An old trick of politicians to blame everybody else for the problems
THEY created. They always blame the usual suspects: fat cats on wall
street because they are easy targets. Nobody likes the fat cats. The
fat cats are partially to blame BUT most of the blame goes back to the
politicians. Thanks to the internet the politicians can no longer
hide. See this video for who is behind this mess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Pass it along. It has good music and graphics and easily
understandable. Because of this problem taxes will go up, they are
printing money to fix the problem so inflation will go up causing food
and gas prices to go up, thus hurting the average american. Other
prices going up will hurt business and to save money they will layoff
people. Don't let them get away with it, take your country and your
right to prosperity back !

"steviekm3" wrote in message
...
An old trick of politicians to blame everybody else for the problems
THEY created. They always blame the usual suspects: fat cats on wall
street because they are easy targets. Nobody likes the fat cats. The
fat cats are partially to blame BUT most of the blame goes back to the
politicians. Thanks to the internet the politicians can no longer
hide. See this video for who is behind this mess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Pass it along. It has good music and graphics and easily
understandable. Because of this problem taxes will go up, they are
printing money to fix the problem so inflation will go up causing food
and gas prices to go up, thus hurting the average american. Other
prices going up will hurt business and to save money they will layoff
people. Don't let them get away with it, take your country and your
right to prosperity back !

No one has right to prosperity. This has to be earned, or, stolen from
someone else as the case here.

Businesses and creditors alike don't learn from their mistakes unless the
lesson actually hurts enough. The proposed solution from Congress sees that
the pain is more of an embarrassment, than a literal loss to creditors.

Either way, we pay for the fiasco. But, our children and grandchildren will
pay even more if Congress keeps paying for our current problems with their
money.
--
Dave

Food for thought. May cost more or
perhaps the same if the credit market
is allowed to correct on its own. The
added benefit is the credit market won't risk
doing the same thing or similar again
in the future. As a result, such risks taken
by borrowers won't exist either.

Jangchub wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:26:21 -0700 (PDT), steviekm3
wrote:

An old trick of politicians to blame everybody else for the problems
THEY created. They always blame the usual suspects: fat cats on wall
street because they are easy targets. Nobody likes the fat cats. The
fat cats are partially to blame BUT most of the blame goes back to the
politicians. Thanks to the internet the politicians can no longer
hide. See this video for who is behind this mess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o

Pass it along. It has good music and graphics and easily
understandable. Because of this problem taxes will go up, they are
printing money to fix the problem so inflation will go up causing food
and gas prices to go up, thus hurting the average american. Other
prices going up will hurt business and to save money they will layoff
people. Don't let them get away with it, take your country and your
right to prosperity back !

At this point, whether it is simply blindly voting with a dart at the
dart board, Barak Obama has my firm vote. The thought of Commando
Barbie, who can field dress a moose she murdered, whose daughter is
pregnant at 17 and her other daughter was caught smoking crack or
meth, pitueeee.

Not to mention more meth labs were shut down in Alaska than any other
state. Indeed our current president IS ABSOLUTELY responsible for
this mess American is in, he is the direct blame of this ridiculous
war where thousands of boys and girls are now dead, not to mention the
hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people dead.

What do they mean by "we must win this war?" What do we win?

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

I'm voting for the white guy---------------


















Ralph Nader

Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:36:06 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

I'm voting for the white guy---------------


Ralph Nader

You might as well vote for the maverick because Nader hasn't got a
chance. That is silly to throw away the vote like that.

Victoria

You're not at true Greeny, if you don't vote for the skinny whitey

On Sep 29, 3:58*pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:25:51 -0400, Frank



frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:
Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:36:06 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

I'm voting for the white guy---------------

Ralph Nader

You might as well vote for the maverick because Nader hasn't got a
chance. *That is silly to throw away the vote like that.

Victoria

You're not at true Greeny, if you don't vote for the skinny whitey

I never said I was a Greeny, so not sure what you're talking about
even with the smiley.

Ralph Nader has passed his prime. He's rumbling and mumbling now. *He
may be the best we have to offer in the way or cleaning up the
environment, but he has not experience in any other area of
government. *He thinks he does. *I think he should be in local
politics first, then maybe enter into bigger seats. *He's not more
experienced than Commando Barbie. *I can't wait to see her bumbling on
Thursday night. *Look for the ear piece. It will be firmly in her ear
in up her ass.

....as the cat said: "...psssfffffttttttt"

Some kind of wacko hatred at work here.

cheers

oz

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just confirmed
that theory.

On Sep 29, 11:05*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Sep 29, 3:58*pm, Jangchub wrote:





On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:25:51 -0400, Frank

frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:
Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:36:06 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

I'm voting for the white guy---------------

Ralph Nader

You might as well vote for the maverick because Nader hasn't got a
chance. *That is silly to throw away the vote like that.

Victoria

You're not at true Greeny, if you don't vote for the skinny whitey

I never said I was a Greeny, so not sure what you're talking about
even with the smiley.

Ralph Nader has passed his prime. He's rumbling and mumbling now. *He
may be the best we have to offer in the way or cleaning up the
environment, but he has not experience in any other area of
government. *He thinks he does. *I think he should be in local
politics first, then maybe enter into bigger seats. *He's not more
experienced than Commando Barbie. *I can't wait to see her bumbling on
Thursday night. *Look for the ear piece. It will be firmly in her ear
in up her ass.

...as the cat said: "...psssfffffttttttt"

Some kind of wacko hatred at work here.

cheers

oz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obviously pulling her chain, and she's falling for it

Frank

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just confirmed
that theory.


Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
--
Dave

Food for thought. May cost more or
perhaps the same if the credit market
is allowed to correct on its own. The
added benefit is the credit market won't risk
doing the same thing or similar again
in the future. As a result, such risks taken
by borrowers won't exist either.

Jangchub wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:24:22 -0700 (PDT), Frank
wrote:

Obviously pulling her chain, and she's falling for it

Frank

No, didn't fall for it at all. Just trying to make sure others know
it's a really dumb thing to vote for Nader. Period. If it makes you
feel superior in intelligence, you can think I fell for it. Silly in
action.

Victoria

I know that as well as other intelligent people, but I quit arguing with
stupid people, which is why I'm not trying to argue with you about
voting for Obama

Frank

In article
,
MajorOz wrote:

On Sep 29, 3:58*pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:25:51 -0400, Frank



frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:
Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:36:06 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

I'm voting for the white guy---------------

Ralph Nader

You might as well vote for the maverick because Nader hasn't got a
chance. *That is silly to throw away the vote like that.

Victoria

You're not at true Greeny, if you don't vote for the skinny whitey

I never said I was a Greeny, so not sure what you're talking about
even with the smiley.

Ralph Nader has passed his prime. He's rumbling and mumbling now. *He
may be the best we have to offer in the way or cleaning up the
environment, but he has not experience in any other area of
government. *He thinks he does. *I think he should be in local
politics first, then maybe enter into bigger seats. *He's not more
experienced than Commando Barbie. *I can't wait to see her bumbling on
Thursday night. *Look for the ear piece. It will be firmly in her ear
in up her ass.

...as the cat said: "...psssfffffttttttt"

Some kind of wacko hatred at work here.

cheers

oz

As an acolyte of Dixie Ray Lee, you should know wacko intimately, Oz.

MaCain has already shown himself unfit to be president but Obama is the
big disappointment. He voted for the Telecommunication bill that granted
amnesty to telecommunication companies even before we found out what
they did and now he encourages the blank check to Paulson for $700
billion.

The bill should
BRUCE MARKS: . . . have to do three things: do a moratorium on
foreclosures, stop the interest-rate increases, and restructure loans to
make them affordable. That¹s it, without one dollar of taxpayer money.
.. . .

And Paulson‹let¹s go back in history a little bit. Paulson says the sky
is falling, we have to bail out Bear Stearns, $30 billion; the sky is
falling, we have to bail out Fannie and Freddie, $200 billion; the sky
is falling, we have to bail out AIG, $85 billion. Well, at some point,
we¹ve got to say, when you have a track record of failure, well, then
we¹ve got to say, maybe the sky is not falling. Maybe we need to let
things play itself out out there. And that¹s what we have to do.

.. . .

it¹s exploitation, it¹s discrimination. It¹s all those things. And they
made hundreds of millions of dollars, and they should be in jail. They
should be prosecuted.

But let¹s focus on the issue right now, which is, kill this bill. There
is now making it better at this point. We¹ve got to give ourselves some
breathing room to do that. So, people can go to our website at naca.com,
or they can go to other places out there, but call your congressmen and
stop it.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/3...e_house_reject
s

Conflict of interest

There has been some criticism of Paulson, with suggestions that
Paulson's plan may potentially have some conflicts of interest. This is
because Paulson is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may
benefit from the plan. [32][33] Unlike the previous bailouts and managed
liquidations of Goldman competitors Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and
Lehman Bros. and those of AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in which
shareholder value was largely wiped out, Goldman's stock could rise
under the Paulson plan, benefiting his former partners, because it would
take distressed assets off their balance sheet. [34]

The proposed bill would give the United States Treasury Secretary
unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S..
Section 8 of Paulson¹s plan states: ³Decisions by the Secretary pursuant
to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency
discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any
administrative agency.²[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson

They are picking our pockets.

If you believe in Bush, you deserve to have your pockets picked but I
don't. He has never done anything but lie to us. If this bill goes
through, there will be no money for education, there will be no money
for health care. All the beautiful promises created by Obama and McCain
will be gone, and we can look forward to the neo-liberalism that crushed
Argentina and Chile.

Vote third party.
--

Billy
Obama and/or McCain Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
.au...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria

Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.


Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.

If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons. Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.
--
Dave

On Sep 26, 7:26�pm, steviekm3 wrote:
An old trick of politicians to blame everybody else for the problems
THEY created. They always blame the usual suspects: fat cats on wall
street because they are easy targets. Nobody likes the fat cats. The
fat cats are partially to blame BUT most of the blame goes back to the
politicians.

ALL of the blame for the current so-called crisis (there is no crisis)
falls directly upon the lame brained debt-ridden irresponsible
spineless *******s. No economy can last long operating in the red...
running a tab is not an economy, it's a disease. The ONLY cure is for
ALL credit to dry up. Paying off the deadbeat's debt only encourages
more of the same. This ain't rocket scinece... there is nothing
easier to understand/fix.

Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons. Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting
for evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

In article ,
Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent chance
to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice voting
for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal reasons and is
much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for many reasons.
Going
back to what I said, an exercise in choice between lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting
for evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

The Republicrats are going to win because they represent the owners of
the country. My recommendation is to vote third party (any party) and
support any initiative that calls for proportional representation.

I hope I'm wrong but the country seems to be sliding into neo-liberal
economics. The type that visited Chile, under Pinochet, and Argentina
i.e. privatization of the public sector, massive cuts in social
programs, and force to suppress dissent.

eep those gardens going. It may be that we really will NEED them.
--

Billy
Obama and/or McCain Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dioclese wrote:
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:39:17 -0500, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:

"YMC" wrote in message
u...
"Jangchub" wrote in message
...

I don't care if Barak Obama in a peanut, he gets my vote. Period.

Victoria
Personally I blame the voters who voted for the idiots. You just
confirmed
that theory.

Voting is an exercise in choice of lesser evil. Usually, its the
voter's
pocketbook that takes precedence in that choice. Another alternative
not
mentioned is Ron Paul.
If I thought Ron Paul had any chance of winning he would be my first
choice. I don't vote my pocket book, I don't have to. I vote to the
pocketbooks of others who will burn down if McCaine is elected with
that complete ninkompoop Palin. Russians fly in her air space. I
thought I heard everything.

Victoria

"There are known knowns. These are things we
know that we know. There are known unknowns.
That is to say, there are things that we know
we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns.
There are things we don't know we don't know."

Donald Rumsfeld

http://gotbodhicitta-wangmo.blogspot.com/

Sad, but true. We may vote for another candidate that has a decent
chance to win, defeating the one that seems the least in our favor. Vice
voting for a candidate that is best qualified for our own personal
reasons and is much less likely to win. That's really, really sad for
many reasons. Going back to what I said, an exercise in choice between
lesser evils.

Couple of statements I noted:

Jesse Ventura said voting for the lessor of evils, you're still voting for
evil.

Rush Limbaugh said that if your team did not make it to the Super Bowl,
then you root for the team you want to win.

I prefer the latter. Bob Barr, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are not in the
game.

If Rush is comparing N.L. vs A.L. with our 2 party system, he isn't
considering some may just want the N.L or A.L. team to lose, not caring if
the opponent wins.
If Jesse is talking generally about our 2 party system, accurate statement.

If we continually get the thought pressed in our brains a 3rd party
candidate has no chance to win, even if that is our preference, we may vote
for the spoiler in the 2 party system candidates.

I see a pattern here in my past replies... S.S.D.D.
--
Dave