It's a good way to scare other democrats from seeing the truth nm
Posted By: I think it's the other way around on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: Wow. Guess nobody told them that - worms and slime won't win them te election. nm
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Good post....truth doesn't always sound good
@
Any Democrats think this is a good plan?
Just curious to know if any Democrats support this tax plan of Obama's?
The good, the bad, the truth
Reaganomics was the most ambitious reform effort since the New Deal.
President Reagan attempted to do many important things simultaneously - bring down escalating double-digit inflation, speed up sluggish economic growth, cut tax burdens, strengthen the military establishment, reduce civilian government, curb regulatory burdens, and generally expand the role of the private sector at the expense of the public sector.
The four key parts of Reaganomics were income-tax cuts, new expenditure priorities, monetary restraint, and regulatory reform. For this far-reaching economic program to fully succeed, delicate balancing was required. Monetary policy had to be tightened enough to bring down inflation, but not so much as to create severe recession. Taxes had to be cut, but without raising the specter of vast deficits that would scare the Fed into an excessively restrictive credit policy. Defense had to be expanded but not so rapidly as to offset the reductions in civilian spending. Regulation had to be cut enough to provide a significant boost to productivity, but without eliminating public support for the reforms.
The painful and often undesired interactions among the individual parts of the Reagan program resulted in disparate results. Monetary restraint was the key to unwinding inflation, as well as precipitating sharp recession. Recession, in turn, delayed the beneficial effects of the tax cuts on investment and pushed the budget deficit to unprecedented heights.
Ironically, it was the enactment of tax cuts unmatched by spending cuts that scared the Fed into a tighter monetary policy. The subsequent recession caused serious budgetary imbalance.
Simultaneously, a new sense of realism became evident in business and personal decisionmaking. Labor and management have both become more cost conscious, and even aware of the awesome term "productivity" in a society in which government does not readily rescue the losers in the marketplace. In the public sector, the era of big dams and expensive water-power projects drew to a close. The reduced flow of grants-in-aid from the federal government led to a sea change in the expectations of state and local officials, who again look primarily to their own resources.
A positive demonstration effect occurred overseas. Witness the simultaneous spread of free-market economies in various parts of the globe, including some unexpected quarters such as the former communist economies.
Ronald Reagan's legacy was a fascinating mixture: lower inflation and higher deficits; lower taxes and higher levels of government spending; less unemployment and bigger trade deficits; fewer strikes and more government jobs; reduced economic regulation and expanded social regulation; the deepest recession in half a century and the longest peacetime recovery ever.
A few numerical comparisons help make the point. Real GDP declined by one-half of 1 percent in 1980, President Carter's last year, and rose 3.9 percent in 1988, President Reagan's last year. The CPI rose 13.5 percent in 1980 and by 4.1 percent in ྔ. The prime rate dropped from 15 percent in 1980 to 9 percent in 1988. Real median family income rose from $34,200 in 1980 to $37,000 in 1988. The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.
On the other hand, the budget deficit rose from $74 billion in 1980 to $155 billion in 1988, while the trade deficit rose from $15 billion to $129 billion during the same period. And, contrary to widespread belief, the portion of the population below the poverty line was 13 percent in both years. One more set of numbers: Real national wealth rose from $11.9 trillion in 1980 to $14.2 trillion in 1988.
Warts and all, the Reagan presidency was a high-water mark for the American economy, especially as measured by the more positive attitude that most Americans had toward themselves, their society, and the future.
* Murray Weidenbaum, chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis, served as chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, 1981-82.
Yes, he was very good! Talk about the truth hurts....
I like Fred. Always have. You don't have to wonder where he stands.
Excellent - good for you. The truth sure hurts!
x
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
not scare of her
Disturbed by her misrepresentation of her activities. disturbed about the way her far-far right beliefs could damage our country if given access to power.
Oh please, not another scare
The chance he could live well past his presidency is a possibility too.
Yes, they scare the holy
and I consider myself a Christian. I just don't see the Christian in a LOT of what these people advocate. Looks, smells, and feels more like a political power grab.
This is a good one:
Bush and the Bible: A Letter to George Bush
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman. I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
then again, they ALL scare me - all the candidates
   
I wasn't trying to scare you but if it does, I
--
Mostly just scare tactics
...
Can you say scare tactics? sm
I knew you could.
I hope your dad's phone has caller ID and that he reports this call to the authorities and to the telephone company.
I am still scare of BUSH
He still has enough time to do a lot of damage.
Will Palin Scare the Jews?
We think the conventional wisdom, now, is that Sarah Palin is a cynical appeal not to Hillary voters but to the Republican "base," which means religious white people. It's a last-ditch effort to win just one more with George W. Bush's coalition, not to bring in those moderates John McCain supposedly appeals to most. But here's the risk: the old, conservative Jewish vote McCain's had in the bag since day one? They might not like this lady so much. As you can see in this clip (attached below), even Ben Stein—the Nixon speechwriter so happy to pretend to be something other than an educated East Coast elitist that he'll hop in bed with creationists—is insulted and shocked by the Palin pick. This is just the beginning. The New York Sun, that probably doomed organ of intellectual Zionist conservatism, seemingly also can't quite believe this selection. Allow them to tell you about Sarah Palin's grand plans for The Jews!
The disclosure that last month Governor Palin's church hosted the executive director of Jews for Jesus, who told congregants that violence against Israeli Jews is God's punishment for their failure to accept Jesus, is going to be the next club that Mrs. Palin's leftist critics pick up against her. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency quotes Mrs. Palin's pastor at Wasilla Bible Church, Larry Kroon, as saying that he doesn't believe Jews for Jesus are deceptive. "Look at Paul and Peter and the others — they were Jews and believed in Jesus as the messiah," he told JTA. "There's gentile believers and there's Jewish believers that acknowledge Jesus as messiah. There's Swedish believers."
They go on to half-assedly defend Palin by mentioning Jeremiah Wright and how there's no "religious test" for the presidency, but the Jews For Jesus are far outside the mainstream even for practicing evangelicals. Jewish Defense League Anti-Defamation League [I do know the difference! Whoops!] head Abe Foxman is pretending it's not a big deal by invoking the Spanish Inquisition (done by Catholics, not Protestants!) but his own organization has a longer, richer history of warning people about the deceptive and offensive tactics of the Jews for Jesus.
Sarah Palin's Jews for Jesus setting up shop in Wasilla, Alaska almost reminds us of Michael Chabon's charming The Yiddish Policeman's Union, his detective novel set in an alternate universe in which Americans settled Jewish WWII refugees in Alaska and Israel died before it was born. The incongruous idea of a Jewish settlement in far-off Sitka gives the book much of its uneasy atmosphere, especially in the mentions of the current fictional President of the US, an evangelical Christian promising to finally kick those Jews out of the pristine frontier, "pledging to restore Alaska for Alaskans, wild and clean."
The Democrats more or less handed Florida over to the Republicans when they selected (sorry, we'll say it) a black man without a rich history of pro-Israel hawkishness (even though he saw the light and came around pretty dam quick). This, though, might actually put it back in play.
More like a voice of scare tactics.
XX
Just more scare-tactics propaganda. nm
.
More scare tactics...just in a rhyme!
Go Obama!
C'mon, GP.....maybe not scare tactics....
maybe honest concern. Just because Obama won, you think that all disappears? Of course not. Had Obama lost, would all your concerns about McCain just magically disappear? I would think, based on your posts, you could be a little more charitable about it. Your guy won. Don't expect the rest of us to embrace him immediately. We have a trust issue and it is up to him to work his way out of that. Being sniped at by his supporters does not help us in that journey. :-)
They scare me, as well, on a very dangerous level.
Nope. The only way to get them to confess is scare
nm
I repeat...religious fanatics scare me!
I don't care what religion they are. If they are fanatic about their chosen religion, they are not independent thinkers, and I find that frightening.
No scare tactics. Just pointing out that we don't live
If we don't start talking with some of these countries, and trying to find a way to get them thinking of other things to do with their artillery than aim it at us, then sooner or later, our little plastic bubble could get blown to bits. We're not invincible.
I think Palin IS a scare tactic. She & her fellow
believe in FREEDOM.
Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of/from Religion.
Freedom of Association.
Pursuit of Happiness.
Marching in lock-step with America's religious Nazis somehow just doesn't fit with what our forefathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Republican Mantra - Scare Tactics
You better vote for John McCain or the Boogeyman is going to get us. McCain couldn't even keep himself free from the enemy, how is he going to keep the entire United States free from them? Oh, I know, he is going to send Sarah Palin after the Boogeyman...she'll protect us!
Scare tactics!! Ohhh, be afraid, be very
afraid. You rightwingers are such wimps! Well, as Roosevelt once said and as Barack Hussein Obama repeats, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The rightwingers have surely gotten to the skittish. I, for one, am very afraid of McPalin. Now there's reason to fear them. They have nothing to offer, just more of the same old politics and power-hungry greed. Get away from me! If you want to base your decisions on lies, then you all deserve whatever comes from McPalin, but the thing is that our country will be stuck in the mire for another four years. So big deal, McCain was shot out of the sky...so were hundreds of others, others have given their lives for this country but McCain votes against any bill that will cost anything to help them....some leader he will make. Makes me wanna puke! Country First...doubt it!!
Scare tactics or stern warnings.....sm
Just got to thinking about this after ExMQMT made the statements she did below about being scared. Now, I know there was an element of sarcasm in her post, and I can appreciate the dark humor of it.
However, I think people really should look at the big picture here and understand that, with all of the findings (and yes, they are documented) of Obama's associations and religious upbringing, he could very possibly be a threat to our nation in a lot of ways. When the Russians were "loaded for moose" back in the 1950s, people were warned about the danger, but a lot of them chose to call it scare tactics. Granted, Russia never blew us off the map, but knowing that they could and that they were a threat to our country made our citizens more aware that there was more to life than what was going on in their own secure back yard. Saying that Obama is a threat to us because of his associations and religious beliefs (Muslim or Wright-brand religion) is not a scare tactic to coerce people into voting for him. It is a stern warning that this man is a wolf in sheep's clothing and that we need to be aware of the implications of electing someone who is such a person.
This lame scare tactic is aimed at
twisting both the free choice of English language usage and the Bible verse/word of Jesus (who you claim is your Savior) to support the claims of a snarky cult. Back in the Puritan times, that was considered blasphemy and the ONES who chose to do this could be burned at the stake.
You make me ashamed to be associated with the Christian faith.
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
Scare tactics? If it was supposed to be scary....it wasn't...
it is just odd that the combination of the names worked out that way. Freaky, yes. Scary...not hardly. It it was meant to be scary it was lost on this Independent.
Word, semantics, when socialist doesn't scare...sm
people enough, it gets elevated to communist and nazi just being inflammatory. We are Americans first, democrats and republicans second, period.
Conservatives Scare More Easily Than Liberals, Say Scientists
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering-h.html
A quick look at some of the posts on this board would seem to corroborate the above. 
Palin really seems to scare the loony lefties and mainstream media
One has to wonder why they continue to expend so much time and effort on trying to villify, ridicule and harass this woman - who isn't running for any office at the moment.
Personally, I think it's highly unlikely that Palin would be nominated or run in 2012, but why are the Democrats already worrying about the next presidential race? Hmmmm? Passing strange, if you ask me, considering what we've got on our plate to deal with right now.
Don't you remember the gas/toxic warfare scare and we were told to duct tape our windows? SM
So, with the bird flu plan, what kind of silly advice do you think we'll get to keep us safe?
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but...It's probably the biggest...sm
reason why I am voting democrat...they seem more honest than the the republicans and it looks like people are starting to get smart and *bailin' Palin*... We don't need to keep hearing her *greatest hits" version of her acceptance speech over and over and McSame's POW story...that was then, this is now...we need REAL change and we need it NOW. I don't need someone to push the red button, I need someone to fix the economy!
Truth? The truth is she is nuts!
nm
go democrats..go
Are they? Where I live I go house to house to get people to sign up as democrats and frankly many are signing on as democrats and I hear anger and distrust and concern about Bush and his policies..So, dont know where you are from but I see the actual opposite..I also see many minorities, Blacks and Latinos signing on to the democratic party. From your posts, IMHO you are a republican plant and so your posts mean nothing to me. You are either a couch political potato who never goes out there and works the grass roots or you are a republican trying to put seeds of discontent in the democratic party. Gotta tell ya, the democratic party is doing just fine and each time bush screws up, which has been many over the past five years, the democrats do even better..Yeehaww!!
Democrats
...and I sure DO NOT appreciate union busters. This country has gone beyond "dog eat dog." Bush wanted to spend $$$$ for research on Mars?! I'm all for new discoveries and learning new things, but come on...let's do ALL that we can for the problems here on earth and her inhabitants first.
The democrats did not cause
this mess. And it was not caused by the people who were extended credit. Here is part of what caused it:
Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time. Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. These adjustable rate loans were misrepresented to a lot of homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers. A lot of them didn’t realize, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalties. Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and could not refinance. Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford. The banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices could not afford to lower the rates for the homebuyers because they had bought the loans based on the inflated interest rates and would lose money if they did. People lost their homes and the banks lost the amount of the loans they had bought. But the banks (and the CEOs) that initiated those loans walked away with a great deal of money.
It was because of greed. And the deregulation that the republicans have passed over the years allowed it to happen.
Here are some other facts:
Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration.
The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country. It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican administration EXCEPT the top 1%.
Please tell me how you think the democrats...sm
contributed to the economy diving in the last 2 years. Specifics please. The economy takes way longer than that to do anything. No economic bills have been passed. The last 8 years of the Bush presidency has put us into the tank. Stop parroting the party line. Lets be honest here. John McCain offers nothing better.
Yes, well, those would be democrats as well
--
Democrats
 Obama, if elected the next President of the US, will change how other peoples look at the Americans: He will restore respect and admiration for the American people that was lost during these last 8 years. And the world will see that the American people do not discriminate (at least not the Democrats).
Can't think of anything that would help democrats more
Skip the landslide. It would be an avalanche.
Obviously so do Democrats. nm
*
Like the democrats
don't do the same thing. When are people going to realize that both parties are just as crooked as the other here? When the dems had control of congress during Bush's presidency, did the dems do anything positive for our economy then. Of course they didn't.....why.....because they would hate to do something good during Bush's presidency because he might get credit for it. This goes both ways and your post is very one sided. We all need to wake up and realize that the only people we can trust is ourselves and stop putting so much faith in either party. Government as a whole has screwed us over and I am sick and tired of putting all the blame on one party. They all had their greedy little hands in the cookie jar and that is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
democrats and
Pace your rage. It has only been 100 days.
LOL, who lies, not democrats
That is what dems say? LOL. I ask you to check out one of the top posts, i.e., Rush and Olbermann..Reality check starts attacking the poster, Olbermann, MSNBC, saying they lie, even though the transcript is on the web, also printed in his article, and on video..yet they are lying right?? and its the dems that always scream that people are lying, right? I thought up a new name for neocons after reading about that Xtian..NOT..Robertson stating Chavez should be eliminated. Neocons are the American Taliban. You are just as bad. If everyone does not think, act, believe, live like you, then they are wrong and lying..You guys are ridiculous..
Democrats/Liberals
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership. As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Psychotic democrats.
Well I guess that is better then a psychotic democrat.
I believe the Democrats will take the House
and pick up seats in the Senate enough to make it very even. When Lieberman is elected as an Independent, I predict he will change his party to Democrat when he gets into the Senate, a direct slam at the Democrats who failed to support him. Lieberman, the only Democrat with a spine, will be the big winner. I am not gnashing my teeth about any of this. Democrats are the one who do the teeth gnashing. They have been gnashing since Bush won the first election and their bitterness and sore loser attitudes have eaten away like a cancer all these years. Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite. Unfortunately, I think it is too late this time around. But there is always next time. God Bless our troops.
Democrats vs Republicans...
I agree that problems occur on both sides of the aisle...obviously. What I find troubling, and I am being serious here, is that Democrats seem much less likely to own up to it when they do something wrong, even when caught, and the entire party seems to rally around them and somehow want to twist the wrong into a right or rationalize the wrong (he only lied about sex for example. He committed felony perjury, doesn't matter what the lie was about. If it was no big deal, why didn't he just tell the truth? I guess that depends on what the meaning of truth is?). Republicans generally fall on the sword when caught. There just seems to be something skewed about the Democratic party as a whole and their vision of what is wrong or right and it seems to be directly correlated to whether one of their party is guilty or the other party is guilty. This is just an observation. I am not a registered Republican nor Democrat. I am conservative, I am registered Independent but vote for whoever most closely follows my belief system, though they as a rule don't do as they say...and I mean ALL politicians. I just keep hoping for an honest one. Bush did what he said he would do for a long time, but I see him waffling now, and I am not sure that is a good thing. As I look at the two major parties in this country, it just seems to me that on the Democratic side they are more likely to support each other and try to spin wrongdoing even when caught at it, rarely if ever admitting to wrongdoing. I do not see that so much on the Republican side. I suppose now I should go back to the conservative side and let the process continue. I thought the boards were about opinion and discussion and debate. How can you expect to change any minds if you only talk to the like-minded? Thanks for your time, Lurker. I do enjoy talking to you.
|
