be excluded from all
>future hearings on health care. They are raising the cost of health care.
>
>Bias?
>
Bias? You have the effrontery to use that term? Of the thousands of
posts here, yours have never once shown a scintilla of objectiveness
or impartiality.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:13:48 -0600, Moderate wrote:
>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b43fb51$0$4885$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:55:02 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
>>> set of problems.
>>
>> It is obvious that Obama is in so far over his head that his
>> administration is a disaster.
>>
>> Hope and change is now hope and pray.
>
>More bias.
Moderate (now THAT'S a joke in itself) obviously thinks that McCain
would've done better. Not.
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:tq38k5h8orsb0r9v7...@4ax.com...
There is no way you can say that for sure BK.
MNMikeW
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5dc41ca0-5a35-4323...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------
McCain didnt run on the changey hopey bullshit platform.
MNMikeW
Or that he is a raving socialist liberal. Race has nothing to do with it.
Well, for normal people anyway.
MNMikeW
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote in message
news:4b447066$0$5316$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
MNMikeW
Obama is not stupid. The people he surrounded himself with....ahhhh.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
Which part? That Moderate (snicker) thinks it, or that McCain
wouldn't have done better?
BK
BK
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:u8j9k5d1rgd8p86ft...@4ax.com...
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
You might be surprised at what he his platform was. Do you know?
BK
Frank Ketchum
"MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7qk0lr...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Obama is not stupid. The people he surrounded himself with....ahhhh.
Are you kidding? The system works perfectly as Janet Incompetano might say.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
In my opinion he couldn't possibly have done better. If he had no
better sense than to accept Palin as a running mate its probable that
he'd have made many more mistakes.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:8uj9k55bcrbi7c3eb...@4ax.com...
>
> You might be surprised at what he his platform was. Do you know?
I am not Barack Obama pretty well summarized his platform. It will probably
be reused in 2012 by the Republican challenger and will be enough to win.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:55k9k5pgt0uj03sdc...@4ax.com...
>
> In my opinion he couldn't possibly have done better. If he had no
> better sense than to accept Palin as a running mate its probable that
> he'd have made many more mistakes.
As opposed to the stroke of genius in picking Biden for a running mate.
bkn...@conramp.net
I was referring to McCain's platform.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
Absolutely. Obama won. McCain lost, and I believe his choice for vp
was a main reason.
BK
MNMikeW
MNMikeW
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:55k9k5pgt0uj03sdc...@4ax.com...
After seeing Obama in action for a year making more mistakes would be hard
to do.
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:8om9k5lmf4l524k85...@4ax.com...
> Absolutely. Obama won. McCain lost, and I believe his choice for vp
> was a main reason.
And how do you square that, your opinion, with the fact that McCain was
trailing badly in the polls until he picked Palin at which point he drew
close to Obama and remained there throughout the rest of the campaign?
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:8nm9k5hd3k1j11p9a...@4ax.com...
>
> I was referring to McCain's platform.
>
I know. I responded as such.
bkn...@conramp.net
There was a jump for McCain initially, but it disappeared because it
became apparent that Palin was unqualified for the office of vp.
This spells it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31poll.html
As a matter of fact, that is what changed my vote.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
"I am not Obama" didn't seem to help McCain much.
Of course there were differences, but in going back and re-reading
his platform I find a great deal of similarities.
BK
Frank Ketchum
<bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
news:47q9k51dhm3a9v6sh...@4ax.com...
>
> This spells it out:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/us/politics/31poll.html
>
> As a matter of fact, that is what changed my vote.
Wow, a poll. What about this one?
Lloyd Parsons
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
Palin caused the numbers to go up because her job was to tend to the
right wing nutjobs that were pissed about McCain being the nominee.
There was a distinct possibility that if they didn't do something like
that, then the RWNJ's and the Christian Right would have sat out the
election.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>Obama is not stupid. The people he surrounded himself with....ahhhh.
Obama is a good public speaker and that can make a person seem a lot
smarter than they really are. And we all know what a fool Obama can
make of himself when he doesn't have a TelePrompTer.
JFK also seemed to be smart because he was such a good public speaker
and was quick with the funny line. JFK took an IQ test to get into a
private high school and scored 118, which is in the bright normal
range. That is around 10 point below G. W. Bush who is smarter but a
poor public speaker.
I'd like to see Obama's SAT and LSAT scores which would tell us two
things. First it would give a good estimate of his IQ and also tell
us if he actually deserved to be at Columbia and Harvard or was just
an affirmative action admission.
Jack Hollis
Actually, McCain pulled ahead by 2 or 3 points after the convention.
It was the financial meltdown that killed McCain. Right or wrong, the
party in power usually get the blame for a bad economy and Bush's
foreign policy, especially the war in Iraq, was already unpopular with
a majority of Americans.
Alan Baker
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
Yeah...
...the fact that McCain made a big show of how important solving the
financial crisis was by stopping his campaign to return to New York to
"solve" it...
...and the left again without it being solved...
...that wasn't in any way responsible....
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
bkn...@conramp.net
Wow. If 69% of Republicans polled thought she helped, he was dead
from the beginning.
The bottom line is that McCain lost, and I wasn't polled.
BK
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:47:38 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Obama is not stupid. The people he surrounded himself with....ahhhh.
>
>Obama is a good public speaker and that can make a person seem a lot
>smarter than they really are. And we all know what a fool Obama can
>make of himself when he doesn't have a TelePrompTer.
Are you aware that you just disputed yourself in sentences? Hard to
put much credence in someone who can't get their own thought straight.
BK
Howard Brazee
>>> It is obvious that Obama is in so far over his head that his
>>> administration is a disaster.
>>>
>>> Hope and change is now hope and pray.
>>
>>More bias.
>
>Moderate (now THAT'S a joke in itself) obviously thinks that McCain
>would've done better. Not.
Between those two candidates who are pushing Bush's policies, maybe
the less competent politician would be best for the country.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I knew he was much more of a conservative than he was made out to be,
>> especially before the election. He's pragmatic, which the true
>> believers on the left cannot stomach. Even before he won the election
>> I said here that I believed one of his biggest challenges would be
>> dealing with pissed off liberals who felt betrayed by his, how do I
>> say it... rationality.
>>
>> It's interesting that there was complete silence from the Right after
>> Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Why? Because his speech was
>> undeniably excellent. To those ideologues who persist in the naive
>> fantasy that Obama is stupid, observe that he completely shut down
>> all criticism.
>
> is the reason why he won the election. Now that we have had time to
> see how his policies work, we see what he is good at - giving
> speeches. Form over substance.
You will never accept that any Democrat is capable of doing a good job.
Obama inherited a collapsing economy and two wars. What magical
transformation were you expecting exactly?
> Shut down all criticism? What world do you live in?
I amend my statement to "shut down all rational criticism".
Carbon
> In article <2h01n.28028$Gf3....@newsfe22.iad>,
> nos...@thanksanyway.fu says...
>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4b44102e$0$4873$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>
>>> I knew he was much more of a conservative than he was made out to
>>> be, especially before the election. He's pragmatic, which the true
>>> believers on the left cannot stomach. Even before he won the
>>> election I said here that I believed one of his biggest challenges
>>> would be dealing with pissed off liberals who felt betrayed by his,
>>> how do I say it... rationality.
>>>
>>> It's interesting that there was complete silence from the Right
>>> after Obama's Nobel Prize acceptance speech. Why? Because his speech
>>> was undeniably excellent. To those ideologues who persist in the
>>> naive fantasy that Obama is stupid, observe that he completely shut
>>> down all criticism.
>>
>> It is funny how you miss the point that his ability to give speeches
>> is the reason why he won the election. Now that we have had time to
>> see how his policies work, we see what he is good at - giving
>> speeches. Form over substance.
>>
>
I'm actually not. I find him too conservative.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> There are those who will always hate him, either because he is Black
>> or because he is a Democrat, or both.
>
> I don't hate him. I disagree with him based on policy if you can
> comprehend that.
On the economy and the wars, he has basically followed through with
policies instituted by Bush's handlers. Is this bad? Would McCain have
done any different? Would it have somehow been better if McCain had
followed through with Bush Administration policies?
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
The Senator with the most liberal voting record is too conservative?
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:34:14 -0800, annika1980 wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 9:54 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much
>>>> more of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to
>>>> the election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In
>>>> his handlers.
>>>>
>>>> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
>>>> set of problems.
>>>
>>> most of them voted for John McCain.
>>
>> or because he is a Democrat, or both.
>
> policies why did you hate Bush? Because he was White?
I don't hate Bush. I think he was a fundamentally decent but not
particularly bright fellow who was taken advantage of by his handlers.
They're the ones responsible for the quagmire in the Middle East, among
many other things.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b4407b9$0$4868$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:34:14 -0800, annika1980 wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 9:54 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much
>>>> more of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to
>>>> the election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In
>>>> many cases he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and
>>>> his handlers.
>>>>
>>>> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
>>>> set of problems.
>>>
>>> It's funny to hear the wingnuts bitch about the lack of change when
>>> most of them voted for John McCain.
>>
>> There are those who will always hate him, either because he is Black
>> or because he is a Democrat, or both.
>
> it. Well, for normal people anyway.
He really isn't. The left is all pissed at him because they say he's too
conservative. You guys should be relieved.
Carbon
> "annika1980" <annik...@aol.com>> wrote in message
> b677fc...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 5, 9:54 pm, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much
>>> more of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to
>>> the election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In
>>> many cases he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and
>>> his handlers.
>>>
>>> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
>>> set of problems.
>>
>> It's funny to hear the wingnuts bitch about the lack of change when
>> most of them voted for John McCain.
>>
Once again, Obama is no fool. The "changey hopey bullshit platform" won
him the election. Other than that he has basically followed through with
Bush Administration policies, largely because he has very little choice.
I imagine what he is doing is very similar to what McCain would have
done, had he not run such an incompetent campaign.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
I thought that "stopping the campaign" was pretty dumb, because it was
an obvious campaign move.
Jack Hollis
Or someone who doesn't know the difference between delivery and
content.
William Clark
Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> wrote:
Or appointing the bimbo from Alaska as his VP. And then both of them
bumbling through the debates. Sure, had nothing to do with it.
Carbon
>
>> In my opinion he couldn't possibly have done better. If he had no
>> better sense than to accept Palin as a running mate its probable that
>> he'd have made many more mistakes.
>
> mate.
You may not like Biden--in fact, I do not like Biden--but he is
obviously more competent than the dingbat.
Carbon
He undeniably got a pretty good bump, which continued until Palin opened
her mouth in live interviews.
Carbon
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:26:49 -0600, "Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com>
> wrote:
>
>>How is that fiscal responsibility going? How is that open government
>>thing going? How is the economy doing? How is that national security
>>going? How is unemployment going? How is getting Bin Ladin going?
>>How is that getting rid of corruption in government going? Close
>>Gitmo, Keep it open, Close Gitmo, Keep it open. What week is this?
>>How much cheaper is health care going to be? Oops, more expensive?
>>
>>Yesterday the Democrats announced the Republicans will be excluded
>>from all future hearings on health care. They are raising the cost of
>>health care.
>>
>>Bias?
>>
> Bias? You have the effrontery to use that term? Of the thousands of
> posts here, yours have never once shown a scintilla of objectiveness
> or impartiality.
He thinks he's the only objective person here, which is a ridiculous
notion in itself. Only nutjobs think that.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>
>> "Change you can believe in" won him the election, but Obama is much
>> more of a pragmatic centrist than most on the left thought prior to
>> the election. He will not make rash, irresponsible decisions. In many
>> cases he has mostly stuck with policies instituted by Bush and his
>> handlers.
>
>
>> But none of that matters. If McCain had won we would have the same
>> set of problems.
>
> who won. Interesting.
Of course it matters. But for dealing with emergencies like the
financial crisis there is very little leeway. He continued with the
policies instituted by Bush's handlers because it was the only rational
thing to do.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:59:48 -0600, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:44:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 11:47:38 -0600, "MNMikeW" <MNMi...@aol.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Obama is not stupid. The people he surrounded himself with....ahhhh.
>>>
>>>Obama is a good public speaker and that can make a person seem a lot
>>>smarter than they really are. And we all know what a fool Obama can
>>>make of himself when he doesn't have a TelePrompTer.
>>
>>Are you aware that you just disputed yourself in sentences? Hard to
>>put much credence in someone who can't get their own thought straight.
>>
>>BK
>
>Or someone who doesn't know the difference between delivery and
>content.
Yeah, that's another of your problems. Good that you know it.
BK
Moderate
That is because you don't know anything about McCain. McCain would not have
let Congress sell the country. McCain would not allow the pork. McCain
would have attacked the deficit, not grow it like a weed the way Obama has.
Obama lied pure and simple.
Moderate
Can you give us an example?
Moderate
Obama did not follow Bush's policy. Obama took taxpayer money and used it
as payola. The banks were already solvent by the time Obama's pork bill
took effect. The stimulus money being paid back is the Bush stimulus money.
Now Obama is spending that.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>
>"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:4b45344c$0$5096$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
<clip>
>> Once again, Obama is no fool. The "changey hopey bullshit platform" won
>> him the election. Other than that he has basically followed through with
>> Bush Administration policies, largely because he has very little choice.
>> I imagine what he is doing is very similar to what McCain would have
>> done, had he not run such an incompetent campaign.
>
>That is because you don't know anything about McCain. McCain would not have
>let Congress sell the country. McCain would not allow the pork. McCain
>would have attacked the deficit, not grow it like a weed the way Obama has.
Hey Mike, are you going to tell Moderate (ha) that"there is no way
that he can say that for sure? :-)
BK
BAR
sparky@_engineer_.com says...
McCain would have been the "Maverick" and stayed away from the
Republicans to protect his "Maverick" persona.
> Obama lied pure and simple.
How can you tell when Obama is lying? His TelePrompter is running.
Alan Baker
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
And to have done it and then not followed through made it look that way
to pretty much everyone.
Carbon
I honestly feel sorry for you.
Carbon
You serious?
Biden: Law degree. Palin: half a dozen colleges to get some sort of
bullshit BA.
Biden: decades of experience in government. Palin: mayor of a little
town, then governor of a small state, which she then quit.
Biden: kind of windy. Palin: honestly, youtube her interviews with
Gibson and Couric. She is breathtakingly ignorant, completely unsuited
for national office. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.
Carbon
> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4b454802$0$4943$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:33:05 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4b43fb51$0$4885$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>>> set of problems.
>>>
>>> I don't recall you saying during the election that it didn't matter
>>> who won. Interesting.
>>
>> Of course it matters. But for dealing with emergencies like the
>> financial crisis there is very little leeway. He continued with the
>> policies instituted by Bush's handlers because it was the only
>> rational thing to do.
>
> Obama did not follow Bush's policy. Obama took taxpayer money and
> used it as payola. The banks were already solvent by the time Obama's
> pork bill took effect. The stimulus money being paid back is the Bush
> stimulus money. Now Obama is spending that.
Reality disagrees with you.
Alan Baker
"Moderate" <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
Funny. He allowed it before the election...
assim...@borg.org
On 6-Jan-2010, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.fu> wrote:
> > Absolutely. Obama won. McCain lost, and I believe his choice for vp
> > was a main reason.
>
> And how do you square that, your opinion, with the fact that McCain was
> trailing badly in the polls until he picked Palin at which point he drew
> close to Obama and remained there throughout the rest of the campaign?
not for the rest of the campaign, until the day he went to DC and made
himself look like Al Haig after the assination attempt on Reagan.
--
bill-o
Moderate
Bullshit. You disagree, because you are out of touch with reality.
Moderate
You are as predictable as the sunrise. When you run out of ideas you always
go back to being a condescending prick.
Moderate
I was hoping you could come up with Biden's qualifications and
accomplishments. Maybe you should youtube Biden. Biden has voted on the
wrong side of history more than anyone in recent memory.
BAR
sparky@_engineer_.com says...
"Go back to being a condescending prick." He never stops being a
condescending prick.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>
>He really isn't. The left is all pissed at him because they say he's too
>conservative. You guys should be relieved.
For various values of "conservative".
I remember when Republicans claimed their party was for Fiscal
responsibility and for following the Constitution. Neither was kept
when they got power. If the party would make those as the basis of
its platform, voters such as myself will follow.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Howard Brazee
>> > It seems that Carbon has become a true believer. Praise be the Obama.
>>
>> I'm actually not. I find him too conservative.
>
>The Senator with the most liberal voting record is too conservative?
He's no longer that Senator.
BAR
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:53:31 -0500, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It seems that Carbon has become a true believer. Praise be the Obama.
> >>
> >> I'm actually not. I find him too conservative.
> >
> >The Senator with the most liberal voting record is too conservative?
>
> He's no longer that Senator.
Does a leopard ever lose its spots?
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
>
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:58:17 -0600, Moderate wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:4b454656$0$4945$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 13:14:16 -0500, Frank Ketchum wrote:
> >>> <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:55k9k5pgt0uj03sdc...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>> In my opinion he couldn't possibly have done better. If he had no
> >>>> better sense than to accept Palin as a running mate its probable
> >>>> that he'd have made many more mistakes.
> >>>
> >>> As opposed to the stroke of genius in picking Biden for a running
> >>> mate.
> >>
> >> You may not like Biden--in fact, I do not like Biden--but he is
> >> obviously more competent than the dingbat.
> >
> > Can you give us an example?
>
> You serious?
I believe he is.
> Biden: Law degree. Palin: half a dozen colleges to get some sort of
> bullshit BA.
Biden has spent his career in politics same as Palin.
> Biden: decades of experience in government. Palin: mayor of a little
> town, then governor of a small state, which she then quit.
Biden: decades of listening to himself speak. Palin: years of actually
running cities and states.
> Biden: kind of windy. Palin: honestly, youtube her interviews with
> Gibson and Couric. She is breathtakingly ignorant, completely unsuited
> for national office. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.
Biden: Maximally windy. Palin: not as polished as you want but, she
represents the ideals of the majority of the people of the US. You
liberals only represent about 20 odd percent by your own admission on
national polls.
What does it feel like to be a 1 out of every 5?
annika1980
>
> I don't hate him. I disagree with him based on policy if you can comprehend
> that.
So you don't like his policies, but others complain that his policies
are the same as the policies of George Bush. So why weren't you guys
bitching when Bush did it?
annika1980
>
> I'd like to see Obama's SAT and LSAT scores which would tell us two
> things. First it would give a good estimate of his IQ and also tell
> us if he actually deserved to be at Columbia and Harvard or was just
> an affirmative action admission.
That's about the weakest argument yet from the Obama-bashers.
Yeah, Obama got into Columbia and Harvard and became the first black
President of the Harvard Law Review because he was black. Affirmative
action .... yeah, run with that.
Maybe you should apply. Surely Harvard must have a program for retards.