PRESIDENT OBAMA

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:15 pm

JackANSI wrote:So you vote republican?

No, I vote whig

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:37 pm

songsmith wrote:Oh, and Joe, as of a few months ago, the name "Reagan" was to be mentioned only in hushed tones, and his tactics and policies were the gold standard by which all liberal policies were judged. Now trickle-down theories and laissez-faire deregulation are exposed for the failures they have always been. The Republican party, now suffering the biggest power vacuum in it's history, has no hero. Palin's out there today trying to manufacture a controversy (she says the press is calling her daughter and the baby-daddy high school dropouts... not true, she says, they take correspondence courses... because they both dropped out), but it's a dead issue, like all the others. I hope they trot Mother Of The Year out in 2012. The Dems will bust out the Karl Rove playbook again, and hoist her on her own petard. --->JMS

You make it sound like I'm a Republican. Sorry, I voted Libertarian. I hope the Republican party implodes, like it deserves. Not because of the reasons you constantly harp on. Because they turned themselves into Democrats. I have to agree with Rush, that I do want the new president to fail. I do not want him to have government take over the banking, mortgage and health industries. That would take us even closer to Marxism/socialism. I do want him to fail in that.

Oh, and for all you libs that ragged on me whenever I called this Obamination, Barack Hussein Obama, did you happen to see what name he used to swear in as? Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:54 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:You make it sound like I'm a Republican. Sorry, I voted Libertarian. I hope the Republican party implodes, like it deserves. Not because of the reasons you constantly harp on. Because they turned themselves into Democrats. I have to agree with Rush, that I do want the new president to fail. I do not want him to have government take over the banking, mortgage and health industries. That would take us even closer to Marxism/socialism. I do want him to fail in that.

Oh, and for all you libs that ragged on me whenever I called this Obamination, Barack Hussein Obama, did you happen to see what name he used to swear in as? Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:04 pm

JackANSI wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:You make it sound like I'm a Republican. Sorry, I voted Libertarian. I hope the Republican party implodes, like it deserves. Not because of the reasons you constantly harp on. Because they turned themselves into Democrats. I have to agree with Rush, that I do want the new president to fail. I do not want him to have government take over the banking, mortgage and health industries. That would take us even closer to Marxism/socialism. I do want him to fail in that.

Oh, and for all you libs that ragged on me whenever I called this Obamination, Barack Hussein Obama, did you happen to see what name he used to swear in as? Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:10 pm

songsmith wrote:Man, I know it's practically heresy to say this, but I really had myself psyched up for The Speech, I was expecting something like his racism speech or his convention speech... but it was pretty ordinary, I'd say.
I laughed at Aretha's enunciation, too. I instantly thought the Daily Show would have a field day with that, and the flubbed oath of office.--->JMS

Yeah...I guess life's gonna be a real bitch for Barack now that they took his teleprompter away.

BDR · Post by **BDR** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:02 am

undercoverjoe wrote:He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.

OK, I've listened to this crap long enough. I have HAD it. Joe, this is total bullshit and I'm calling you on it like I'd call anyone else on it.

Jim Jones made his followers drink Flavor-Aid.

Quit blaming Kool-aid, dammit.

r:>)

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:06 am

BadDazeRob wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.
OK, I've listened to this crap long enough. I have HAD it. Joe, this is total bullshit and I'm calling you on it like I'd call anyone else on it.

Jim Jones made his followers drink Flavor-Aid.

Quit blaming Kool-aid, dammit.

r:>)

I agree. LEAVE KOOL-AID out of it. Especially if it is fruit punch flavor !!

slackin@dabass · Post by **slackin@dabass** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:08 am

oooooooooh yea!!

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:20 am

BadDazeRob wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.
OK, I've listened to this crap long enough. I have HAD it. Joe, this is total bullshit and I'm calling you on it like I'd call anyone else on it.

Jim Jones made his followers drink Flavor-Aid.

Quit blaming Kool-aid, dammit.

r:>)

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:24 pm

Instead of bitching, I decided to get my ideas into the hands of anybody who will listen. The biggest problem in our economy today is mortgage backed securities. I have heard all kinds of "solutions" with numbers reaching into the trillions of dollars to "fix" it. None of the "solutions" actually focus on the problem. I figure the price tag of my plan would be in the tens of millions of dollars (with an "M", not a "B" or a "Tr") and would free up trillions of existing private dollars that are frozen in the markets. Unfortunately, the relatively low price tag won't get anybody's attention in DC. Here goes:

Dear Mr. President:

There has been too much effort, time and money spent on treating the symptoms of the mortgage securities crisis with no attention paid to the underlying cause. Many experts point to the increase in mortgage foreclosures as the root cause, but this is incidental to the real problem which is the lack of transparency with mortgage-backed securities.

As long as these securities continue to be “black-boxes” with no accurate means of valuating them, these assets will remain illiquid. As long as these assets are illiquid, financial institutions that hold them will not be able to sell them to free up billions or even trillions in cash. Financial aid to distressed mortgage holders will NOT make these securities any more transparent. Investors will still have the dilemma of proper valuation, so the securities will remain illiquid and the credit crunch will continue.

This dilemma was created because of the lack of the most basic regulation for new products in the securities industry. These securities were created with almost no oversight, guidelines or requirements from the SEC. This is an open-ended regulation problem that, as far as I know, is still the status quo.

To tackle this problem and future “creative finance” problems, the SEC needs a more regulated securities clearinghouse and registration system. As new types of securities products are introduced, they must go through a more stringent approval system with all attributes of the proposed security well-defined, transparent and easily adapted to a standardized computer database system.

To implement this, I propose significantly upgrading the SEC with IT equipment and staff that could properly register and regulate this rising tide of financial products.

The first objective of this new staff should be the proper registration of the mortgage backed securities that are causing most of the recent financial problems. Require, under penalty of law, that all the companies that underwrote these securities provide the SEC with all underlying mortgage information in a standardized database format.

The information needed is available. It needs to be centralized, tabulated and made transparently available. Once this information is available to the public, these securities can be properly valuated and bought with confidence on the free market. This would free up hundreds of billions, possibly trillions of frozen dollars and provide the much needed liquidity to the markets.

Compared to the billions of dollars already injected into the financial system in the name of liquidity, this would be an extremely low-cost and effective long-term solution to this problem.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:12 pm

Bravo, lonewolf. I think you hit the nail on the head... even a small amount of oversight would be better than none. We the American people signed a 700 billion dollar check a few months ago, and I have no idea what happened to that money. I still can't shake the feeling that the "bailout" was nothing more than the biggest white-collar crime in history. Now they want more, if only because it was so easy the first time.--->JMS

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:45 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: I have to agree with Rush, that I do want the new president to fail. I do not want him to have government take over the banking, mortgage and health industries. That would take us even closer to Marxism/socialism. I do want him to fail in that.

Oh, and for all you libs that ragged on me whenever I called this Obamination, Barack Hussein Obama, did you happen to see what name he used to swear in as? Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He is so proud of his Al Queda name, so all you lib sheeple koolaid drinkers ought to embrace it.

The gov't taking over the banking, mortgage and health industries?
It's the other way 'round, my friend. I remember pointing out a while ago here that the banking, pharmaceutical, and petroleum industries OWNED George Bush. All those concerns contributed heavily to Bush's campaigns, and their respective lobbyists were among D.C.'s most powerful men. All of them just made tremendous money at some point in the Bush presidency, enjoyed near-zero oversight, and Bush even tried to get us to turn SocSec over to the banking industry... can you imagine what we'd be up against if all older people flushed their checks down the toilet in Sept/Oct '08?

As for Hussein... you still don't get it. You're coming across like Obama is an al Qaeda terrorist. You're that old lady that McCain couldn't convince... "He's a A-rab!" It shows your suggestibility. Hey, maybe he's an alien... no wait, maybe he's the GHOST of an alien sent here from Planet Lib to impregnate our young girls to make a master race of liberal alien-ghosts. You're too easy. Maybe he used his middle name in the swearing-in because they said STATE YOUR FULL NAME, and Hussein really is his middle name.
It's okay for you to use his middle name now, Joe. It says something about where you stand. Feel free to call him Barack Hussein Hitler Pol Pot Ghengis Dahmer Tse-Tung McVey Osama Obama if you want. He's the duly-elected president of the United States, and he has the highest approval rating of any incoming president. Rush, on the other hand, is the doctor-shopping elitist brownshirt who thinks the bank execs deserve to get big bonuses and corporate jets. His time: over.-------->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 4:25 pm

So John, you think the Social Security system is solvent being run by the government???? Sure the market went down last year, but over the course of the average lifetime, it would be a million times better return than what goes on now. You as a forty some year old will never get the amount of money you paid into it. That is a losing percentage, while the market at large always gains over time.

S.S. and Medicare and Medicaid, all being run by the government, are soon to implode. But you seem to be OK with the idea of the government running health care and the banking industries?

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 5:29 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:So John, you think the Social Security system is solvent being run by the government????
But you seem to be OK with the idea of the government running health care and the banking industries?

You're avoiding my point. If Bush had gotten his way by turning SocSec over to the banking industry, SocSec would have lost EVEN MORE, by 20-30%, but hey, America wised up and told him no.
You're also assuming I'm okay with gov't running healthcare and banking, when I just posted that it's the other way around. You're not addressing my points, just reiterating your earlier ones.--->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:17 am

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:So John, you think the Social Security system is solvent being run by the government????
But you seem to be OK with the idea of the government running health care and the banking industries?
You're avoiding my point. If Bush had gotten his way by turning SocSec over to the banking industry, SocSec would have lost EVEN MORE, by 20-30%, but hey, America wised up and told him no.
You're also assuming I'm okay with gov't running healthcare and banking, when I just posted that it's the other way around. You're not addressing my points, just reiterating your earlier ones.--->JMS

Social Security could not possibly lose any more than what they are doing now. Social Security is now spending every penny it takes in now and not investing anything. So there is nothing to lose, so they could not have "lost EVEN MORE" as you post.

Al Gore used to talk about the "locked box" of S.S. What a great lie, but he is one of the greatest lairs of out time (man made global warming in the midst of an 11 year global cooling period for example). To have a "locked box" would infer that there is a fund of S.S. funds. There is not. All Bush wanted was to let 2% of what everyone pays with their S. S. monthly withdrawals from their paychecks to be invested in the market over their lifetimes. Whatever that would grow to would be yours and only yours, even when the whole S. S. system implodes. Would you like to get something instead of nothing, which is what will happen in a very short time? No, you shortsighted Bush haters just want to shoot down every idea he ever had without looking into it.

BTW, my take on S. S. it that I do not want the government to take any of my money. I will invest and save on my own, like we all should. Remember, the Social Security system started out as the Widows and Orphans Fund for widows and orphans of US soldiers killed and wounded in WW II. That was supposed to be a very limited program for a few folks that were suffering because their fathers and sons died in saving the world from Nazism.

Now the Social Security system is the largest ever Ponzi Scheme in the world. No one under 40 years old will ever see a penny, but you will pay for people retired now.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:34 pm

So, what you're saying is, instead of me just giving the gov't part of my paycheck (finite amt.), I should give the gov't part of my paycheck, let them give it to the banking industry (who just phucked us out of 3/4 of a trillion), allow them to use those funds to make money for themselves while I assume the risk, and when the time comes for me to tap into it, it'll all be gone anyway.
I'm not an economics whiz, but it sounds like only the banks make out on that deal. Did you think they were going to invest your money for free, out of patriotism and kindness?
If my mom wasn't 64, I'd say scrap the whole deal, but she's going to need that money soon. YOU tell her that she busted her ass for 45 years for nothing. I accepted my own SocSec fate years ago, but she deserves that money. You can make SocSec sound like an entitlement all you want, but she paid into it for decades, and giving it away to deregulated business interests is not going to help it.--->JMS

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:47 am

songsmith wrote:So, what you're saying is, instead of me just giving the gov't part of my paycheck (finite amt.), I should give the gov't part of my paycheck, let them give it to the banking industry (who just phucked us out of 3/4 of a trillion), allow them to use those funds to make money for themselves while I assume the risk, and when the time comes for me to tap into it, it'll all be gone anyway.
I'm not an economics whiz, but it sounds like only the banks make out on that deal. Did you think they were going to invest your money for free, out of patriotism and kindness?
If my mom wasn't 64, I'd say scrap the whole deal, but she's going to need that money soon. YOU tell her that she busted her ass for 45 years for nothing. I accepted my own SocSec fate years ago, but she deserves that money. You can make SocSec sound like an entitlement all you want, but she paid into it for decades, and giving it away to deregulated business interests is not going to help it.--->JMS

So, if you had 2% of your Social Security withdrawals put into a fund for your lifetime that actually gave you some sort of retirement, you would turn it down because some BANK made money on it (which they should earn for doing the investing and handling the escrow account) and you hate that BANKS make money. The S.S. system will implode in the near future, anyone your age and younger will get nothing. This 2% idea would at least give you something.

The government will give you nothing. The 2% investment idea will probably give you something. But a bank might earn some money doing it. So getting something is bad because it doesn't come from government? Not getting something is good because at least no BANK will earn any money on your 2%.

Dee De Dee De Dee De Dee De.....I am living in the twilight zone.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:29 pm

Put your faith in the banking system, Joe. Their sterling record lately is all you need, you should trust them implicitly. They recently bilked us all out of 3/4 trillion, which they appear to be using to buy other banks.
Whatever, you elected the bank execs, so at least you had a say... no, wait... bank execs are appointed by other bank execs, based on how much of your money they took.
If you think the Bush SocSec plan was for for a measley 2%, you're even more deluded than you appear. That ranks right up there with, "We need to stop Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction." Besides, if SocSec is going bust anyway, why give the banks a f*cking dime? 2% of nothing is zero. Two percent is an arbitrary number picked out to make it sound harmless. It makes no sense... who would set their IRA at 98% guaranteed funds.... and 2% stock? Puh-leeze.---->JMS

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:30 pm

Crashes in Iraq kills 4 US soldiers -> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world ... artner=rss

Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 5:32 pm

songsmith wrote:If you think the Bush SocSec plan was for for a measley 2%, you're even more deluded than you appear.---->JMS

The actual amount proposed was 4% of income up to the (now) $102,000 SS cap with a limit of $1100 per year to be phased out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar14.html

DirtySanchez · Post by **DirtySanchez** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:33 pm

f.sciarrillo wrote:Crashes in Iraq kills 4 US soldiers -> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world ... artner=rss

Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

LOLWUT?

You just said it was clinton's fault but still tied a guy who has been in office for less than a week to it?

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:53 pm

f.sciarrillo wrote:Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

This, I gotta hear. Tie a chopper crash in Iraq to Obama.

Keep in mind that the Bushpilots started that war, and Obama, like 70% of America, wants out. Keep in mind that pretty much zero changes in orders have been made public thus far, it's been a week since the inauguration.

If you expect me to simply forget the failures of far-right extremism in the last 8 years and beyond, you're going to have to be absolutely brilliant, because I remember it all.--->JMS

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 6:57 pm

DirtySanchez wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:Crashes in Iraq kills 4 US soldiers -> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world ... artner=rss

Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

LOLWUT?

You just said it was clinton's fault but still tied a guy who has been in office for less than a week to it?

That is the point I was trying to make lol ... Us being attacked was not bushes fault. He just happen to be in office when it happen. A couple of months I tell you. Then you had all these people saying that he planned it and he is to blame. Now that we still have troops dieing in Iraq and Obama is President. It should, according to what it was like for Bush, be Obama's fault. I'm not saying that Bush is a saint or anything, I am simply saying that what escalated from President Clintons lap to Bush's lap is now escalating to Obama's lap. So if Clinton would have taken care of them in the beginning things would be very different than they are now.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:05 pm

You're kidding me, right?

1) Iraq had no link to 9/11
2) Bush sent us to Iraq, anyway.
3) Clinton wanted to eliminate Osama bin Laden in the late 90's but Congress shut him down (remember 'wag the dog?') he also was sort of fighting a hatchet campaign that was trying to impeach him over a blowjob (apparently that was WAY more important than national security).

Iraq is George W. Bush's legacy.---->JMS

slackin@dabass · Post by **slackin@dabass** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:07 pm

f.sciarrillo wrote:
DirtySanchez wrote:
f.sciarrillo wrote:Crashes in Iraq kills 4 US soldiers -> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world ... artner=rss

Now the tide is turned. Lets see what the media says about their messiah now. I am sure they will think of some way to make it sound like his majesty should not be held accountable.

I know some one will say that it is because of Bush.... I still say it is because of Clinton ..

LOLWUT?

You just said it was clinton's fault but still tied a guy who has been in office for less than a week to it?
That is the point I was trying to make lol ... Us being attacked was not bushes fault. He just happen to be in office when it happen. A couple of months I tell you. Then you had all these people saying that he planned it and he is to blame. Now that we still have troops dieing in Iraq and Obama is President. It should, according to what it was like for Bush, be Obama's fault. I'm not saying that Bush is a saint or anything, I am simply saying that what escalated from President Clintons lap to Bush's lap is now escalating to Obama's lap. So if Clinton would have taken care of them in the beginning things would be very different than they are now.

these are my thoughts exactly. if obama wanted to pull out... what's stopping him right now of doing that? he's the commander in cheif. biden was just slobbering on about how we can't pull out yet. ha, silly liberals, war is for politicians!