Obama warns auto companies.

[Andy]

The Democrats roll in the meltdown was far far less than the Republicans. There's always some blurring of the lines in politics so the Democrats of course could have complained more. But you have to look at the circumstances at the time. Bush & the Republicans had EVERYTHING locked up vote wise. There is such a thing as just letting a group implode. That's what finally happened.

Unproven myth thus far. You haven't submitted any proof the democrats did anything except complain.

I stand on two basic differences with you on this subject and it's not on... were there any Democrats that ever spoke highly of Fannie and Freddie, because of course there were. Right along with many Republicans.

Name them. I can name the democrats that both supported Fannie and Freddie, and protected them from regulators when they were cooking the books.

A) A mere 12% of all that bad paper was for low income mortgages. So to say that was the main problem is simply a lie.

I don't even see what this has to do with the topic at hand. A sub-prime loan does not specifically require low income. The income level itself isn't actually a very minor part. It has to do with reliability to repay, amount of debt already owed, and other factors.

Moreover, I have not heard that low-income was the main problem. The main problem was giving loans to people who couldn't pay. If I earn $30K/yr, and yet owe $60K, I can't pay another loan. Yet there are those that were offered loans because HUD, via the CRA, through the GSEs of Fannie and Freddie pushed for it.

B) The Republican deregulation machine hurt America and took away many different types of needed safeguards and they did this to help their friends and contributors in big business.

You have not been able to show the safe guards that are relevant to this topic, that were disabled. Specific bills or regulations, and the dates they happened would be nice.

I have, and will be more than happy to repeat the information on the regulations CLINTON signed, and the democrats supported, that are relevant.

C) When you spend almost your whole time in office building up $12 BILLION DOLLAR PER MONTH deficits on Nation Building... it eventually catches up with you.

The farm bill alone has spent more. Why are you worried about the tiny expense over there, and ignoring the massive 1.8 TRILLION Obama plans to spend in ONE YEAR?

Secondly... we can work together. Our country needs us to right now. We're in a whole lot of trouble that's been built up over the last few years. Let's try to get some good things done and see if that doesn't help.

Cool. Let's work together to stop Obama from blowing $150 Billion a month on already failed government programs. How about it?

 

[GenSeneca]

Top Gun,

So your answer to what culpability the Democrats had in the financial meltdown is: "they didn't complain enough." That's an amazing observation... Amazing because its so devoid of criticism.... and you don't think your a partisan hack cheerleader... Show me one of your famous youtube videos of a Democrat, BEFORE THE COLLAPSE, saying we needed to regulate and oversee Fannie and Freddie to prevent a collapse... There are videos of Republicans that meet that criteria, but I've yet to see even one of a Democrat.

Republicans had EVERYTHING locked up vote wise

Here on earth, and in reality as historical records prove, the Republicans didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, NOR did they have a 2/3 majority in the House.
Democrat votes were needed to pass every single bill that George W. Bush signed.

Right along with many Republicans.

None of the Republicans were chairs of the boards who oversaw the two institutions, Dodd and Frank were.

A) A mere 12% of all that bad paper was for low income mortgages. So to say that was the main problem is simply a lie.

Remove 12% of the components in your cars engine and see if it still runs. Build a house of cards with 100 cards then remove the 12 at the center and see what happens.... So to say that 12% isn't enough to cause a collapse is horribly ignorant.

B) The Republican deregulation machine hurt America and took away many different types of needed safeguards and they did this to help their friends and contributors in big business.
Even Bill Clinton credited such de-regulation for softening the collapse - not causing it or making it worse... When Republicans were calling for more regulation and oversight, and the Democrats - such as Frank and Dodd - were being obstructionists to prevent such regulation, were they helping their friends and contributors in big business?

C) When you spend almost your whole time in office building up $12 BILLION DOLLAR PER MONTH deficits on Nation Building... it eventually catches up with you

We've spent MORE in 6 months of "bailouts" than we have in ALL our foreign wars combined, and Democrats think thats so awesome and fiscally responsible.... they want to keep the bailouts flowing and toss in some trillion dollar stimulus packages on top of it.

Iraq + Afghanistan + Veteran benefits = $5,000 per second.
Social Security + Welfare + Medicare/Medicaid = $3,800,000 (3.8 million) per second.

Which is "catching up" faster?

First, you hurt your case when you talk about any "butt play"

Oh look... He's using sarcastic derision... Partisan hackery... Who was Barney Frank sleeping with? Thats right... Franklin Reigns... one of the CEO's in the Fannie/Freddie collapse.

Secondly... we can work together.

In what ways? On what issues?

I want to keep my freedoms, you want to tax them or take them away completely. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you, or that I should help you?

I want to keep the money I earn, you want to take it from me and give it to people who didn't earn it. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you take my money, or that I should help you give my money away to the people you deem more deserving?

I want government power over my personal life to be greatly reduced, you want it greatly expanded. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you grow governments power over me, or that I should help you grow governments power over me?

I want a fiscally responsible government, you want government to continue deficit spending (as long as you agree with where it goes and its your party who gets to spend it). By "work together" do you mean I should just let you spend the money of future generations, or that I should help you spend ourselves into oblivion?

I want a Capitalist society, you want a Progressive one (99% Socialist, with 1% capitalism to blame when things go wrong). By "work together" do you mean I should just let you destroy capitalism, or that I should help you promote socialism?

Perhaps if we shared any goals, I would gladly work together with you to implement them... but if your goals are the same ones espoused by your Progressive Democrats in Washington, I would rather fight you every step of the way.

 

[PLC1]

We've spent MORE in 6 months of "bailouts" than we have in ALL our foreign wars combined, and Democrats think thats so awesome and fiscally responsible.... they want to keep the bailouts flowing and toss in some trillion dollar stimulus packages on top of it.

Iraq + Afghanistan + Veteran benefits = $5,000 per second.
Social Security + Welfare + Medicare/Medicaid = $3,800,000 (3.8 million) per second.

So, now the argument is over which party spends the fastest, isn't it? is there any party in favor of actually balancing the budget? In other words, are there any real conservatives left?

The left vs right, conservative vs liberal argument is disengenuous to say the least. There are no conservatives left in power. The budget is out of control, government spending is out of control, and neither party is doing squat to rein in in.

I want to keep my freedoms, you want to tax them or take them away completely. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you, or that I should help you?

I want to keep the money I earn, you want to take it from me and give it to people who didn't earn it. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you take my money, or that I should help you give my money away to the people you deem more deserving?

It's a choice between tax and spend, or borrow and spend. Either way, you don't get to keep your money. As for freedom, at least we will now have a president who is not in favor of doing away with habeus corpus or warrants.

I want government power over my personal life to be greatly reduced, you want it greatly expanded. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you grow governments power over me, or that I should help you grow governments power over me?

Which party really wants the government to have power over individual's personal lives again? I'm not so sure you've thought that one through.

I want a fiscally responsible government, you want government to continue deficit spending (as long as you agree with where it goes and its your party who gets to spend it). By "work together" do you mean I should just let you spend the money of future generations, or that I should help you spend ourselves into oblivion?

I want a Capitalist society, you want a Progressive one (99% Socialist, with 1% capitalism to blame when things go wrong). By "work together" do you mean I should just let you destroy capitalism, or that I should help you promote socialism?

Is there anyone left in the federal government who wants a fiscally responsible government?

You and I might want one, but there is no one to vote for who shares that value.

Perhaps if we shared any goals, I would gladly work together with you to implement them... but if your goals are the same ones espoused by your Progressive Democrats in Washington, I would rather fight you every step of the way.

Not only the progressive Democrats, not as you've outlined your goals above. The only party of limited government is the Libertarian party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the big government statists.

Personally, I think we're better off with Obama than Bush, even though neither of them is conservative in any meaningful way.

 

[GenSeneca]

The budget is out of control, government spending is out of control, and neither party is doing squat to rein in in.

That was my point... He thinks the Democrats are somehow better than the Republicans, which means he has to ignore mountains of evidence that says they're just different sides of the same coin.

It's a choice between tax and spend, or borrow and spend. Either way, you don't get to keep your money.

If we have to go into debt, we should do so by lowering taxes that can drive new businesses to America, lower our unemployment to new lows and increase our GDP to new highs. Rising tides raise all boats.

As for freedom, at least we will now have a president who is not in favor of doing away with habeus corpus or warrants.

You mean like the provisions in the Patriot Act that Obama voted to renew?

Did you know that Bush revoked Posse Comittatus and Obama has no interest in reinstating it?

Which party really wants the government to have power over individual's personal lives again? I'm not so sure you've thought that one through.

Different sides of the same coin... I'm not the one arguing that one party is better than the other, he is.

who wants a fiscally responsible government?

You and I might want one, but there is no one to vote for who shares that value.

Very few anyway... and only Ron Paul on the National level. Its too bad he's so... well... Non-Viable is the polite way to say it. Perhaps if he were a "clean, articulate black man" he'd have a shot.

Not only the progressive Democrats, not as you've outlined your goals above. The only party of limited government is the Libertarian party. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the big government statists.

Not gonna argue about that... Two sides of the same coin:

Heads they win, tails we lose. Its almost like the game is rigged....

Personally, I think we're better off with Obama than Bush, even though neither of them is conservative in any meaningful way.

That's a silly statement... Bush wasn't running.

Obama will be a miracle worker... he'll heal the planet, lower sea levels, eliminate world poverty, spend us out of debt and into prosperity... just ask Top Gun, he'll tell ya!

 

[Pidgey]

Y'all realize, of course, that a lot of the rest of the world doesn't expect us to even survive as the America that we've all enjoyed lo these many years, right? Get a load of this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html

...and this:

http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-29-is...bal-Monetary-System-by-summer-2009_a2435.html

 

[PLC1]

That was my point... He thinks the Democrats are somehow better than the Republicans, which means he has to ignore mountains of evidence that says they're just different sides of the same coin.

Exactly.

If we have to go into debt, we should do so by lowering taxes that can drive new businesses to America, lower our unemployment to new lows and increase our GDP to new highs. Rising tides raise all boats.

Or, better yet, let's stay out of debt in the first place and admit that deficits really do matter.

You mean like the provisions in the Patriot Act that Obama voted to renew?

Did you know that Bush revoked Posse Comittatus and Obama has no interest in reinstating it?

Oh crap. Do you mean to say that Obama is going to continue the practice of trampling on the Constitution?

No, I didn't know that.

Different sides of the same coin... I'm not the one arguing that one party is better than the other, he is.

Very few anyway... and only Ron Paul on the National level. Its too bad he's so... well... Non-Viable is the polite way to say it. Perhaps if he were a "clean, articulate black man" he'd have a shot.

Maybe so. Let's see if we can find a clean, articulate, black Libertarian. Do you know of one?

Not gonna argue about that... Two sides of the same coin:

Heads they win, tails we lose. Its almost like the game is rigged....

What do you mean "almost"? Is there any chance at all that fiscal sanity will prevail in Washington any time soon?

That's a silly statement... Bush wasn't running.

No, but Bush was president for eight years. Do you think there will be much of a change in the next four, or just more people on the street corners asking for change?

Obama will be a miracle worker... he'll heal the planet, lower sea levels, eliminate world poverty, spend us out of debt and into prosperity... just ask Top Gun, he'll tell ya!

Oh, good. I was hoping he could do all of that, and more.

Isn't spending ourselves out of debt a lot like someone trying to eat their way out of obesity?

Or is that analogy fatally flawed in some way?

 

[top gun]

Personally, I'm throwing an End of an Error party!

You and millions and millions and millions and millions (you get the point) of other people.

 

[GenSeneca]

Top Gun,

You said we should work together... In what ways and on what issues?

 

[top gun]

Andy;79960]Unproven myth thus far. You haven't submitted any proof the democrats did anything except complain.

The Republicans had total voting control... I'm fine with the Dems complaining... Thanks!

I don't even see what this has to do with the topic at hand. A sub-prime loan does not specifically require low income. The income level itself isn't actually a very minor part. It has to do with reliability to repay, amount of debt already owed, and other factors.

Moreover, I have not heard that low-income was the main problem. The main problem was giving loans to people who couldn't pay. If I earn $30K/yr, and yet owe $60K, I can't pay another loan. Yet there are those that were offered loans because HUD, via the CRA, through the GSEs of Fannie and Freddie pushed for it.

There were obviously shortcomings in the system. But the fact still remain that the OVERWHELMING number of Republicans supported not only Fannie & Freddie but also pushed as hard as humanly possible for massive DEREGULATION across the board in multiple sectors of our economy.

You keep wanting to come back like it's some big argument and say... Hey these few Dems supported Fannie & Freddie too. Yep... so? The Fed, the Treasury, the Presidency, the House, the Senate... ALL UNDER TOTAL REPUBLICAN CONTROL!!!

You just simply cannot get away from those FACTS my friend.

The buck stops with you when you are in charge. They blew it and now they're not in charge... it's simple evolution.

Cool. Let's work together to stop Obama from blowing $150 Billion a month on already failed government programs. How about it?

I'm assuming you're talking about the same programs Bush presided over and the government he increased. Plus we have that $12 BILLION per month in Nation Building spending to deal with.

And come on... you think Social Security and Medicare are failed programs when in fact they'd be fine if they had not been repeatedly raided because they had the money... so you're really no judge of what "failed" even means.

But the bottom line is this... We'll do a good job, a lot better than the last few years, and I would hope you'd give it a chance. The new President isn't even in office yet and everybody on both sides freely admit he's being left a bit of a mess.

Let's do the old American pull together thing for a year or so and see if things start to turn around.

 

[top gun]

GenSeneca;79964]Top Gun,

So your answer to what culpability the Democrats had in the financial meltdown is: "they didn't complain enough." That's an amazing observation... Amazing because its so devoid of criticism.... and you don't think your a partisan hack cheerleader... Show me one of your famous youtube videos of a Democrat, BEFORE THE COLLAPSE, saying we needed to regulate and oversee Fannie and Freddie to prevent a collapse... There are videos of Republicans that meet that criteria, but I've yet to see even one of a Democrat.

Dude.............. come over here................it's not my job to try and prove your case. You might have also noticed you lost because millions of other people see what I see.

I know in my heart & mind 100% that Obama and the team he's picked will be light years better than Bush/Cheney. That's where I'm goin'!

Republicans had EVERYTHING locked up vote wise

I posted the Republican Obstructionist techniques documented by the National Press. I could post more but it's really not debatable.

A) A mere 12% of all that bad paper was for low income mortgages. So to say that was the main problem is simply a lie.

Remove 12% of the components in your cars engine and see if it still runs. Build a house of cards with 100 cards then remove the 12 at the center and see what happens.... So to say that 12% isn't enough to cause a collapse is horribly ignorant.

It's just so sad to see you grasping for straws like this. This isn't engine parts we're talking about. 12% of an entire business plan leaves 88% to keep it up and surviving. Come on...

When Republicans were calling for more regulation and oversight, and the Democrats - such as Frank and Dodd - were being obstructionists to prevent such regulation, were they helping their friends and contributors in big business?

See you're just being disingenuous here to be self serving. The fact that in a couple of instances a few Dems supported Fannie or Freddie does not remove the overall weight of the truth that REPUBLICANS were the BIG DEREGULATORS. I could post the YouTubes of McCain, Gramm or any of the others swearing by it and RAILING AGAINST the DEMOCRATS for NOT GOING ALONG.

You know I can and have so I don't think you really have much of a point.

C) When you spend almost your whole time in office building up $12 BILLION DOLLAR PER MONTH deficits on Nation Building... it eventually catches up with you

We've spent MORE in 6 months of "bailouts" than we have in ALL our foreign wars combined, and Democrats think thats so awesome and fiscally responsible.... they want to keep the bailouts flowing and toss in some trillion dollar stimulus packages on top of it.

Well there seems to be agreement from both sides this is important. The both sides thing tells me it probably actually is. We'll have to see.

Iraq + Afghanistan + Veteran benefits = $5,000 per second.
Social Security + Welfare + Medicare/Medicaid = $3,800,000 (3.8 million) per second.

Which is "catching up" faster?

The answer is not what's faster. It's what's necessary and just. We can take the Iraq Nation Building campaign built on fraud & trickery out right there and save a bunch.

First, you hurt your case when you talk about any "butt play"

Oh look... He's using sarcastic derision... Partisan hackery... Who was Barney Frank sleeping with?

Hey we're not the Party of the HOMOPHOB! We don't go around bashing gay people WHILE having sex with them... you have a problem here.

Just let it drop and don't mention anything concerning Airport Restrooms, Underage male Pages, Crystal Meth and gay prostitutes or the church scandals, and you'll be on pretty safe ground... I'm seriously trying to help you here.

Secondly... we can work together.

In what ways? On what issues?

I want to keep my freedoms, you want to tax them or take them away completely. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you, or that I should help you?

Not True. I think the country needs to go back to the tax brackets of the Clinton years. They weren't high and the country did well at those levels. Bush did something no other President in history EVER did... cut taxes during war time. The HUGE Hemorrhaging of $12 BILLION DOLLARS per month for 7 years plus the overall economic crisis are circumstances we'll need to address. Addressing it takes money.

Call me crazy but I'm kinda against doing a Bush & McCain and just keep coming out saying our economy is fundamentally strong hoping that might be the magic bullet!

I want to keep the money I earn, you want to take it from me and give it to people who didn't earn it. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you take my money, or that I should help you give my money away to the people you deem more deserving?

Well we have a progressive tax structure... had it for years and years. I don't see elderly Americans and other things as unimportant and/or expendable. We just have a difference here on what's important.

I want government power over my personal life to be greatly reduced, you want it greatly expanded. By "work together" do you mean I should just let you grow governments power over me, or that I should help you grow governments power over me?

THANK GOD WE FINALLY AGREE ON SOMETHING!!!

Fock the Patriot act spying on Americans without a warrant and strengthen a woman's right the choose and stay out of people's bedrooms and who cares what other adult they marry!!! You finally hit a home run!!!

 

[Andy]

The Republicans had total voting control... I'm fine with the Dems complaining... Thanks!

I see, so your democrats were completely useless, did absolutely nothing to stop all the problems we're having and your fine with that. Why should anyone care wit what you think on anything now?

There were obviously shortcomings in the system. But the fact still remain that the OVERWHELMING number of Republicans supported not only Fannie & Freddie but also pushed as hard as humanly possible for massive DEREGULATION across the board in multiple sectors of our economy.

Not only have you not proven that at all, but I can prove you wrong. Watch the video again.

I'll play this proof of your BS over as many times as you like.

You keep wanting to come back like it's some big argument and say... Hey these few Dems supported Fannie & Freddie too. Yep... so? The Fed, the Treasury, the Presidency, the House, the Senate... ALL UNDER TOTAL REPUBLICAN CONTROL!!!

A few? All of them did. Every single one in that video was against regulating. They all were being paid by Fannie and Freddie, and were more corrupt than the Keating Five you mentioned before.

The buck stops with you when you are in charge. They blew it and now they're not in charge... it's simple evolution.

You support corrupt politicians. That's the facts.

I'm assuming you're talking about the same programs Bush presided over and the government he increased. Plus we have that $12 BILLION per month in Nation Building spending to deal with.

Nope, wasn't for it when Bush signed it either. But that $150 Billion per month I'm talking about is the socialist programs Obama wants to enact alone, over and above what Bush spent.

I'm ok with the $12 Billion. How about that $150 Billion for socialist programs that Obama wants? I can see the unity under Obama already.

And come on... you think Social Security and Medicare are failed programs when in fact they'd be fine if they had not been repeatedly raided because they had the money... so you're really no judge of what "failed" even means.

I am a perfect judge of failed. If it doesn't work, and hasn't in the history of the world, then it's a failure. Are you? Obviously not. In case you were not educated in history, every president since before Carter spent the Social Security money. You think this is a new thing? Carter blew it. Clinton blew it. Every president has blown that money. Only an idiot hack claims one party is responsible.

Moreover, if you know jack about the government, you understand that Congress determine where and how much money is spent. Every congress is in effect MORE responsible for SS Trust fund being spent, than any president.

But the bottom line is this... We'll do a good job, a lot better than the last few years, and I would hope you'd give it a chance. The new President isn't even in office yet and everybody on both sides freely admit he's being left a bit of a mess.

Clinton didn't. Carter didn't. I have no reason to believe Mr. "inflate your tires" will either. Maybe he'll put William Aires in charge of the Federal reserve and blow the place up. Other than that, I will oppose Obama's crap policies every day till he is removed. If he does make good conservative policies, I'm all for it.

Let's do the old American pull together thing for a year or so and see if things start to turn around.

No problem. You pull together and oppose socialist Obama policies with me.

 

[Andy]

...it's not my job to try and prove your case. You might have also noticed you lost because millions of other people see what I see.

So you, and millions like you, see that all the democrats did was complain while the economy was crashing, and this is a reason to vote for them. Maybe I should complain alot, propose nothing, and run for office. Then idiots on the left will rally to my complain-a-thon.

Here's what your millions saw...

That's your group.

I know in my heart & mind 100% that Obama and the team he's picked will be light years better than Bush/Cheney. That's where I'm goin'!

Apparently being better than Bush/Cheney is to simply complain. Rather pathetic if you ask me. But then all the left is pathetic.

I posted the Republican Obstructionist techniques documented by the National Press. I could post more but it's really not debatable.

Yeah and they are full of crap. You can't name one bill that the democrats proposed that would have helped anything. I listed a few they did propose that made the problems worse, or did nothing to help. You arguments are hearsay and BS, while I have documented and proven mine.

See you're just being disingenuous here to be self serving. The fact that in a couple of instances a few Dems supported Fannie or Freddie does not remove the overall weight of the truth that REPUBLICANS were the BIG DEREGULATORS. I could post the YouTubes of McCain, Gramm or any of the others swearing by it and RAILING AGAINST the DEMOCRATS for NOT GOING ALONG.

More hearsay. We documented our case, you are blowing smoke for yours.

The answer is not what's faster. It's what's necessary and just. We can take the Iraq Nation Building campaign built on fraud & trickery out right there and save a bunch.

The Rockefeller report proved it was not fraud or trickery. Again, your argument is BS and hearsay, while ours is built on documented evidence.

Not True. I think the country needs to go back to the tax brackets of the Clinton years. They weren't high and the country did well at those levels. Bush did something no other President in history EVER did... cut taxes during war time. The HUGE Hemorrhaging of $12 BILLION DOLLARS per month for 7 years plus the overall economic crisis are circumstances we'll need to address. Addressing it takes money.

Never mind that the Clinton years ended with a recession. Yet it worked so well...

Once again, you worry about $12 Billion a month, when Obama's economic plans include spending $150 Billion a month. Which is worse Top Gun, $12 Billion or $150 Billion of blown money our government doesn't have?

Well we have a progressive tax structure... had it for years and years. I don't see elderly Americans and other things as unimportant and/or expendable. We just have a difference here on what's important.

Yeah the russian flat tax of 12% must be a real killer given they have has economic growth rates in the 7% per year area, and we have been doing what? 3%? Yeah, gotta love that brilliant progressive tax structure.

Fock the Patriot act spying on Americans without a warrant and strengthen a woman's right the choose and stay out of people's bedrooms and who cares what other adult they marry!!! You finally hit a home run!!!

Yeah, never mind Obama voted for the Patriot act, even after attacking it. Murder is illegal, and should be enforced as such. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it is. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like me.

 

[top gun]

Andy;80122]So you, and millions like you, see that all the democrats did was complain while the economy was crashing, and this is a reason to vote for them. Maybe I should complain alot, propose nothing, and run for office. Then idiots on the left will rally to my complain-a-thon.

In the end the buck stops with those with the power to change it. That was the Republicans. If the Democrats don't do better than it will be fair to critazize them as well... but they don't even get started until Jan. 20th.

Apparently being better than Bush/Cheney is to simply complain. Rather pathetic if you ask me. But then all the left is pathetic.

That's like saying the witnesses that complained about the crooked cop shooting an unarmed man are pathetic and the cop was just doing his job.

Luckily this election kicked those crooked cops off the force.

Never mind that the Clinton years ended with a recession. Yet it worked so well...

Name me one year... any year at all... that the Clinton economy wasn't light years better than what Bush has built today?

Yeah, never mind Obama voted for the Patriot act, even after attacking it. Murder is illegal, and should be enforced as such. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it is. You can marry anyone of the opposite sex, just like me.

Watch the "patriot Act get revisited and refined... watch as women's rights are strengthened and Roe builds a 45 year precedent... and look for more legal unions in more states (called whatever) that cover any two adults.

I'm always around... we'll be talking about these I'm sure.

 

[Andy]

In the end the buck stops with those with the power to change it. That was the Republicans. If the Democrats don't do better than it will be fair to critazize them as well... but they don't even get started until Jan. 20th.

We already covered you false claim. Again, the Farm Bill, Water Development act, and a number of other bills were passed by democrats over the veto. Obviously if they are able to override a veto, clearly they had and have the power to change it.

If they have the majority, and the power to override a veto, then doesn't it make logical sense they could stop republican bills that were over spending?

So what's the lame excuse you have for them?

That's like saying the witnesses that complained about the crooked cop shooting an unarmed man are pathetic and the cop was just doing his job.

Luckily this election kicked those crooked cops off the force.

More like they were the cops, who complained about the bank robbers, while helping them load the money.

Name me one year... any year at all... that the Clinton economy wasn't light years better than what Bush has built today?

How about 1995 vs 2005?

GDP growth rate % per quarter.

95 Q1 3.66%
95 Q2 2.16%
95 Q3 5.15%
95 Q1 4.87%

1995 Average growth rate = 3.96%

05 Q1 6.88%
05 Q2 5.38%
05 Q3 7.17%
05 Q4 5.05%

2005 Average growth rate = 6.12%

Watch the "patriot Act get revisited and refined... watch as women's rights are strengthened and Roe builds a 45 year precedent... and look for more legal unions in more states (called whatever) that cover any two adults.

I'm always around... we'll be talking about these I'm sure.

Yeah, the patriot act that Obama approved. Trampling the vote of the people. Supporting murder. Yeah, I'll more than happy to point out more of your false claims

 

[Pidgey]

I asked a question... you gave a very detailed answer, thank you.

I'm going to give you another couple, GenSeneca... :

...and then this one:

In the first, you can see how the trendline projected a rough date when further investment in our economy would no longer get a return on your money. In the second, you can see that the recent injection by the Fed has hastened that date to... today.

Please note that while certain periods (read: presidencies) caused relatively minor fluctuations, nothing has actually stopped the downward trend (although you can see an interesting downward perturbation resulting from Jimmy Carter's time in office and a flattening during Reagan's). This actually suggests that there's another controlling factor that seems not to have been identified in virtually all public discourse on the subject.

Also, don't try to read too much into the noise patterns overlaying the basic signal. Different theories abound, but the Elliot wave principle seems to be as good of a theory as any other.

If, after pondering the material above for awhile, you still don't get it, we'll see if we can get our resident genius to explain it to you.

Dang... I just bit a hole clean through my lip...