STOP THE FEAR MONGERING

On Mar 3, 5:24*am, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:05:38 -0800 (PST), "K. Gringioni"

wrote:

Luckily for us, our guy whom you mention never managed to get into a
mess of that magntude. Not for a lack of trying.

Not to mention lives saved in winter by invading countries closer to
the equator.


They were talking about bringing Georgia (Republic of) into NATO,
which would have obligated us to defend Georgia from the Russians.
Then there is the anti-missile defense system on the borders with
Russia. I think they were trying to provoke the Russians to get an
arms race going again, which would force Bush's successor to spend
money on defense.
-Paul

Tom Kunich wrote:
Scott, you don't understand. The idiots here think that "giving him a
chance" means that we shouldn't criticize plainly socialist policies put
into effect to drive the US into such a depression that the socialists
feel that they can then gain complete control of the country.

And then its off to the re-education camp for you. If you like
we could arrange for you to share a cell with Larry Craig.

On Mar 3, 6:10*am, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:



On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote:

*When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this
without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages,
"trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you
folks.

Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+
members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would
happen in the meantime?
-Paul

How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages?
Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's
entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against).

Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost
another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but
doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is
better.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your point?

That no one should take you seriously.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're not talking about President Bush here, so your reference to him
is useless. *We're not even talking about ANY republican alternative
to President Obama. *We're talking about the current president, the
"stimulus" bill and the state of the economy. *You hate President
Bush, we all get that. *But let's try to stay on point.

Here's something serious for you to consider. *Check the level of the
market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the
day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the
day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three
miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the
day the spending bill was signed into law. *Check the level the day
they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000
earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. *The
pattern is pretty clear.

You're a typical Bush voter- stupid. Here's a graph of the S&P 500
over the last year:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC

As you can clearly see from the graph, the declines of the last few
days are nothing compared with what happened last year. The current
declines are due to more bad news from AIG. That bad news was a done
deal long before Obama took office. The news is just sinking in, it's
not that AIG suddenly took a turn for the worse because of something
Obama did. This mess was left by Bush.

So how many times did you vote for Bush? Dumbass.
-Paul

On Mar 3, 6:10*am, Scott wrote:
On Mar 3, 2:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:





On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:59 -0800 (PST), Scott

wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, "Paul G." wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:32*pm, Scott wrote:

On Mar 2, 12:40*pm, "Paul G." wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:00*am, Bill C wrote:

*When they are insisting that Congressmen have to vote to pass this
without even giving them the time to read the thousands of pages,
"trust us", then that's beyond ****ed up, but hey if it works for you
folks.

Practical consideration- how long do you figure it would take all 500+
members of Congress to read those thousands of pages? *What would
happen in the meantime?
-Paul

How long did it take Pelosi and crew to write those 1000+ pages?
Perhaps I'm naive, but if a bill is too long to be read in it's
entirety, it's too long to vote on (for or against).

Oh, as to what would happen in the meantime, we might not have lost
another 15% in the market. *Doing nothing is often a bad thing, but
doing the wrong thing is always a bad thing. *Sometimes nothing is
better.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
-Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's your point?

That no one should take you seriously.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're not talking about President Bush here, so your reference to him
is useless. *We're not even talking about ANY republican alternative
to President Obama. *We're talking about the current president, the
"stimulus" bill and the state of the economy. *You hate President
Bush, we all get that. *But let's try to stay on point.

Here's something serious for you to consider. *Check the level of the
market the day before the election, the day of the inauguration, the
day the House released their initial version of the spending bill, the
day the House republicans voted against it, the day those three
miserable Senate republicans voted to prevent further debate, and the
day the spending bill was signed into law. *Check the level the day
they announced another 4+ bil dollar pork bill laden with 9000
earmarks, and then you tell us what's driving the market down. *The
pattern is pretty clear. *When it looked like there may be some
serious debate on a STIMULUS bill the market was stable, or even a
little up. *It's been on a significant spiral ever since it was clear
there was no stimulus but lots of spending. *The markets have spoken:
Obama/Pelosi spending bill is NOT going to stimulate anything other
than big govt and big debt.



Dumbass -


That's not a good metric.

The markets are going down because of the problems in the financial
system. Stock values rise and fall based upon whether that particular
company is making money, not what Nancy Pelosi is doing.

Shares of General Motors are eating **** because their sales are down
55%. Shares of Apple and Google are mostly holding steady because of
the strength of those companies. None of those stock prices really
have much of anything to do with the actions of Congress. They have to
do with HOW THOSE COMPANIES ARE DOING.

I'll do that caps thing more often if necessary. Seems like you may
need it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Bill C" wrote in message
...

Noone is buying that the actions so far are going to stabilize or fix
the situation, or that there is a long term plan in place. He's
generating no confidence at all from the people in the markets,
business, or the general public by the current approach.

It's worse than that. Remember that Roosevelt's playing with the market
extended the depression for perhaps 8 years longer than it would have lasted
without his efforts.

Hate to say it to Tom , but Madoff was reported to the SEC as early
as 2001 and nothing was done, the trail of existing laws and
regulations not being enforced, and the government willfully failing
to follow the law ran all through Bush's administration. Wouldn't you
call that destroying our system of government?

You know, I complained about him from the start since he was obviously a
Liberal despite having run as a Conservative. I have said from the start
that the anti-Clinton Democrats moved over into and took over control of the
Republican party pushing out the real Conservatives.

That doesn't mean that Bush was completely wrong and his entrance into Iraq
was actually a very good idea since it put us on Iran's border and prevented
Iraq from breeding more terrorism and Iran from using nuclear weapons
against both Iraq and Israel. However, now that Obama is going to exit the
way he is we can pretty much start worrying again about nuclear weapons
being used in the middle east.

When anyone, especially the people who have the power, willfully
choose to ignore, break, or circumvent the existing laws of our
country then they are already outside of, and destroying the system.

And you use the legal system to correct that. However, since BOTH sides want
to do it they're protecting the other side as a way of protecting
themselves.

I sincerely hope that Obama doesn't get everything he wants because I
think it's wrong, but I do sure as hell hope that what he does is
incredibly successful for the good of the country.

He has spent more money in less time than any other President in history. Do
you think that will be for the "good of the country"?

On Mar 3, 5:24*am, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:05:38 -0800 (PST), "K. Gringioni"

wrote:

Luckily for us, our guy whom you mention never managed to get into a
mess of that magntude. Not for a lack of trying.

Not to mention lives saved in winter by invading countries closer to
the equator.




lol!

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Bill C" wrote in message
...

Noone is buying that the actions so far are going to stabilize or fix
the situation, or that there is a long term plan in place. He's
generating no confidence at all from the people in the markets,
business, or the general public by the current approach.

It's worse than that. Remember that Roosevelt's playing with the market
extended the depression for perhaps 8 years longer than it would have
lasted without his efforts.

Hate to say it to Tom , but Madoff was reported to the SEC as early
as 2001 and nothing was done, the trail of existing laws and
regulations not being enforced, and the government willfully failing
to follow the law ran all through Bush's administration. Wouldn't you
call that destroying our system of government?

You know, I complained about him from the start since he was obviously a
Liberal despite having run as a Conservative. I have said from the start
that the anti-Clinton Democrats moved over into and took over control of
the Republican party pushing out the real Conservatives.



Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush was
a Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused by
Democrats that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

- dave a

"dave a" wrote in message
...

Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush was a
Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused by Democrats
that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

Dave, perhaps you'd actually look it up before shooting off into
never-never-land. During the entire Clinton 8 years at least one Democrat
per month crossed over to the Republican Party. They claimed to be
"moderates" but many if not most of them were the previous lefties who just
couldn't go so far to the left as the party appeared to want.

Mind you, since that caused the "Republicans" to rapidly gain control of the
Congress, the Clintonistas weren't able to succeed.

Now the Clinton's are being made to look like pikers compared to Obama.

Watch your savings disappear. Already the word is that there will be a
significant drop in the average wage in the USA.

Tom Kunich wrote:

"dave a" wrote in message
...

Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush
was a Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused
by Democrats that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

Dave, perhaps you'd actually look it up before shooting off into
never-never-land. During the entire Clinton 8 years at least one
Democrat per month crossed over to the Republican Party. They claimed
to be "moderates" but many if not most of them were the previous
lefties who just couldn't go so far to the left as the party appeared
to want.

Mind you, since that caused the "Republicans" to rapidly gain control
of the Congress, the Clintonistas weren't able to succeed.

Now the Clinton's are being made to look like pikers compared to
Obama.

Watch your savings disappear. Already the word is that there will be a
significant drop in the average wage in the USA.



Wow. A hundred or so Democrats became Republicans during Clinton's
presidency. Do you mean in the U.S. Congress, nationally among the general
electorate or among your circle of friends? I'm trying to think of a 100
from Congress, but aside from Barney Frank, Newt Gingrich, Arlen Specter,
and Steve Largent I'm drawing a blank.

Just out of curiousity, how many were Congressional Medal of Honor winners
who stormed the beaches at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Wonsan?

--
Bill Asher

William Asher wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:

"dave a" wrote in message
...

Hold on, I'm losing the play by play here. You are saying that Bush
was a Liberal? And the problem with the Republican Party is caused
by Democrats that joined and pushed out the "real Conservatives"?

You never fail to amaze...

Dave, perhaps you'd actually look it up before shooting off into
never-never-land. During the entire Clinton 8 years at least one
Democrat per month crossed over to the Republican Party. They claimed
to be "moderates" but many if not most of them were the previous
lefties who just couldn't go so far to the left as the party appeared
to want.

Mind you, since that caused the "Republicans" to rapidly gain control
of the Congress, the Clintonistas weren't able to succeed.

Now the Clinton's are being made to look like pikers compared to
Obama.

Watch your savings disappear. Already the word is that there will be
a significant drop in the average wage in the USA.



Wow. A hundred or so Democrats became Republicans during Clinton's
presidency. Do you mean in the U.S. Congress, nationally among the
general electorate or among your circle of friends? I'm trying to
think of a 100 from Congress, but aside from Barney Frank, Newt
Gingrich, Arlen Specter, and Steve Largent I'm drawing a blank.

Just out of curiousity, how many were Congressional Medal of Honor
winners who stormed the beaches at Anzio, Iwo Jima, and Wonsan?


Actually, I count 7 representatives and 2 senators between 1992 and 2000
who changed affiliations (http://voteview.ucsd.edu/nokken_poole.pdf), 8
Dem, 1 Rep, total. Of the 8 Dems switching to Rep, 6 were southern
Democrats who changed to Republican in 1995, immediately after the
Republicans took back both houses in the 1994 elections. To call their
switch a cynical political move rather than a heartfelt expression of
deeply held core values would be far far beneath me.

Tom, you need to stay away from facts, they don't suit you.

--
Bill Asher