You'll think differently when it all comes to pass...O will be a failure and make us

• Stimulus plan...the short version (fine print)....no one talks about.... - do the math
  • So, exactly what would you suggest...(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Their suggestion would be a great big "duhhh" - jj
      • So you would - Kim
        • Excellent post. Thanks. - nm
        • Sorry, replied to the wrong post. - Kim
    • The conservative way....but that's fallen out of favor this cycle....you'd all rather pay out - wazzoo in taxes forever and a day
      • Yes. Do tell how conservatives would lead us - sm
      • As though that stage has not already been set by - sm
      • What exactly is the conservative way? - Very curious.
  • Yep, let the hard-working taxpayer pay for those - sitting on their butts. Thanks Obama.nm
    • With the largest jobs loss since 1945, your fix would - jj
  • stimulus - Eileen
    • She did not repeat O's words, but that is is plan. - We are in for a big nightmare.nm
      • More accurately stated, this is - sm
        • You'll think differently when it all comes to pass...O will be a failure and make us - a complete socialist nation, if he can
          • You mean he might use taxpayer money to - buy up corporations in major industres????
            • it'll be worse....just wait ...already is and things coming to pass...and yet - the left is too blinded by the O to see
              • Things coming to pass? (sm) - Just the big bad
                • Actually, no, not the economy....(sm) - Pelosi, Frank, and cronies
          • What's it going to take - jj

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

This was meant to be a joke right? 

We don't need people pointing out "similarities" in known terrorists names to candidates who are running for President of the United States.  This is not something I like seeing as a topic with the "oh this is freaky" added.  This is not freaky and certainly not funny.  WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR THIS.  I would be equally upset if somebody linked John McCain's name with some horrible and vile person.  This is what I would expect to come out of the John McCain camp as an ad trying to connect the two while "innocently" stating "oh I'm not saying that they are alike but it's just freaky". 

Sure maybe people do see that (I didn't), but we certainly do not need anyone to be bringing this up.  This kind of statement falls right along the lines of the statement that Hillary made when she said that she was staying in the race because "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, right?"  Well I guess you could call that freaky too.

To me pointing out something like this whether it's towards Obama or McCain is loathsome and I take great offense to this kind of comment or comparison.  It sounds like others did too, so glad to know I'm not the only one.

Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.

Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.

We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)

All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.

Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.

THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 

Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive_Index/Illegal_Weapons_in_Fallujah.html

Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah?

Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq

The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true.

Qatar-based Internet site Islam Online was one of the first to spread the false chemical weapons claim. On November 10, 2004, it reported that U.S. troops were allegedly using "chemical weapons and poisonous gas" in Fallujah. ("US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah") It sourced this claim to Al-Quds Press, which cited only anonymous sources for its allegation.

The inaccurate Islam Online story has been posted on hundreds of Web sites.

On November 12, 2004, the U.S. Department of Defense issued a denial of the chemical weapons charge, stating:

"The United States categorically denies the use of chemical weapons at anytime in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation. Furthermore, the United States does not under any circumstance support or condone the development, production, acquisition, transfer or use of chemical weapons by any country. All chemical weapons currently possessed by the United States have been declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and are being destroyed in the United States in accordance with our obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention."

To its credit, Islam Online ran a Nov. 25, 2004, story carrying the U.S. denial.

In both stories, Islam Online noted that U.S. forces had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in the spring of 2003. Although all napalm in the U.S. arsenal had been destroyed by 2001, Mark-77 firebombs, which have a similar effect to napalm, were used against enemy positions in 2003.

The repetition of this story on Islam Online’s led to further misinformation. Some readers did not distinguish between what had happened in the spring of 2003, during the march to Baghdad, and in Fallujah in November 2004. They mistakenly thought napalm-like weapons had been used in Fallujah, which is not true. No Mark-77 firebombs have been used in operations in Fallujah.

On Nov. 11, 2004, the Nov. 10 Islam Online story was reposted by the New York Transfer News Web site, with the inaccurate headline "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah."

The headline was wrong in two ways. First, as explained above, Islam Online was incorrect in claiming that U.S. forces were using poison gas in Fallujah. Second, the New York Transfer News misread the Islam Online story to mean that U.S. forces were currently using napalm-like weapons in Fallujah. But Islam Online had never claimed this; it had only talked about napalm use in 2003.

The false napalm allegation then took on a life of its own. Further postings on the Internet repeated or recreated the error that the New York Transfer News had made, which eventually appeared in print media. For example, on Nov. 28, 2004, the UK’s Sunday Mirror inaccurately claimed U.S. forces were "secretly using outlawed napalm gas" in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror story was wrong in two ways.

First, napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed. International law permits their use against military forces, which is how they were used in 2003.

Second, as noted above, no Mark-77 firebombs were used in Fallujah.

The Sunday Mirror’s phrasing "napalm gas" is also revealing. Napalm is a gel, not a gas. Why did the Sunday Mirror describe it as a gas?

It may be that, somewhere along the line, a sloppy reader read the inaccurate New York Transfer News headline, "Resistance Says US Using Napalm, Gas in Fallujah," and omitted the comma between napalm and gas, yielding the nonsensical "napalm gas."

Next, the Sunday Mirror’s misinformation about “napalm gas” was reported in identical articles on Nov. 28 by aljazeera.com and islamonline.com. These two Web sites, which are owned by the same company – AL Jazeera Publishing – are deceptive look-alike Web sites that masquerade as the English-language sites of the popular Qatar-based Arabic-language satellite television station al Jazeera and the popular Islam Online Web site, which is islamonline.net.

Finally, some news accounts have claimed that U.S. forces have used "outlawed" phosphorous shells in Fallujah. Phosphorous shells are not outlawed. U.S. forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]

There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.

And that you classify such thinking as wrong.

Perhaps you should spend some time thinking on that.

oops

I never gave this a thought. The previous incumbent was so poor and Palin scared the bejesus out of me and McCain isn't that much of a maverick and doesn't know squat economically that I never let race enter into my voting decision. For me it was an obvious choice. (Not my first choice but by Nov. my only choice.)

If you read through this cnn.com article, you'll read that blacks who were innovative do feel they're or were held to different standards.

The very fact that this article is worthy of being printed surprises me.

=========================================

(CNN) -- Just days before he was sworn in, President Obama was giving his daughters a tour of the Lincoln Memorial when one of them pointed to a copy of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address carved into the wall.

Obama's 7-year-old daughter, Sasha, told her father that Lincoln's speech was really long. Would he have to give a speech as long? Obama's answer was completed by his older daughter, 10-year-old Malia.

"I said, 'Actually, that one is pretty short. Mine may even be a little longer,' " Obama told CNN recently. "At which point, Malia turns to me and says, 'First African-American president, better be good.' "

The story is light-hearted, but it touches on a delicate question: Will people hold Obama to a different standard because he is the first African-American president?

Americans appear split by race on that answer. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 53 percent of blacks say the American public will hold Obama to a higher standard than past presidents because he is black. Most whites -- 61 percent -- say Obama's race will not matter in how he will be judged.

The question divided several people who were racial pioneers themselves.

Alexander Jefferson was one of the first blacks allowed to become a fighter pilot. He was a member of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black pilots who escorted bombers in World War II.

"We had to be twice as good to be average," he says.

Obama won't face the same pressures he did because his presidential predecessor was so inept, Jefferson says.

"No, the world is ready for him," he says. "The [George W.] Bush debacle was so depressing."

Jefferson was shot down by ground fire on his 19th mission and spent a year in German prison camps. He wrote about his POW experiences in "Red Tail Captured, Red Tail Free: Memoirs of a Tuskegee Airman and POW."

Jefferson says he dealt with the pressures of being a racial pioneer by drawing on the strength of black leaders who opened doors for him.

"I sit on the backs of everyone who came before me," says Jefferson, who attended Obama's inauguration with other Tuskegee Airmen.

Jefferson says he would have emotionally imploded if he'd thought too much about the pressures of representing all blacks and dealing with the racism he encountered when he returned home to a segregated America after the war.

"I did what I had to do so I didn't go stark-raving mad," he says. "There wasn't all this self-analysis and back and forth. I was too damn busy with a wife, a child and a mortgage."

Michele Andrea Bowen couldn't avoid a bout of constant self-analysis. She was one of the first African-American students admitted to a doctorate program in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"I know Obama is going to be held to a different standard," says Bowen, author of "Up at the College" and books such as "Holy Ghost Corner," which celebrate black faith and culture.

Bowen says she faced relentless scrutiny, and so will Obama.

"You know that it was hard for you to get in it, and you know they're watching you," Bowen says. "And you know that they're judging you by a critical standard that's sometimes not fair."

Bowen says a white classmate, her partner in dissertation, once confided to her that he received the same grades as she did, even though he knew his work was inferior.

"It toughened me up," Bowen says. "It can give you headaches and stomachaches. I learned you have to be thankful that God blessed you with that opportunity. At some point, you stop worrying, and you trust God."

'Would Bush have been president if he were black?'

Perhaps Obama will avoid those stomachaches because of the massive good will his election has generated. But that could change quickly if Obama makes a controversial decision or a mistake, says Andrew Rojecki, co-author of "The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America."

Rojecki says people who say Obama isn't going to be held to a different standard because of his skin color didn't pay attention to his campaign.

He says Obama had to deal with challenges that other candidates didn't have to face. Obama's run for office was almost ended by his association with his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose incendiary sermons shocked many.

But Republican presidential nominee John McCain's relationship with the Rev. John Hagee, who was accused of anti-Semitism, never threatened to end his campaign, Rojecki says.

"Obama was held responsible for what his minister said, and McCain was associated with Hagee, but somehow that didn't stick," says Rojecki, a communication professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Even people who regard themselves as the most progressive, open-minded supporters may subconsciously hold Obama to a different standard, Rojecki says.

He says several academic studies show that it often takes people longer to associate good qualities to blacks when different faces are flashed across a screen.

"They have these stereotypes buried in their subconscious," he says. "That's why people cross the street when they see a young black man. They'd rather not take a chance."

Obama virtually had to be perfect to overcome those stereotypes, Rojecki says. He was the first black Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he has an Ivy League-educated wife and adorable daughters, and he ran a great campaign.

"He's the perfect symbol of achievement," Rojecki says.

White candidates for office don't have to have an uninterrupted life of achievement to be considered for the Oval Office, Rojecki says.

"If George W. Bush were black, do you think he would be president?" Rojecki says.

Jefferson, the Tuskegee Airman, says Obama should have at least one consolation. The problems he confronts now are so immense that anyone, even someone who was considered by many to be perfect, would not be able to escape withering judgment.

"If the president was Jesus Christ, '' Jefferson says, "they would still debate if he's qualified."

You're right - due to the slimy, lying, underhanded tactics of the administration and your boy, Bush, the Swift Boat fiasco with Kerry may  have had an impact on the election.  You sound like you're proud of that.  Figures.

Why can't you folks just leave Sheehan alone.  Why can't someone be anti-war and speak their mind without you guys going nuts? 

That's right, Bush is still alive and well.  Check this out.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28024676

Yeah, I know it's MSNBC, but how many other people are doing a lame duck watch?

http://share.triangle.com/node/13576

The questions remain :

What is Barack Husein Obama - a Senator from Illinois - doing when he is interacting with a violent rebel, muslim leader in Kenya who may have been responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent people burned to death simply because they took refuge in a church?

What is Barack Husein Obama doing when he interferes in the internal operations of a foreign nation like Kenya?

Are you going to let a well organized and well financed representative of a foreign government push his way any further into your national government?

How many more people have to die before Americans come to understand that Barack Husein Obama is not a product of the land of Lincoln?

Born in Hawaii he spent most of his life in the violent and backward nation of Indonesia – where not too long ago the Australians had to stop the Muslims from killing all the Christians in East Timor.

When will this blood soaked travesty of our national political system come to an end? When will the mocking smirk of our enemies be wiped from our television screens?

Change they want? With the gun? With the torch?

It helps with appetite and is an analgesic.  Stay home and smoke it.  No harm  done. 

I'm sending it to my Senator and Congressman too as well as to Obama.

I was sent a newspaper clipping via e-mail, with a list of changes that, according to the actual author, most American people would very much like to see in our Government.

The actual author is Norma White of Amarillo. She is a retired network engineer for Southwestern Bell. I do not know which newspaper it came from, but after reading it, I would vote for her if she ever ran for Congress. I wanted to share them with you all.


The article's title is:

You Want Change? Try These Ideas.

1. Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.

2. Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?

3. Stop paying for lawmakers' high-priced insurance premiums. After all, they are only part-time employees. They might pass some law changes on the insurance companies, if they actually had to find one!

4. Stop paying lawmakers, or the president, their full salary after serving just one term, or when they leave office. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they've let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 percent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 percent.

5. Make Congress pay into the Social Security system. They make laws for it. If they spent some of their own money, then they might be interested in making it solvent.

6. Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.

7. Secure our borders.

8. Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.

9. Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?

10. Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with finger prints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration too.

11. Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who cannot afford them.

12. Stop companies from paying CEOs and other executives outrageous salaries and bonuses while doing away with workers' pensions.

13. Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation's security, and to help needy and elderly Americans.

14. Stop permitting anyone to have a photo with their face covered on driver's licenses.

Unfortunately, no matter who won the presidency, they will not be able to make any of these changes.

Only members of Congress can do that, as they are the lawmakers.

I seriously doubt Congress is interested in changing anything, do you?

After our rather heated debate tonight, I went off in search of answers to the questions of Obama's qualifications to be POTUS, and here is what I found. 

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

US Code Title 8,1401 states the following as a qualification of a natural-born US citizen.  (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html).  This is the only qualification that Obama actually passes to qualify to be POTUS, but one is all that is needed as all the qualifications listed are exclusive of each other. 

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

Since this does not specify a particular time frame in which the US citizen parent must live in the US prior to the birth of the child, it must be assumed that any one-year residency would satisfy the requirement. 

Somehow crow for Thanksgiving dinner just isn't quite what I had in mind.  Please make sure it is well done with lots of BBQ sauce.