excuse me....show me the person who forced Ohhbaaamaaa....
Posted By: sam on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: Stupid is planting a question at a rally designed - to showcase the latest smear tactic and
to ANSWER it the way he did??? Keep trying to hide the elephant in the room.
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
agree, but to be fair if 1 person is forced, then everyone (adults too) should be
x
Just goes to show the j@ckas@es/crooks running the show!
nm
Beck says - almost every show - that he is NOT doing a news show.
He does an opinion show - meaning HIS opinion. As such, he's entitled to stick pins in little Obama dolls for all I care.
I can hear Chris Wallace laughing at you folks from here because it's pretty obvious whoever wrote that knows zip about Beck, or Wallace for that matter. In fact, I can't think what Wallace has to do with Beck anyway. Everyone of INTELLIGENCE who watches Beck and Wallace is perfectly aware that one does one type of show and the other does another.
But what do you expect from one of George Soros' puppet sites like Media Matters and Move Bowels.org?
You really should delete your Favorites list and start over.
yes, the first person did....the person replying to that post...
was talking about the founding fathers...who came along a long time after the witch trials. You replied to the second post, not the first one. I was replying to you based on that. Purtianism came first...Christianity was the religion practiced by the founding fathers. It is evident in their writings and in most of our original documents.
I think we can stop whipping this dead horse now.
Right, but who should be forced to help her? The
nm
Why must you be FORCED to do
something that you acknowledge a desire for, and is the right thing to do? This only gives credence to the theory that govenment has to solve our problems for us.
I was raised by smokers (one of which died of lung cancer). As a child, every family gathering was a nightmare because all the aunts and uncles were smokers as well. I've never smoked, hate smoke, and am pretty happy that it's now banned in businesses in my state. If it it were not a health issue, it's still an annoyance and I never understood why for most of my adult life I was required to put up with it in a restaurant or an office. At outdoor events it's still legal. This is a courtesy issue; just because you legally may smoke does not mean it isn't rude to do so when surrounded by people in a stadium.
But that's about as far as I am willing to go. I don't care if someone wishes to smoke in their own personal space. Somebody who has been smoking smells nasty to me (on a par with b.o., intestinal gas, or overwhelming perfume) . Some hypersensitive people actually are sickened by these odors on others, but if I get an occasional whiff of it, this is merely offensive and will do me no particular harm. Some folks are quite unaware of (or do not care) how they smell. It's another courtesy issue.
To argue that there are larger societal impacts to many of our personal behaviors such as smoking, overweight, transfat and sugar consumption, and alcohol use has validity in terms of health care costs. But to the extent that these behaviors directly harm only ourselves, I still think that we should be permitted to reach these conclusions on their own, and take measures to correct them without the intervention of a nanny government.
Millions of people quit smoking or drinking, change their diet or lose weight of their own volition and I think that a sense of accomplishment should accompany these successes, not the sense that somebody just nagged or taxed you into it.
Being forced to own up. Not impressive.
nm
we are not being forced into socialism -
Obama is not a socialist.
I might would agree that we woudl be socialized if Hillary had won, but I do not consider Obama a socialist.
Not forced. Not compulsory.
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free."
Money for college in exchange for voluntry community service. What's so "disgusting" about that?
Yes, they SHOULD be forced to filibuster.
I was shocked to learn that these Republicans DON'T have to stand there and read the telephone book, etc.
And the Democrats are in "control" of Congress? 
Okie-dokie.
GM may be forced into bankruptcy......... sm
Looks like it might happen anyway. Remember the heated debates over this on this very forum a while back?
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE52428I20090305?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Exactly - just as your viewpoint is being forced
It works both ways, ya know.
Perhaps she would not have been forced into making it public...
had not the left gone to the blogs trying to claim that Trig was Bristol's and they were passing him off as her brother. To let that stand would do more damage to her daughter, don't you think?
Forced into that positin by your favorite...
political party, the DEMOCRATS. McCain told them this was coming in 2005. Sponsored legislation to look closer at Fannie/Freddie. The Democrats (big money buddies with Freddie/Fannie) blocked it. And here we are...Freddie/Fannie started the freefall. And let's not forget Barney Frank...another Democrat...pushing Fannie/Freddie to make those subprime loans to minorities and low income folks who did not have a hope in heck of paying it back. Most with no credit or bad credit. And THOSE are the people we are bailing out. Wonder how many of THEM are Democrats??
Yes, it is form of socialism, but at least we do not have SOCIALISTS in charge of it. If we elect Obama, we WILL have a hard core socialist in control.
Be careful what you ask for.
if kids are forced to do it, then adults should be too
x
If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Dems forced to stoop way low while speaking
su
"You're not forced to read this" is what I was
nm
Gay cirriculum forced on elementary schools
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html
Talk about your double standards here. You can't pray in school, pass out Bibles in school, or talk about God at all but hey....talk to them about being gay. Once again, if you want me to keep my beliefs out of public school, stop forcing homosexuality upon my kids. They are wanting to teach this to kids as young as 5 years old.
Why can't they just talk to the kids about not being mean and making fun of others without bringing the whole subject of homosexuality into it?
It should be the parent's job to talk to their kids about homosexuality....not public schools.
Forced bible reading in public school
The Bible is without question the most recognizable and known literary works in the history of literature. It has been read time and time again by people of all races, nationalities and religions all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years. It is the most prominent, dominating pieces of writing in cultures around the globe.
Yet apparently, it is exempt from that pesky little law of the separation of Church and State in the United States of America.
In Boca Raton, Florida, at West Boca Raton High School, the book of Genesis is on the required reading list for all incoming 11th graders to the school. It is not suggested or recommended, but is mandatory.
The school claims that no laws have been broken, as state law permits studies of the Bible as long as it is studied for its literature purposes, rather than as history. And this is the loophole which is allowing the school to force its students to read from the Bible, as it is seen as preparation for literary reading in the school year to come.
Wait a second … Students are being forced to read the Bible, because the school thinks it is pertinent to their reading in their particular grade level? And no one sees the problem with this?
Separation of Church and State was established to prevent religious beliefs and practices from interfering with activities within the government. And last time I checked, public schools fall under the category that is protected from religious teachings. While the Bible may have many great stories, and the style of writing and language may be absolutely fascination, why must students be required to read it? It is clearly the most blatant symbol and teaching tool for religion, despite its values as literary work.
Students should be recommended to read the Bible if the school feels so strongly in its “practical” use as literature teachings. Or have the teachers explain the important stories and style of writing, suggesting that the students follow along if they wish. But to down right require students to read it is a slap in the face to everyone who has valued the importance of keeping religion out of the government.
Would the school ever consider requiring the reading of the Koran? Or what about the book of Mormon? Of course these literary works would never be considered, mainly because of the overwhelming influence Christianity has on today’s society.
What could students possibly get from reading the book of Genesis that they couldn’t get from any other great work of literature? I managed to breeze through my 11th grade English class without ever having to pick up a bible, and I seem to be doing okay as far as literature knowledge goes right now.
Also, what will happen to the students who refuse to partake in the required reading? They school already stated that their will be quizzes and tests on the material (the book of Genesis), so does that mean if a student feels it is wrong to be forced to read the bible and doesn’t do it, he is out of luck come test time? If so, wouldn’t you think that those students wouldn’t care less of their grade by that point? If that was the case, then the school’s ploy to teach students the writing of the Bible would be a lost cause.
Requiring students to read books to better understand the English language and literature as a whole is a normal part of school. Teachers are supposed to assign work … that is their job. But to force religious teachings and preaching onto students isn’t the work of teachers or a school board … it is the work of pastors/ministers/priests.
And until West Boca Raton High School becomes a private school, requiring teachers to take the place of spiritual leaders is a crime.
We at the Noyse are furious and disappointed that this is taking place. While we value and respect the religious beliefs of everyone, we do not feel it appropriate to force religion or religious teachings upon anyone.
So we are taking action. We are doing this for all the unheard voices of the upcoming 11th grade class, who will read the book of Genesis because they have to and are unable to say no … or unable to be heard when they do say no. We are doing this for all the students who are bound to fail their tests because they refused to read the Bible as instructed. We are doing this for everyone who believes in the first amendment: The freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the freedom of religion. We are doing this for everyone who is frustrated with the State misinterpreting and reshaping the beliefs of the Separations of Church and State. And we are doing this for everyone who thinks this is down right wrong.
We are prepared to go to war over this issue. We are not afraid to make noyse, and are anticipating being heard only after we hear a lot in return. We are going to fight, and will not back down, slow down or shut up until this issue is brought into question by those with the authority to remedy the problem.
First off, we have started a petition, that we encourage everyone to sign if they wish to help us in this battle. You can view the petition here. Please, sign it and pass it along to everyone you know. The more voices who speak up, the louder we will be.
Also, we will be sending a letter to West Boca Raton High School, as well as the school district, stating our grievances, intentions and expectations. We will give them an opportunity to respond to our mission if they so choose to do so. We will inform them that while we may be a small army, we are not easy-influenced or easily intimidated, and will not go away quietly.
We will also be sending out press releases to all local media outlets (news stations, newspapers, etc.) in the Boca Raton area, exclaiming our business and informing them that a battle will be waged and to prepare for us to make some noyse. Also, everyone and anyone reading The Noyse who wishes to stand on the battle lines with us will be encouraged to contact their local media outlets as well and inform of them our mission.
Students heading into the 11th grade will be notified of our intentions and informed that they can either submit to the requirements, or stand up and make noyse along with us.
And finally, the government of Florida will be notified of the problem we see in this situation, and asked to reevaluate it as a whole. We will not beg, not plead, but insist that action be taken to prevent the students at West Boca Raton High School to be required to read the bible.
Obama and Ayers forced radicalism in schools...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
Wow, this is explosive stuff!
Also, James Johnson, who headed Obama's VP vetting committee...one of the Fannie CEOs who walked away with a several million golden parachute. Obama is on the Fannie list of donation recipients...#2 on that list, topped only by Chris Dodd. Wow...that is explosive stuff. Another advisor...Franklin Raines...another fired corrupt CEO from Fannie...walked away with a golden parachute in the multimillions...wow...explosive stuff.
Rahm Emanuel wants forced civil service
Listen to the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg
DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.
also, courts ruled the draft was not forced servitude in Butler v. Perry. nm
x
Saw the show. It was a guest on the show....
not a commentator. Why don't you post the link to the clip so everyone can decide?
Show me who your friends are and I’ll show you who you are.’
This subject is not old, and is very, very relevant.
Obama's friends/associates (supposedly former friends and associates, only since this campaign):
Ayers
Wright
Dorhn
Michelle
Khalidi
The company he keeps:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YThjYTU1ZDBjNmQ2YzcwNzU1MmYwN2JiMWY0ZGI0NDA=
I find it very, very troubling, that this man has no visible friends, other than the ones above (not Michelle, although she has been kept under lock and key out of public sight for some time now, so as to keep her from embarrassing herself again).
Does this man not have any other friends/associates, other than the ones above?
Whoops....A person....not I person.
.
You feel someone should be forced to do something they feel is wrong? sm
Sounds like communism to me.
Excuse me.....
How can it be easy enough to prove with ISP numbers if the ISP numbers are not available? Yes, I may be blowing this out of proportion but you seem to be contradicting yourself and your posts, as well as some others did raise the specter (sp?) of this being a nonsecure website.
I do know such outings' with a lot more info that just ISP numbers have occurred on other political forums, i.e., proteswarrior.com (although I am bracing myself right now for the retaliation this mention will bring from right-wingers).
Golly, I kind of feel like this forum is in the midst of being hijacked by the conservative in-your-face folks somewhat.
Excuse me, but I'm AO.
You are careless. Even a small brain like mine can see there are major differences in gt and ao's writing styles. Check it out. Besides, we don't even live in the same part of the country. I'm sure the administrator can verify that for you if it makes an important difference in your life.
Also, AO is not Another Observer, in case that was your next accusation. See, there's more than one of us out here.
Excuse me but it should have said *did not*
Geesh, I forgot that this forum doesn't like apostrophes. Do you ever make a mistake? I don't make fun of people's typos, but evidently because you can't stick to the subject or respond directly to my post without calling names it's just a rabbit trail to discredit me. You know, whatever, you've proven that you're not worth my time.
See ya...
Excuse me, but it's a law. sm
She was asked to comply by the police and she IGNORED THEM. She is not above the law. None of us are. Everyone should be concerned about this behavior. Bush had nothing to do with it! My gosh, the things you say.
Excuse me.
If you don't want my opinions then don't read them. It's that simple.
Sorry I dared to enter your high and mighty world. I'll leave you to your hate.
Excuse me, but yes you did. sm
I usually don't post here, but here is what you said below. You have posted on our board, so I am posting here. By the way, your temper tantrums and attacks are not doing anyone any favors. Not an attack but an observation. Here is what you said below.
*The neocons, of course, can't have this, so they send our threads to people like you to crash the liberal board, utilizing their very own name calling and intimidation tactics. They never gave a hoot about Israel in the past, but suddenly they see Israel as their new best friend. They're winking at God and saying, See? We're on Israel's side now and won't be one of the groups against Israel, so bring on the Rapture. We've secured our place with God. The Rapture Index has indicated it's fasten your seatbelt time and they can't wait.*
As far as for the rest of what you have said, most of us have always been on Israel's side. You are showing how really and truly uninformed you are by statements like this.
Excuse me.....
the first settlers were not slave owners and came here for religious freedom. The founding fathers were deeply seated in Christianity. The country WAS founded on those principles. However, others came who did not ascribe to those principles, just as there are those who do not ascribe to those principles now. May I also remind you that slavery was introduced here by Dutch traders who bought slaves in Africa and brought them to America...much later. And who sold those slaves to Dutch traders? I believe it was other Africans, who enslaved and sold their own people. The original colonists at first got along with the Indians. It was much later, in the plains, where the near annihilation as you call it occurred. All during that time were present the Christian missionaries who tried to intervene, were often killed for it, by whites and Indians alike. I am Choctaw, I am descended from the indigenous peoples. Indians also killed and enslaved one another. It is not an *American* invention. And...who said I was painting anything as *rosy?* My point was, and still is, and is borne out daily, that the further you travel from Christian principles the more acceptable killing, slavery, and all other ill of the world becomes. Turning the blind eye so to speak. And it is generalizations like you state above, that the entire country is responsible for what a few did...it is that kind of mindset, like the other poster who thinks *Republicans* need to be destroyed. That kind of generalization is dangerous. Blaming an entire country, an entire group of people, for what a few do is not realistic. Not everyone in the country condoned everything. All through history you will see Christians spoke out against slavery, spoke out against what was happening with the Indians, spoke out against segregation, spoke out against abortion, and on and on and on. Perhap I should stop saying *this country* and say *the people in it.* *This country* was founded on Christian principles, and for a long time for the most part most of the people in it followed those principles. As time went on, fewer did. And somehow, the tide has completely turned and Christians are the enemy. But, I do stand corrected. America, the concept of America, has not chnaged. But the people in it most certainly have.
Excuse me again...
See my responses below.
You said: You need to read up on your history of this country.
I say: Right back at you. And you need to look deeply into books published 100 years ago as well as ones published in this century so you get the whole picture.
You said: Why does it matter what the origins of slavery were? The fact is, most of the founding fathers either owned slaves or families' had owned slaves. Washington owned hundreds of slaves, although he freed them as part of his will upon his death.
I say: I never said the founding fathers did not hold slaves. Re-read my post. I said that the original colonists did not hold slaves, and they did not. Jamestown was settled in 1607...slaves were introduced to this country around 1640, several years later. That is the truth and that is what I said. What matters about the origins of slavery is you want to condemn this country for holding slaves. I don't see you railing against Africa for starting the slave trade...if no slaves to sell, none would be bought. If you are going to rail against something, rail at the source. That is like blaming the school child for taking the drugs the dealer sold him.
You said: What do you mean, slavery came much later. Later than what?
I say: See my answer above.
You said: This country still condoned slavery for 100 years.
I say: Please do not say *this country condoned* because this country as a whole did NOT *condone.* Huge numbers of people did not own slaves. You know that. Only the more well to do folks could afford it. And through the years several thousand people did speak out about it and did what they could, and in case it escaped your attention, we finally fought a civil war in which one of the principles was to abolish slavery.
You sid:
As far as the founding fathers and our rights we protect here's some info:
It's important to differentiate the Constitution that the Founding Fathers cooked up from the Bill of Rights. Today when we think of the protections of the American system, we usually think of the shining example of ethics and goodness contained in the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They are primarily the work of George Mason (1725-1792). He would have been a Founding Father because he was a delegate to the convention from Virginia, but he refused to sign the Constitution. He realized that it failed to protect individual liberties and failed to oppose slavery.
I say:
Excuse me, yet again, but isn't this the same George Mason who himself held slaves? Yes, he did. What he did was speak out about the slave trade, but he did not give up the slaves he already had. Don't know if he released them upon his death or not, like Washington did. He was holding slaves at the time he was criticizing the practice. Pardon me if I do not see that as the height of hypocrisy. And you are wrong,because the Constitution did not address slavery is NOT one of the reasons he did not sign it. You are correct that he did not sign it because he did not feel it addressed individual freedoms; but, in fact, he spoke OUT against including mention of slavery in the Constitution (probably because he owned slaves himself). Get your facts straight.
I can find no mention at all of the founding fathers lobbying against the Bill of Rights. Please supply me with the historical references.
You said: Mr. Mason lobbied against adoption of the Constitution just as many of the Founding Fathers lobbied against the Bill of Rights. Most of the Founding Fathers disapproved of giving ordinary citizens such liberties as freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and torture, the right of free speech and so forth. In fact, when John Adams (1735-1826) was president (1797-1801), he took away freedom of speech.
I say: Well, what John Adams did then is no different than what the Democrats are trying to do now in shutting down talk radio. Same song, second verse. Get after them with equal zeal, I challenge you.
You said:
The Bill of Rights is really the people's voice against the Founding Fathers; liberty against conformity.
I say:
You are very liberal with your interpretation.
_________
You said:
As far as the Native American disgrace/slaughter, all I can say is you have an interesting viewpoint that is not shared by many indigenous. Bhoo-zhoo.
I say:
It is shared by many more than you are aware. But remember my friend...we are still entitled to our opinion, whether or not it agrees with yours. Question for you: if you still hold such emnity today, hundreds of years later, what could be done about it? You cannot turn back time. Most tribes are doing very well, have their own lands, pay no federal taxes on those lands, and are among some of the more well-to-do among us. If the Nation does not share that wealth properly with the tribe, then the people should take it up with the Nation, which many of us are doing. Native Americans did not just suffer at the hands of white men. They have also suffered a great deal at the hands of their own, and that has nothing to do with this country and everything to do with human beings. There are the good and bad among us, always have been, always will be...in every culture, every population, until the end of time. And dwelling in the past does nothing to help. Learn from the past, yes; but do not dwell there.
And try to get your information from several sources. Study for yourself, research for yourself. I learned long ago that is necessary.
Excuse me....
Thou shalt not kill - there is a federal law against murder. Thou shalt not steal - there is a federal law against stealing...you will have to do better than separation of church and state. That being said, the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. It says that there shall be no state-sponsored religion. To my knowledge there is no religion called United States of America. Did that happen while I wasn't looking? Funny to me that the government can pull many laws right out of the Bible, but come to one that that doesn't suit the more liberal ones among us and they start yelling separation of church and state. Go figure.
That being said, most of the laws on the books today have "religious wacko" origins. This country was founded by "religious wackos," or was that missed in history class? Oh yes, I forgot...the more liberal among us stopped teaching that inconvenient truth. However, one can still do searches and read the original writings of the founding fathers...if one is really interested in the truth.
What would folks like in place of "religious wacko" laws? Just let everyone do whatever they want...kill you if you are annoying or a burden to them? Kill you if you are no longer wanted? Steal from you if you have something they want and can't afford to buy for themselves? America was basically a ""Christian theocracy in its infancy, meaning the basic laws all came straight from the Bible. It was also a democracy...the two are not mutually exclusive. And there it goes again, lumping Christians and any other religious group into one group of "religious wackos." Extremely divisive and unnecessary. And, it looks to me like it is not the "religious wackos" on this site who are going bananas when someone doesn't agree with them....
Excuse me?
Excuse me but I do not believe
I bashed SAHMs. I think it should be a personal decision and one should not be looked down upon if they choose to work or choose to stay home. You have no right to bash her any more than she has right to bash you for staying home. I work out of my home because my husband and I need this extra income I bring in. My sister-in-law stays home with her kids and my brother works his @ss off trying to support them and he hardly ever gets to see his kids because he is supporting his family. He wants to spend more time with them but he cannot. So why is it fair for him to never see his kids to support his family working 2 jobs? My mom stayed at home and I hardly ever saw my dad because he was working to support us. Don't you think that sucked with me never seeing my dad or was that okay because my mom was there. If my sister-in-law would get a job, my brother wouldn't have to work 2 jobs and he could see his kids more. If my mom would have worked, my dad wouldn't have had to work that OT and I would have seen him more.
It is great that you can stay at home if that is what you choose to do, but don't bash others for their choice. It isn't like SP is up and walking out of the door to never see her kids again and they do have Todd Palin, their dad, to be with them.
Excuse me, but I think that
"Divine and perfect order" originates in God and only God.
Excuse you. lol. nm
nm
Any excuse at all
Black Republican Activist Bob Parks predicts riots will ensue if Obama wins or loses the election.
Parks, a syndicated writer, talk show host, and Republican activist, lists his reasons in the video, Obama’s America: Win or Lose, as to why he believes an Obama loss would mean “things could get ugly on a grand scale” or that an Obama win would give ‘”punks” the “greatest of reasons” to take to the streets:
“Now what occasionally happens when a city’s team wins a championship? We have riots! There’s looting, hooliganism, vandalism, drunk and disorderliness, assaults, and sometimes injury or death, and this wouldn’t be about one single city. Can you imagine the potential for nationwide rioting by punks, looking an excuse and now having the greatest of reasons to do so?”
Excuse me? I was not the one
who posted that other post about being jealous. So please do not attack me when you don't know what I have or have not posted.
Well, excuse me! I am too new to this
board to be familiar with all the vernacular. I was just responding to a remark made by a poster earlier who spewed out a hateful personal attack on another poster, and someone asked the Moderator to ban that person from the board!
Excuse me....put yourself out there??
Because you ask a simple question that merits a background check and having your life made public? He is not RUNNING for ANYthing!! Do you hear yourself? The more posts I see like this the more I understand the way most socialist countries end up going....freaking amazing.
Excuse you, but...
he has already said that yes, he does fall into the over 250,000 bracket, and while noone likes to pay taxes, he would be paying taxes imposed on that bracket.
Excuse me?
Who gives a rip about medical records. I want proof this guy was born in the USA. I want proof before he can be elected president. Who cares about Palin's health. McCain may have skin cancer, but it is not as bad as lung cancer. Did you know Obama smokes? Shoot he could pass away from lung cancer before McCain's skin cancer. Honestly, cannot compare medical records to birth certificate.
That's the best excuse you have for the
nm
Please excuse me....(sm)
I saw scripture quoted and many references to God on here, so I assumed this must be the faith board. Funny how you didn't have a problem with that.
Excuse me?
Of course, we have the enigma of being home to some of the biggest crooks in the world (Bush, Cheney, Delay, Perry, etc.) but this is a beautiful state. Do not associate this beautiful state with the ugly criminals.
Excuse me, but I think YOU are the one with the
Whenver someone posts something you don't agree with you are quick to jump on and insult them. You have a very nasty attitude and if you don't believe me, go down the board and read some of YOUR comments. You are the one who invites attacks by your nasty attitude and name calling.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Excuse me.
Most of us have 401Ks and are anything but "gleeful" that 50% of the value has been wiped out. Pointing out that Obama and his Treasury chief had a significant role in the enormous drop in the market since inauguration day has nothing to do with "glee". It's just simple fact.
And even the Dems wondered when Geithner was going to get off his bony a$$ and show us the "boy wonder" that he was said to be - and isn't. Meanwhile, the markets continued to tumble. There's no disputing any of this.
And the markets have a very, VERY long way to go before any of us get back what we've lost, so I would kindly suggest that you save any and ALL market-related comments for that moment. You should know, thought, that it might be a very long time coming.
It took decades for the market to recover what it lost in the Depression. Meanwhile, of course, there were "up days" and "down days" and "up months" and "down months"...and if you had been living then, it would have been extremely foolish for you to make anything at all out of the little rallies that occurred. Don't make the same mistake here or you'll only make yourself look foolish.
|
