On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:

I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who
preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse.

Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree
with on everything.

--

"The superfluous, a very necessary thing."

Voltaire

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 02:48:56 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

On Jan 8, 10:59 pm, hk wrote:

Pffffttt. It's your party that goes off the wall when you don't get
your own way... The way you all have treated the office, since the
Clintons trashed it on the way out last to the present has just been
disgusting, it's a dem thing...

-----------------------------------

I watched in amusement as the Congress critters went through their gyrations
regarding the appointment of Burris to replace Obama. At first Reid and his
band of liars stated that under "no circumstances" would Burris be seated.
Even Obama publically stated that he agreed with the Senate leader's
decision not to seat Burris. 24 hours later, they all (including Obama)
welcomed Burris with open arms with all the usual photo ops.

I still have high hopes for the new administration, but actions like this
make me thing it will just be business as usual in Washington DC.

Eisboch

Reid is Daschle revisited. There's no soul in there, just
calculation. I wish men with conviction could make it to these
offices but the funding strips them of most ability to move
independently.

I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who
preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse.

jps

Wow, jips, you almost had me fooled for a bit!

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:58 pm, wrote:
On Jan 8, 7:58 pm, jps wrote:



On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:04:45 -0500, John H
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:41:48 -0500, BAR wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aiptix3lk&refe...

"He has instructed his advisers 'to make sure that we are
proceeding on
projects and investments based on national priorities and not
based on
politics,' he told a news conference on Nov. 26.
There, by golly. That's my kind of politician. One who does
what's good for
the country, not what's good for him!
Perhaps you'd rather put "food on your family."
I'm guessing you got "fooled again."
Uh, like you know, uh, like, like, you know. I, um, like, you
know...... I uh, never really did like, you know, anything, uh, but
live off the uh, you know, uh, family money, you know...

It is time to use force to end this government because they are no
longer acting in the interests of the people. Dodd, Frank, Kerry,
Pelosi and Obama need to be hung. Cheat on your taxes and starve em
out.

The Declaration of Independence set the precedent.


Nothing personal, but I think the right-wing scum should go for
it...a full insurrection, with small arms. Perhaps the righties could
take over a bit of Texas or Alabama. Those of us who remain in the
United States would be delighted to air-drop in cheap beer, cold
cuts, ammo, crank, and slightly defective condoms. I figure the
Mexicans will do the proper clean up on the insurrectionists in about
a month. If not, a half-dozen disgrunted Iraqis will perform clean-up.

You missed the point, completely.

Get those old uniforms out of the closet.

Passed mine off to a younger generation.


No, I didn't. But a tax-withholding revolt won't do what I want. An
armed, violent revolt by the right would.

Again, you missed the point.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:

I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who
preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse.

Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree
with on everything.

--

Why so binary? Why do you have to disagree with a politician/party on
"everything" to disagree with that politician or his/her party? Isn't it
enough to disagree on many major issues?

hk wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 8, 10:59 pm, hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:58 pm, wrote:
On Jan 8, 7:58 pm, jps wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:04:45 -0500, John H
wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:41:48 -0500, BAR
wrote:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...aiptix3lk&refe...

"He has instructed his advisers 'to make sure that we are
proceeding on
projects and investments based on national priorities and not
based on
politics,' he told a news conference on Nov. 26.
There, by golly. That's my kind of politician. One who does
what's good for
the country, not what's good for him!
Perhaps you'd rather put "food on your family."
I'm guessing you got "fooled again."
Uh, like you know, uh, like, like, you know. I, um, like, you
know...... I uh, never really did like, you know, anything, uh, but
live off the uh, you know, uh, family money, you know...
It is time to use force to end this government because they are no
longer acting in the interests of the people. Dodd, Frank, Kerry,
Pelosi and Obama need to be hung. Cheat on your taxes and starve em
out.
The Declaration of Independence set the precedent.
Nothing personal, but I think the right-wing scum should go for it...a
full insurrection, with small arms. Perhaps the righties could take
over a bit of Texas or Alabama. Those of us who remain in the United
States would be delighted to air-drop in cheap beer, cold cuts, ammo,
crank, and slightly defective condoms. I figure the Mexicans will do
the proper clean up on the insurrectionists in about a month. If not,
a half-dozen disgrunted Iraqis will perform clean-up.
You missed the point, completely.
Get those old uniforms out of the closet.
Passed mine off to a younger generation.
No, I didn't. But a tax-withholding revolt won't do what I want. An
armed, violent revolt by the right would.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffffttt. It's your party that goes off the wall when you don't get
your own way... The way you all have treated the office, since the
Clintons trashed it on the way out last to the present has just been
disgusting, it's a dem thing...


There's nothing more preposterous politically in here than your constant
slamming of the Clinton Administration for its minor transgressions and
President Bill's uncontrollable zipper in the face of your willingness
to give the Bush Administration a "pass" on the last eight years of
horror it has inflicted on this country.

Clinton's only concern while in office what what the country could do
for him and for his legacy. GW Bush on the other hand made the hard
decisions. Decisions that didn't take polls, didn't take focus groups.
Decisions that took into account the safety and security of the citizens
of the USA. I don't agree with everything Bush did but he didn't have an
eye on what would be inscribed on the wall at the entrance to his library.

There's no question Clinton was a flawed man in the White House, but he
sure as hell did not bring this country to the brink of destruction in
so many ways as Bush has.

You blind ignorant twit.

None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past
eight years with anything but revulsion.

Only the radical left wing ideologues, such as yourself, will look back
on the last 8 years with revulsion.

BAR wrote:


Clinton's only concern while in office what what the country could do
for him and for his legacy. GW Bush on the other hand made the hard
decisions. Decisions that didn't take polls, didn't take focus groups.
Decisions that took into account the safety and security of the citizens
of the USA. I don't agree with everything Bush did but he didn't have an
eye on what would be inscribed on the wall at the entrance to his library.


Yeah....Bush made decisions...the wrong decisions. As for what will be
inscribed on the plaque at the entrance to his library, I suggest "No
Written Materials Inside these Walls.?



There's no question Clinton was a flawed man in the White House, but
he sure as hell did not bring this country to the brink of destruction
in so many ways as Bush has.

You blind ignorant twit.

None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past
eight years with anything but revulsion.

Only the radical left wing ideologues, such as yourself, will look back
on the last 8 years with revulsion.

That would include about 70% of the country.

hk wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:25:01 -0800, jps wrote:

I'm sick of all of them but mostly the hypocrit "conservatives" who
preach family values while ****ing the country in the arse.

Just out of curiosity, name a couple of Democrats that you disagree
with on everything.

--

Why so binary? Why do you have to disagree with a politician/party on
"everything" to disagree with that politician or his/her party? Isn't it
enough to disagree on many major issues?

That political party is hell bent on destroying the country.

You cannot tax your way to prosperity.

You can tax behavior to effect change but, when you get the expected
change in behavior you can't complain about reduced tax revenues.

What happens when taxes consume 100% of peoples earnings? This is the
road we are headed down and it is only a generation and a half away.

Oh, and what about the Canadians? They are extremely upset with us. They
want to know where the are going to go to get immediate health care when
we go to a national health care system like them.

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:


Clinton's only concern while in office what what the country could do
for him and for his legacy. GW Bush on the other hand made the hard
decisions. Decisions that didn't take polls, didn't take focus groups.
Decisions that took into account the safety and security of the
citizens of the USA. I don't agree with everything Bush did but he
didn't have an eye on what would be inscribed on the wall at the
entrance to his library.


Yeah....Bush made decisions...the wrong decisions. As for what will be
inscribed on the plaque at the entrance to his library, I suggest "No
Written Materials Inside these Walls.?



There's no question Clinton was a flawed man in the White House, but
he sure as hell did not bring this country to the brink of
destruction in so many ways as Bush has.

You blind ignorant twit.

None but the dogmatically retarded are going to look back at the past
eight years with anything but revulsion.

Only the radical left wing ideologues, such as yourself, will look
back on the last 8 years with revulsion.

That would include about 70% of the country.

Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to
drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.

"BAR" wrote in message
...


Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to
drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.


It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the
housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's roots
back in the mid 1990's.

A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership
available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage lending.
Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their participation was
to provide them a safety net for these risky loans. Enter Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae.

The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all
Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal viewpoint,
i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government intervention. It
may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work, can't work or don't make
enough to afford it, you shouldn't be encouraged to buy it. But many were,
and now everybody pays.

"Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody regardless of
your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly favored what
became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest about government
oversight and a return to tougher lending practices.

Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but that's
not how I feel.
I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony economics,
particularly those who sincerely thought it was an opportunity that they
would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are also many who realized,
"screw it, what do I have to lose?"

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
...


Those with their arms out-stretched, palms up waiting for Uncle Sam to
drop a couple of pieces of government cheese in their hand.


It's hard for many to accept the fact that the primary reason for the
housing meltdown (sparking the general economic meltdown) had it's roots
back in the mid 1990's.

A well intentioned but flawed social objective to make home ownership
available to more people began the practice of sub-prime mortgage lending.
Banks don't take risks, so the only way to encourage their participation
was to provide them a safety net for these risky loans. Enter Freddie Mac
and Fannie Mae.

The rest is history. It's not all Bush's fault just as it's not all
Clinton's fault. It *is* however a reflection of a more liberal
viewpoint, i.e. "creating" artificial opportunities via government
intervention. It may sound hard and cruel, but if you don't work, can't
work or don't make enough to afford it, you shouldn't be encouraged to buy
it. But many were, and now everybody pays.

"Equal Opportunity Lender" shouldn't mean loans for everybody regardless
of your ability to repay. Ironically, those who so strongly favored what
became sub-prime lending now are screeching the loudest about government
oversight and a return to tougher lending practices.

Now I'll get the usual "I've got mine, so screw you" comments, but that's
not how I feel.
I really feel badly for those who became trapped in this phony economics,
particularly those who sincerely thought it was an opportunity that they
would otherwise not have. Unfortunately there are also many who realized,
"screw it, what do I have to lose?"

Eisboch


I wonder if those policies caused a larger than normal demand...driving the
housing prices way up.
I still remember NOYB down in Naples, with his ideas of paying interest only
on his mortgage in the hope that he'd make big profits on the rapidly
escalating home values.