Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Are liberals really this nutty? Already? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=310651)

  • Jan 30, 2009, 07:46 AM
    George_1950
    Are liberals really this nutty? Already?
    From Politico: "...Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?...
    "'Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator'—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—'side with Rush Limbaugh too?'"
    Let us remember that liberals don't need a single conservative vote if the stimulus-pork-bill gets to the floor of the senate.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:07 AM
    tomder55
    Unfortunately there are enough Republicans in the Senate who are more than ready to make their reputations by how often they cross the aisle and vote with the Democrats. When the smoke clears the Dems. Will have the "bipartisan legislation" CYA when this budget increase disquised as a stimulus plan fails to improve the economy.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:09 AM
    450donn

    And in two years we can get rid of those liberals once and for all. Starting in Nevada with Harry Reid.
    Remember this very clearly, The current congress under the leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi currently have an approval rating of around 8%. That should mean to every citizen of the United States that every member of congress is vulnerable and needs to be replaced as soon as possible,
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:27 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    And in two years we can get rid of those liberals once and for all. Starting in Nevada with Harry Reid.

    As George Bush showed so very well, we can't defeat liberals by agreeing with them. Check this: "The president (Obama) has a winning political formula. Show up for all the big fights and get the rhetoric right, because the base needs the big fights and the rhetoric. If only Republicans could match this style." National Review Online
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:37 AM
    tomder55
    McCarthy has some good points. It helps that President Obama had a compliant press that did not put Holder and Geitner on the front page for days at a time . It also helps that the conservative meme since the election (except Rush Limbaugh ) was that they had to help him succeed . The Republican standard bearer in the last election was one of the 1st to whip the ranks into line. He will lead the "gang of (fill in the number) " who will vote for this bucket list legislation because the over-hyped 'crisis' trumps partisanship.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:37 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Let us remember that liberals don't need a single conservative vote if the stimulus-pork-bill gets to the floor of the senate.

    Hello George:

    That would be because conservatives LOST the ability make law, when their conservative economic philosophy went into the dumper along with the economy (and caused conservatives to LOSE the election - BIGTIME).

    I don't know about you, but cheering for a FAILED and BANKRUPT economic policy is kind of nutty. But, what do I know?

    excon
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:58 AM
    tomder55
    And what would've happened if candidate Obama and the Democrats had campaigned that the plan for the economy was to rapidly increase budgetary spending to the tune of over $ trillion ;fill the budget with every pork provision the Democrats can conceive and get it passed in his 1st week in office ?

    My guess is that perhaps the election would've been different .

    The things I heard from the Democrats and Obama was "tax cuts" for ninety something precent of Americans and ushering in a new era of fiscal responsibility .
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:04 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    The things I heard from the Democrats and Obama was "tax cuts" for ninety something precent of Americans and ushering in a new era of fiscal responsibility .

    Hello tom:

    And then the Bush depression got thrown in his lap...

    Did you forget that? How is it, that you guys are so disconnected?

    excon
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:08 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello tom:

    And then the Bush depression got thrown in his lap....

    Did you forget that? How is it, that you guys are so disconnected?

    excon

    Calling the current economic mess the 'Bush depression' is nutty. Bush has been, at most, a believer of a 'mixed' economy, and certainly not a capitalist, except in name only.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:10 AM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello tom:

    And then the Bush depression got thrown in his lap....

    Did you forget that? How is it, that you guys are so disconnected?

    excon

    Sorry EC you are again wrong!
    President Bush had a pretty good economy throughout his entire 8 years in office, It was not until the last two years with a Democrat run congress that things went into the toilet as you say. Who has an 8% approval rating? It is the demogog let congress by the biggest spender of all nancy peliso who demands a monster personal jet to fly her home every weekend. Please wake up and smell the poo you are spewing and quit reading the newspapers. They are giving you a dark stain on your reputation
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:10 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by George_1950 View Post
    Calling the current economic mess the 'Bush depression' is nutty.

    Dude, you just started a thread calling all liberals nutty, you're in no position to tell someone what they can or cannot do.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:12 AM
    Fr_Chuck

    And sadly it is all a lie about Rush, his comment was that if Obama was trying to make this a socialist nation, he hoped he failed, he never said he wanted the job programs to fail.

    Shows how scared the libs are,
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:14 AM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Dude, you just started a thread calling all liberals nutty, you're in no position to tell someone what they can or cannot do.

    I'll just refer you to this observation about the 'Bush depression'; I mean, that would be giving him a lot of credit, or blame. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ts-308015.html
  • Jan 30, 2009, 09:17 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck View Post
    And sadly it is all a lie about Rush, his comment was that if Obama was trying to make this a socialist nation, he hoped he failed, he never said he wanted the job programs to fail.

    It's no lie, you are distorting it. From his own site: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails

    Quote:

    Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 10:48 AM
    tomder55

    Bush depression ? Lol next you'll be giving us the malaise speech .

    Oh yeah I know that it serves the Obot's interest and agenda to talk down the economy. But depression ?

    We have not had enough bad quarters yet to qualify a recession yet. Yes the last quarter of 2008 had negative growth of 3.8% and the 2nd quarter was down 0.5 % ;but overall 2008 still had positive GDP growth. Currently unemployment is about 7.6% ;not even approaching 1970s double digits.

    By comparison during the 1930s Depression, unemployment was 25% and wages were cut in half on average for people who held jobs. . Total U.S. economic output fell from $103 to $55 billion and world fell 65% .

    I guess since we haven't experienced anything except expansion since Reagan we have forgotten . But you'll know when you are in a "depression" .
  • Jan 30, 2009, 11:07 AM
    Fr_Chuck

    And of court the othe part of the statement

    "Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? "
  • Jan 30, 2009, 11:17 AM
    NeedKarma
    Who is "them"? And what is wrong with liberalism?
  • Jan 30, 2009, 11:47 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello tom:

    And then the Bush depression got thrown in his lap....

    Did you forget that? How is it, that you guys are so disconnected?

    What disconnect? We're disconnected for refreshing folk's memories on Obama's campaign rhetoric and promises? Gee, I've heard as recently as last week about how Bush promised bipartisanship in 2000, we can't speak of promises made a few months ago after the economy tanked?

    In the final debate, just after saying "we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression," he wanted to "provide a tax credit for every company that's creating a job right here in America." What does sodding the National Mall have to do with tax credits for businesses.

    His second plan was "let's help families right away by providing them a tax cut -- a middle-class tax cut for people making less than $200,000, and let's allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty if they're experiencing a crisis." How does millions for the arts and groups like ACORN fit that criteria?

    He then emphasized again, "I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent," followed by "Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy." A billion dollars for Amtrak, is that the kind of small business he was referring to? Or how about the $600 million for purchase of federal vehicles?

    He added, "And we've got to get the financial package working much quicker than it has been working." Since most of this money won't be spent until 2010 or later, how is that quicker?

    And finally, this gem, "What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches." Is that in this "stimulus" package?

    We're not disconnected at all, we intend to hold him accountable just as you intend to still hold Bush accountable.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 12:22 PM
    TexasParent
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    Sorry EC you are again wrong!
    President Bush had a pretty good economy throughout his entire 8 years in office, It was not until the last two years with a Democrat run congress that things went into the toilet as you say. Who has an 8% approval rating? It is the demogog let congress by the biggest spender of all nancy peliso who demands a monster personal jet to fly her home every weekend. Please wake up and smell the poo you are spewing and quit reading the newspapers. They are giving you a dark stain on your reputation

    Whatever you call economic growth during the Bush Presidency was bought on the credit card of the national debt and deficit spending. Geez...I could create jobs in my town if someone let me spend money I don't have.

    The bill for the reckless spending of money we didn't have and turning a blind eye to those in the financial services sector while they lined their pockets bundling worthless paper into investment vehicles finally caught up with Bush. His only mistake is that it caught up with him 4 months too early so he couldn't blame it on the Democrats.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 12:22 PM
    tomder55

    This vote was just the tip of the iceberg. Obama wants to recreate the RTC of the 1980s S&L days under what they are calling a "bad bank" . He's going to want the Republicans in the fold for that vote for the political cover also .

    That means he will continue to invite Republicans in for Schmooze secessions like cocktails and wagyu steaks... or SuperBowl parties in the Oval office with tropical themes (80 degrees or more ) .

    It is not then in his interest to have the stupids in Congress threaten the Republicans Senators over their upcoming budget vote. Time for President Obama to show madame Mimi and Harry Reid who's the boss (if he really is)
  • Jan 30, 2009, 12:53 PM
    450donn

    How soon people forget who is running congress and has been for the past two years. It was not until the dumbocrats took control of congress that energy prices skyrocketed, the banking mess broke loose, and the economy collapsed. Who are you going to blame next week?
    Remember only 52.8% of voters elected Mr. wonderful. That is not a landslide by any stretch of the imagination.
    Do any of you actually remember who was in office when inflation was double digit, and interest rates were 21%?
  • Jan 30, 2009, 12:57 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    ... dumbocrats ... Mr. wonderful

    :rolleyes:
  • Jan 30, 2009, 01:56 PM
    speechlesstx
    Here's the transcript in context:

    Quote:

    RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

    If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's got to say it.

    Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.
    Like I've never heard ANYTHING like that in the past 8 years out of the mouths (and from the pens) of the left. What, it wasn't YOUR country you were concerned about when you wanted Bush to fail? You weren't concerned about your kids, your grand kids, your nieces and nephews when you wanted Bush to fail? It wasn't you who scoffed at the notion that we should respect the office when Bush was president? It wasn't you involved in that search-and-destroy mission back in 2000? Please, spare us the outrage, Rush is right.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 02:17 PM
    George_1950

    Not only is he right, but time has shown that 'compassionate conservatism' is a flop. I'm afraid that Rush is too close to Bush to adequately describe the damage done to the conservative movement and the country.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 03:27 PM
    speechlesstx
    Update: It seems Michael Steele has won the position as RNC chairman, which brings to mind a past incident. In 2005 when he was running for the Senate he was trashed by the left, had Oreos thrown at him, was called an "uncle Tom" and had his credit report hijacked. Democrats justified this pathetic behavior toward a qualified black candidate:

    Quote:

    Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

    Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an “Uncle Tom” and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

    Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report — the only Republican candidate so targeted.

    But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with “pointing out the obvious.”
    Same goes for Rush, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious, and in an infinitely less offensive manner than the left attacked Michael Steele.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 04:23 PM
    George_1950

    'If Republicans continue to act like Democrats they will live a long time in the political wilderness. If they rediscover their true identity and unite behind a conservative standard bearer, America may experience a second "Reagan Revolution".' When Republicans Act Like Democrats | Conservative Outpost
  • Jan 30, 2009, 04:47 PM
    N0help4u

    Here is how nutty liberals are...

    Lisa Gladden, Maryland State Senator- It matters not if MD is broke, what matters is Obama is President…

    By PUMA Pundit • January 17, 2009

    The more people set Obama up as a some sort of savior, the bigger the dissapointment they are going to get.

    Lisa Gladden has been in the Maryland State Senate since 2002, winning re-election in 2006, so she is not exactly a political neophyte. She is also a lawyer so she is not exactly an ignoramus.

    Anyway, here is her statement in full

    “It doesn't matter that the State of Maryland is broke, as long as Barack Obama is the President of the United States, it is going to be great”

    Meanwhile, hours earlier, the Governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley had notified the legislature (which Gladden is a member of) that between 500 and 1,000 state workers shall be laid off to close a $1.9 billion budget shortfall.

    If it doesn't matter that the state faces a two billion dollar deficit and state employees will lose their jobs, but it matters that Barack Obama is president, then this woman has issues more complex than this article can ponder.

    Incidentally, it is not that she is giddy about Barack because they are both black, she claimed “party trumps race ” when she played the race card against Michael Steel the GOP candidate for MD governor in 2005…

    In this case the woman is just disconnected from reality, a trait exhibited by many an Obama follower…
  • Jan 30, 2009, 05:50 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    “It doesn't matter that the State of Maryland is broke, as long as Barack Obama is the President of the United States, it is going to be great”
    LOL, that's priceless. Absolutely insane, but priceless.
  • Jan 30, 2009, 08:06 PM
    inthebox
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TexasParent View Post
    Whatever you call economic growth during the Bush Presidency was bought on the credit card of the national debt and deficit spending. Geez...I could create jobs in my town if someone let me spend money I don't have.

    The bill for the reckless spending of money we didn't have and turning a blind eye to those in the financial services sector while they lined their pockets bundling worthless paper into investment vehicles finally caught up with Bush. His only mistake is that it caught up with him 4 months too early so he couldn't blame it on the Democrats.


    Then you should be against this "stimulus"

    Where do you think 850 billion is going to come from?

    The treasury will print it as fast as they can and further devalue the dollar, which hurts us all. Hopefully it won't destabilize trust in the US, what if the Chinese start trying to cash in T bonds?


    Even the AP can point out the pork :


    The Associated Press: Analysis: Stimulus bill that's not all stimulating

    Quote:


    There's $345 million for Agriculture Department computers, $650 million for TV converter boxes, $15 billion for college scholarships — worthy, perhaps, but not likely to put many Americans back to work quickly...


    There's $1 billion to deal with Census problems and $88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building next year. The Senate would devote $2.1 billion to pay off a looming shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia






    G&P
  • Jan 31, 2009, 05:09 AM
    tomder55

    Steve

    Steele was trashed mercilessly by the Schmuckster Schumer's goon squad . I look forward for his vigorous payback although I don't think he will go as far as having dumpster divers looking for opponents Social Security information.
  • Jan 31, 2009, 06:55 AM
    speechlesstx
    I remember it well, tom. This should prove interesting. The Kossacks are already on the attack:

    Quote:

    he is just a ditto head. Nothing of but same GOP sh** pipe.
    http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...steele-web.jpg

    Quote:

    Do They Have to Copy Everything?

    First it was the selection of psycho Palin, so they'd have a "woman" (term used loosely here) on the ticket, in an embarrassing attempt to to show-off to the media and prove that they too, can have a "woman" running in presidential politics. And the media ate it up with a spoon.

    Now, they've "elected" this idiot Steele, so they can try to show-off to the media that they, too, can have an African-American in a senior position. And the media are eating it up with a spoon.

    The Republicans coupled with the mainstream media are the most pathetic, embarrassing, neurotic, transparent, self-absorbed, moronic group of wackos in existence.

    Peace.
    Nice signoff, very appropriate.
  • Feb 1, 2009, 06:10 AM
    speechlesstx
    The media, Obama and the Democrats are clueless... or think we are.

    Quote:

    President Barack Obama on Saturday promised to lower mortgage costs, offer job-creating loans for small businesses, get credit flowing and rein in free-spending executives as he readies a new road map for spending billions from the second installment of the financial rescue plan...

    Obama said Geithner soon would announce a new strategy "for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We'll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs. We'll ensure that CEOs are not draining funds that should be advancing our recovery."

    He said his administration "will insist on unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight and clear accountability so taxpayers know how their money is being spent and whether it is achieving results... "

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., planned to discuss Obama's legislative agenda during a White House visit Monday evening, an administration official said.

    "Rarely in history has our country faced economic problems as devastating as this crisis," the president said. "Now is the time for those of us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities."
    I'm all for accountability on how business uses the bailout funds, but how about reining in free-spending politicians and demanding "unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight and clear accountability so taxpayers know how their money is being spent and whether it is achieving results" from them for starters?
  • Feb 1, 2009, 06:23 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I'm all for accountability on how business uses the bailout funds, but how about reining in free-spending politicians and demanding "unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight and clear accountability so taxpayers know how their money is being spent and whether it is achieving results" from them for starters?

    Hello again, Steve:

    Sooooo, when the dufus and his buddy Paulson gave away $850 BILLION with NO accountability, that was OK...

    But, Obama better not do that. Gosh sakes, Steve.

    excon
  • Feb 1, 2009, 03:59 PM
    N0help4u

    The problem is that It is more like comparing Obama's stimulus with Bush's bailouts. N0BODY was happy with Bush's bailouts!
    Republicans do not see where Obama's stimulus will create jobs and fix America.
  • Feb 1, 2009, 07:50 PM
    twinkiedooter
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by N0help4u View Post
    The problem is that It is more like comparing Obama's stimulus with Bush's bailouts. N0BODY was happy with Bush's bailouts!
    Republicans do not see where Obama's stimulus will create jobs and fix America.

    I concur with you NoHelp.

    So far the Obama's stimulus package makes no sense whatsoever as far as getting any money down to the little people, the backbone of America. But I guess the "After school snacks" and "Condoms for everyone" are for the little people as rich people don't need either. Gee, that's really nice. Give the kiddies an after school snack (of what pray tell? The Regan vegetable - ketchup?) and let everyone else have condoms so they can retire to their bedrooms (or wherever) and have sex, sex, and more sex to take their minds off this financial mess. Now that's really clever if you ask me! Bread and condoms instead of Bread and Circuses - or just about the same thing when you come down to it.

    So far the stimulus plan has nothing to do with real jobs for real Americans... unless I missed something here.

    If Obama starts trying to dismantle the Federal Reserve as I've read recently - look out! We'll sure have Biden as Pres sooner than I'd like to think. And I really want to go upchuck at that thought, believe me.
  • Feb 1, 2009, 10:23 PM
    TexasParent
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by twinkiedooter View Post



    If Obama starts trying to dismantle the Federal Reserve as I've read recently - look out!! We'll sure have Biden as Pres sooner than I'd like to think. And I really want to go upchuck at that thought, believe me.

    Interesting comment on the Federal Reserve, wasn't it the Republican - Ron Paul - who has been touting for years for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve? Isn't that a more right wing position? Yet you are against it because you heard that President Obama may be for it?

    Things get more interesting every day in right wing land. Remember he did promise to be more bipartisan ;)
  • Feb 2, 2009, 02:00 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    Sooooo, when the dufus and his buddy Paulson gave away $850 BILLION with NO accountability, that was ok....

    But, Obama better not do that. Gosh sakes, Steve.

    excon

    Gosh sakes, ex, you've sure gotten testy since the Messiah's inauguration. That might have some weight to it IF I had ever approved of Bush and Paulson's giveaways. Since I didn't, I've been entirely consistent.
  • Feb 2, 2009, 02:52 PM
    George_1950
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Gosh sakes, ex, you've sure gotten testy since the Messiah's inauguration. That might have some weight to it IF I had ever approved of Bush and Paulson's giveaways. Since I didn't, I've been entirely consistent.

    Amen!
  • Feb 6, 2009, 10:37 AM
    speechlesstx
    Speaking of nutty liberals, Barney Frank said congress will consider legislation that not only limits executive pay to bailout recipients but to "all U.S. companies."

    How does the federal government micromanaging ALL U.S. companies sit with you guys complaining about no government oversight? It's the government and they're here to help, right?
  • Feb 6, 2009, 10:39 AM
    George_1950

    They've got our back, all right.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 PM.