Politics and religion.

I enjoyed the Pres speech tonight too. I got a big kick out of seeing some of the Rep's expresions. Some looked like they were sucking lemons; or maybe sour grapes.

Let's face it. He has to do something and their big bailout laid an egg. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

I enjoyed the Pres speech tonight too. I got a big kick out of seeing some of the Rep's expresions. Some looked like they were sucking lemons; or maybe sour grapes.

Let's face it. He has to do something and their big bailout laid an egg. :)

---

And weren't they all over Obama wanting his autograph for the folks back home! They find Obama's ideas so awful...but 68% of their constituents like what he is doing...:D

And the rebuttal guy...is he a former grade school principal???? He sure talks like he is addressing the incoming first graders!

I don't recall anyone asking for GB's autograph! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

And weren't they all over Obama wanting his autograph for the folks back home! They find Obama's ideas so awful...but 68% of their constituents like what he is doing...:D

And the rebuttal guy...is he a former grade school principal???? He sure talks like he is addressing the incoming first graders!

---

I was a little surprised to see all these folks wanting a autograph from Obama. I don't blame them, I would too, but it did surprise me it happened in the House chamber.

Gov Jindal's speech was panned by everyone in the GOP camp.:D Only
Rush came to his defense. Jindal is supposed to be the GOP's answer
to Obama. :rolleyes:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/...entors-jindal/

Tick.....Tock.....Tick......Tock.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1235...mEditorialPage


"Mr. Obama is very good at portraying his agenda as nothing more than center-left pragmatism. But pragmatists don't ignore the data."


The President is clearly not a stupid man. He has to know, from history, what happens when you do the things he is trying to do. So that begs the question...WHY? A professor of Constitutional Law? Perhaps he studies it so that he can figure out ways around it? He is on record as saying the Constitution is too LIMITING. (DUH! That is what the framers intended for it.)

I had to laugh at the "I never had a helicopter before" statement..

He didn't see the need to stop the order for a cheaper one?

It costs us just as much as AF1...

What a marroon!

----------

Are the EARMARKS everyone is talking about smudges he leaves on the doorjambs?:confused:

A little quick history...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter E Williams

While Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution, I doubt whether they are indifferent between a growing or stagnating economy. Dr. Higgs tells us some of the economic history of the U.S. In 1893, there was a depression; we got out of it without a stimulus package. There was a major recession of 1920-21; though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the "Roaring Twenties." In 1929, there was an economic downturn, most notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive government intervention -- you might call it the nation's first stimulus package. President Hoover and Congress responded to what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs, propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses, and financed state relief efforts. When Roosevelt came to office, he became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over protracted depression where the economy didn't fully recover until 1946.

---

Full text here.

Article by DR Robert Higgs is here.

Quote:

---

.... He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years......


There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

---

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

Buyers remorse? Gee, who woulda thunk it? A guy with almost NO real leadership experience.... But gives on hell of a speech. Sounds like, dare I say it? Adolf Hitler?

Change we can believe in!!!! We will all be equally miserable!!! WOO HOO!

(Except our dear leader, he will NEVER feel the pain.....)

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/910...48fcbdfea6.png

A little lighter now.... I thought this oddly appropriate.

http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-02-28/


Replace "Law" with "Constitution"

Apperently the Germans feel Obama is the Second Coming...

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/imageho...6c6b94b481.jpg

I guess I have to eat some crow.


Not even two months into the new president's term and I do see the difference in the country.


I had lunch with my sibs at a mall and I noticed a machine next to the carousel that said CHANGE on the front of it. When I paid the bill, I handed the folder with my money inside to our server and he came back later and told me he would be back with my CHANGE. I did ask him if BO was in the mall, he said, 'NO!' That made me believe that we can have change with him in office.


God bless America and the new president.

:rolleyes::confused:

Dear My President,

Why are you sending Ms. Clinton to the Middle East with 900,000,000 dollars for the Gaza Strip?

How will that money be spent? OR how many skyrocket missles can you buy for the idiots that are running the place?

Instead of making or giving them incentives - Don't shoot off rockets, blow up buses or kidnap people, maybe?- for a time period say every month, you just give them some money, hope they behave themselves and pray.

900,000,000?

We could take care of the OCTOMOM, her kids and have something left over to feed some of the poor effers in Appalachia here in the states.

Nice going-we'll talk to people, then give them money.
If we can't kill them with kindness, lets give them money to kill someone else.

Maybe we can convince them to be our BFFFs?


Best FN FRIENDS FOREVER!:D:rolleyes::mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

Buyers remorse? Gee, who woulda thunk it? A guy with almost NO real leadership experience.... But gives on hell of a speech. Sounds like, dare I say it? Adolf Hitler?

Change we can believe in!!!! We will all be equally miserable!!! WOO HOO!

(Except our dear leader, he will NEVER feel the pain.....)

---

Yea, he should just stop trying to clean up the messes of the past Presidents and let our county finish going to hell in a hand basket.

Let all the banks fail, and the stock market too and all the businesses. Who needs em? When we are all poverty stricken we can then start all over from the ground up. At least we will all be equal then. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

Yea, he should just stop trying to clean up the messes of the past Presidents and let our county finish going to hell in a hand basket.

Let all the banks fail, and the stock market too and all the businesses. Who needs em? When we are all poverty stricken we can then start all over from the ground up. At least we will all be equal then. :p

---

Tell me how spending money we don't have and raising taxes on the people who make jobs is going to help?

Better yet, learn about the depression of 1920-21. See how we got out of that, FAST. Then see what happened in 1933. See how LONG it took to get out of that one.

There is a lot of culpability to go around, but the lions share of it rests with arrogant and corrupt government..... From both parties. It gets worse with a over educated, under wise, wanna be communist dictator in the White House.

People who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

The government is who created this mess. That's why it needs to change before the mess can be cleaned up. Do you really think that if any other person had been elected, things would have been better? If so, I have a bridge I'll sell you in never never land.

By the way, it was the GOVERNMENT who got us out of the depression by putting people back to work doing work for the states building roads and things. I do know my history. My family lived through it!

And who are they going to raise taxes on, people who have no many now?
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

The government is who created this mess. That's why it needs to change before the mess can be cleaned up.

---

So 2 wrongs do make a right?

Quote:

---

Do you really think that if any other person had been elected, things would have been better? If so, I have a bridge I'll sell you in never never land.

---

Either of the two main options we were given would have gotten us to this point.

Thats why I voted for Bob Barr.

Quote:

---

By the way, it was the GOVERNMENT who got us out of the depression by putting people back to work doing work for the states building roads and things. I do know my history. My family lived through it!

---

Umm, no. WW2 got us out of the depression. All the first new deal did was make busy work, but it did ZERO to contribute to the long term health of the economy.

Free economies are cyclical, they ebb and flow. The best thing to do is let it ebb and flow. But career politicans can't let that happen. Not when people can't afford their cigarettes or big screen TVs any more. Not when the people who suck on the government tit keep voting for more and more of MY money.

You know your history? Read Cicero. Read the Federalist Papers. Don't regurgitate the BS that is contained in public school textbooks. (Remember, their content is regulated by the feds.... In direct conflict with the 10th Amendment...)

Quote:

---

And who are they going to raise taxes on, people who have no many now?
:rolleyes:

---

No, they are going to tax my business. The US already has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate on Earth. You would not belive the things that are done to hide income. All that is needed is to let us keep OUR money. I'd love to hire 2-3 new techs... But I am holding off, because if Dear Leader raises my taxes, I can't afford to and stay in business.

This is what we get when public schools feed the PC version of history to our kids and we elect a man who has never lead a business , telling business how to run.

Ok, fine!!! Get rid of all government. I hope you have a big gun and are a good shot so you can protect yourself and your business. You will need it to protect yourself from the vultures who will swoop down on you. :eek:

And if war is so great for the economy; we should be all rolling in clover. We've been at war for over 5 years in Iraq!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

And if war is so great for the economy; we should be all rolling in clover. We've been at war for over 5 years in Iraq!

---

Nice one Moff.:) If pucky is so dissatisfied with the way America
government works, he should either run for office himself or move to
an island far, far away.:D

I just heard on the news that the government is giving AIG even more money because it is too big a corporation, with too much at stake, to be allowed to fail. But I don't understand how the government pouring more and more money into AIG, or large banking corporations, or the big auto makers, is going to make things better for little old me in Chicago. I'm just trying to hang on to my job and my place and keep my old car running since I can't get a loan for a new one. I am thoroughly lost with this whole economic downturn, recession thing. Looks bad to me.

Try this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter E Williams

There Is No Santa



Here is what my George Mason University colleague Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: "Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money." A short translation of Wagner's comment is: There is no Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. Let's examine the ruse.

Suppose the value of all that we will produce in 2009, our gross domestic product (GDP), totals $14 trillion. There cannot be any disagreement that if Congress spends $4 trillion, of necessity there is only $10 trillion left over for us to spend privately. In other words, if Congress is going to spend $4 trillion, it must find a way to get us to spend $4 trillion less. The most open and aboveboard method to force us to spend less privately is to tax us to the tune of $4 trillion.

You might say, "Congress doesn't have to tax us $4 trillion. They could tax us $3 trillion and run a $1 trillion budget deficit." You have that wrong. There is no way for Congress to spend $4 trillion out of our 2009 $14 trillion GDP by getting us to spend only $3 trillion less privately. It has to be $4 trillion less. Another method to force us to spend less privately is to print money and inflate the currency. Rising prices reduce our ability to spend privately since each dollar we hold will not buy as much. Another way is for Congress to borrow, thereby reducing our ability to spend privately. By the way, all of this means that in any real economic sense the federal budget is always balanced. That is, if Congress spends $4 trillion we must privately spend $4 trillion less whether it is accomplished through taxation, inflation or borrowing.

The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It's that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. Let's say that Congress taxes you $500 to put toward creating construction jobs building our infrastructure. The beneficiaries will be quite visible, namely men employed building a road. The victims of Congress are invisible and are only revealed by asking what you would have done with the $500 if it were not taxed away from you. Whatever you would have spent it on would have contributed to someone's employment. That person is invisible. Politicians love it when the victims of their policies are invisible and the beneficiaries visible. Why? Because the beneficiaries know for whom to vote and the victims do not know who is to blame for their plight.

In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don't expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don't need that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Nice one Moff.:) If pucky is so dissatisfied with the way America
government works, he should either run for office himself or move to
an island far, far away.:D

---

If Lizzy is so dissatisfied with the way American Government was supposed to work, and worked for 200 years, she should move rather then make America like the governments she so admires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

Ok, fine!!! Get rid of all government. I hope you have a big gun and are a good shot so you can protect yourself and your business. You will need it to protect yourself from the vultures who will swoop down on you. :eek:

And if war is so great for the economy; we should be all rolling in clover. We've been at war for over 5 years in Iraq!

---

Did I say get rid of all government? Heck no. Good grief. LOL

But the ROLE of government here is, IMO, WAY, WAY more involved in our lives than it should be. I believe in the individual and giving the individual as much personal liberty as possible. Because at our core, I know we are a GOOD people. We are not the people the news and our schools tells you we are.

I do have several big guns and I am more than capable of using them to protect myself, my familiy and those I love. I PRAY that I never, ever have to.

LOL. I love how you and the cheerleader think Iraq is a war comparable to WW2. I thought you said you knew your history? During WW2, our country mobilized on a massive scale. The US mobilized 92 ground combat divisions, a huge Navy and Air Force and the structures to move and supply it. This kind of mobilization requires huge efforts from industry... (Jobs, jobs, jobs...) Now granted, this money was provided from the public coffers, but it was spent, mostly, on things that created REAL jobs and products/services. The size of our force has barely changed for Iraq as it is a wholly differnt kind of conflict, that I personally belive is time to be done with. There has been nowhere near the amount of industry required to support opertations in Iraq/Afghanistan, compared to WW2.


Again, with your "arguements" as proof.... Those who do not understand our history (IN CONTEXT) are doomed to repeat it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

The US mobilized 92 ground combat divisions, a huge Navy and Air Force and the structures to move and supply it. This kind of mobilization requires huge efforts from industry... (Jobs, jobs, jobs...) Now granted, this money was provided from the public coffers, but it was spent, mostly, on things that created REAL jobs and products/services.

---

Agreed,
One of the giant changes in the world since "the Wall" came a tumblin' down is the fact that we didn't have to produce /make/design materials/concepts or systems to keep the 'evil USSR' from taking over the planet.

We now find out that they were indeed a paper tiger, but the industries that those shmucks forced us to build were great for our economy.

GM, Raytheon, Martin, Lockheed all had HUGE government contracts and were giants among the economy here in So Cal. I can imagine that most of the workers never thought about what they did was really devoted to war.

Do we need a good war to improve our economy?

I pray that we don't, but sometimes it looks like that's what happens to get countries out of an economic funk.

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

Hey, if the 900,000,000 BO has promised to the Gaza Strip helps the Hamas, Hezbollah and PLO keep attacking Israel we stand to make the money back and then some, when we sell more arms and shiat that blows up in arms deals.

Then we get blamed for selling them arms, while the American Public forgets that we sent those morons (GAZA) money that they just funnel into more terrorism! Not a blip on the screen from anyone about the nine hundred million dollars that we will give away-those are the kinds of investments that got us into trouble in the first place.


Change? I don't think so.:rolleyes:

LOL, I can see that my tax dollars are running the WH in times of war against nasty radio show hosts, Like the economy is tanking dude and all you care about is a blow hard talking head?

Even GWB had his stinky fingers in more than one dish at a time!
This guy cannot multitask at all1

Its all part of distracting the public from the massive tax increases, and its targeting the middle class and poor.

I heard that Kay King, lapdog for the SOTH -Nancy the blitherer-sent some really funny emails to the Air Force regarding their inability to furnish her with the G5 jets she 'needed' to get around.

Very funny and very demanding.

What a stupid pair of twits.:D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29616975/

LOL, if MSNBC posts it, it must be true?

Nancy the blitherer is third in line for the big chair. Of course she deserves a G5 and fighter jet escort to Calli every weekend, you cant expect her to stay in touch with her constituent's by flying comercial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Nancy the blitherer is third in line for the big chair. Of course she deserves a G5 and fighter jet escort to Calli every weekend, you cant expect her to stay in touch with her constituent's by flying comercial.

---

I can hardly wait for election time so we can get rid of N the B, Baba Boxer and Diane Frankenstein.

-----------

And whats the deal with Maxine "the mouth" Waters. What a fricking blowhard that fool is. This week I was buoyed by Jackie Speiers (sp?) She doesn't want the bailout money for Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah!:eek::D

She renewed my faith in CA politics and the women who run the state!:D

---------

I heard that that SOB OBL made a tape and mentioned the Gaza Strip........

After we promised to give them 900 million the FN ingrate is criticizing us?


Why, I otta.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

I heard that Kay King, lapdog for the SOTH -Nancy the blitherer-sent some really funny emails to the Air Force regarding their inability to furnish her with the G5 jets she 'needed' to get around.

Very funny and very demanding.

What a stupid pair of twits.:D

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29616975/

LOL, if MSNBC posts it, it must be true?

---

Richard, Richard, tsk tsk, you must expand your reading library. Try this
link to better distinguish truth from rumors. It won't hurt a bit, I promise.:)

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/sliming_pelosi.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Richard, Richard, tsk tsk, you must expand your reading library. Try this
link to better distinguish truth from rumors. It won't hurt a bit, I promise.:)

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/sliming_pelosi.html

---

I didn't read too much into it, it you read the "MSNBC" disclaimer I wrote at the bottom.

Theres a problem here.

Liz's link is from 01/14/09.

The MSNBC link is from 03/10/09 and the related Judicial Watch story is from 03/13/09.

Its possible that Factcheck.org hasnt seen the documents cited by Judicial Watch. ETA: Keep in mind the JW story is part of a weekly update ending on a friday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Theres a problem here.

Liz's link is from 01/14/09.

The MSNBC link is from 03/10/09 and the related Judicial Watch story is from 03/13/09.

Its possible that Factcheck.org hasnt seen the documents cited by Judicial Watch. ETA: Keep in mind the JW story is part of a weekly update ending on a friday.

---

Judicial Watch got it's bloomers in a knot when it finally thought they
had "the goods" on the Speaker, Palosi.:rolleyes:

Sorry , but they were wrong in their conclusions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...dog-group.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Judicial Watch got it's bloomers in a knot when it finally thought they
had "the goods" on the Speaker, Palosi.:rolleyes:

---

How could anyone get the 'good' on someone so 'bad', dumb and incompetent?:eek::o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

How could anyone get the 'good' on someone so 'bad', dumb and incompetent?:eek::o

---

Huh????:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Huh????:confused:

---

I wrote that while I was napping.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

I wrote that while I was napping.;)

---

Richard, stand back from the keyboard.:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Judicial Watch got it's bloomers in a knot when it finally thought they
had "the goods" on the Speaker, Palosi.:rolleyes:

Sorry , but they were wrong in their conclusions.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...dog-group.html

---

Its funny that ABC didnt follow up with the main JW story.

Quote:

---

In response to a series of requests for military aircraft, one Defense Department official wrote, "Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?...[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..." The email also notes that Pelosi's office had, "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

One DOD official complained about the "hidden costs" associated with the speaker's last minute changes and cancellations. "We have...folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc."

The documents include a discussion of House Ethics rules and Defense Department policies as they apply to the speaker's requests for staff, spouses and extended family to accompany her on military aircraft. In May 2008, for example, Pelosi requested that her husband join her on a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) into Iraq. The DOD explained to Pelosi that the agency has a written policy prohibiting spouses from joining CODEL's into combat zones.

Documents obtained from the U.S. Army include correspondence from Speaker Pelosi's office requesting an Army escort and three military planes to transport Pelosi and other members of Congress to Cleveland, Ohio, for the funeral services of the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Pelosi noted in her letter of August 22, 2008, that such a request, labeled "Operation Tribute" was an "exception to standard policy."

The documents also detail correspondence from intermediaries for Speaker Pelosi issuing demands for certain aircraft and expressing outrage when requested military planes were not available. "It is my understanding there are no G5s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable...The speaker will want to know where the planes are..." wrote Kay King, Director of the House Office of Interparliamentary Affairs. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft would not be available, King writes, "This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset [s]peaker."

During another email exchange DOD staff advised Kay King that one Pelosi military aircraft request could not be met because of "crew rest requirements" and offered to help secure commercial travel. Kay King responded: "We appreciate the efforts to help the codel [sic] fly commercially but you know the problem that creates with spouses. If we can find another way to assist with military assets, we would like to do that."

---

Source with links to the emails, DOD documents, and letters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Richard, stand back from the keyboard.:p

---

WTF,
You never have typed with your forehead?:D

LOL, I was reading about the Iditarod race in the paper and one of the mushers fell asleep on the sled and when he woke up he was lost.....


That's me!:eek::o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RICHARD

WTF,
You never have typed with your forehead?:D

---

No, but I have had one of my cats post for me if I'm too busy elsewhere.;)