Demand that Obama release his college records! Where is the media?

In article ,
That80sGuy wrote:

In message
, ____
done wrote:

In article ,
That80sGuy wrote:

In message , SMS
done wrote:

There are
some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between
the Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable
to stop the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy.

Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?

Obama's economic plan:

Taxes.
Taxes.
Spending.
Spending.

Its American to pay taxes,

You need a bullet in your head.

You'll be talking to my lawyer.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

In article ,
That80sGuy wrote:

In message
, ____
done wrote:

In article ,
"Boskey" wrote:


Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?

Obama's economic plan:

Taxes.
Taxes.
Spending.
Spending.
Debt.
Debt.

Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he
has indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax
cuts being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts,
cuts that impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will
be replaced by the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say
he won't need to raise taxes for this proposal, he is simply
re-badging the Bush tax cuts.

I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush economic stimulus
checks were taken from Social Security funds. I would be interested to
know if the rumor was true.

Bush, Clinton and others have ALL raided the SS Trust Fund. There is NO
money in there. NONE. It's all Treasury instruments. And the Treasury
will default as soon as China and the Saudis stop lending.

Thanks to the Republican administration.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

Sorry about the double post--my newsreader tells me you
delete
newsgroups when I reply--never saw that before.
I'm no shill for Obama. There's been plenty of
dishonesty to go
around. Like just about every election I've voted in (my
first was '72), I'll hold my nose in the booth.
Good luck to all of us.

NO need to apologize, if I was the one "complaining". Nobody
knows if theirs a double post due to a glitch but it is only a
few seconds of lost time.

As to your observations, I strongly agree. BOTH sides of the
aisle have plenty of guilt to go around wrt the war in Iraq, the
current fiscal crisis, or any of the other issues that may decide
this election. That said, Americans always seem to have very
short memories in a presidential election. Who'd have thought
that Iraq would be a distant memory of an issue or that we'd be
in a worse crisis than even the Great Depression. No one knows
what the next 3 weeks will bring, but the current dynamic absent
the Bradley Effect may come unravelled yet.

Heard an interesting set of stats yesterday. All the way back to
Carter vs. Ford in 1976 to President Bush in 2004, every time the
Dem running was ahead double digits yet either lost or won by
only a narrow margin. To stay well out of the way of today's
strange debate, look at Carter and Ford. Carter was up some 28%
in summer due mainly to voters who were fed up with Republicans
as represented by Nixon about the same as now with people who are
damn well ****ed off with the Red Team again. Yet, the apparent
tend may still narrow the race to a percent or two on November 4
unless a game changing event occurs.

And, no, folks, I do NOT advocate solving the "problem" by
assasination as some are suggesting.

You go back almost as long as I do - in my case, 1968 while a
senior in college. Literally every time, including this year,
I've found myself in a position of having to vote for "the lesser
of two evils" which I think is a sad, sad commentary on the
realities of how we pick candidates and not, not, NOT the blame
game.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

____ added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush
economic stimulus checks were taken from Social Security
funds. I would be interested to know if the rumor was true.

Bush, Clinton and others have ALL raided the SS Trust Fund.
There is NO money in there. NONE. It's all Treasury
instruments. And the Treasury will default as soon as China
and the Saudis stop lending.

Thanks to the Republican administration.

Per the quotes above and yours, the bailouts will be paid for by
"printing money". In modern times, this term doesn't literally
mean printing greenbacks as it did 100 years ago when we were
still on the gold standard. In today's world, it means that an
auction - a virtual one - takes place when the Fed wants to
either sell or buy money. Thus, printing money is just a fancy
term for borrowing it, but has the rather nasty side-effect of
lowering the value of the dollar and creating inflation.

BTW, that I can tell, using SEC rules for what is called mark-to-
market accounting of assets and liabilities,the true culprit in
the credit crunch no matter who the guilty parties really are,
might result in some $5 trillion with a "T" just for Fannie and
Freddie and, by my amatuer accounting based on the best info I
can accumulate suggests that the all-up price of the presumed bi-
partisan bailout/rescue package advertised at $700-750B, maybe be
north of $2T, trillion again with a "T". However, we will never,
ever know.

Now, to play into your accusation, when Bush 43 took office, the
entire national debt was under $4.7T, It is widely advertised
today as around $9.1T but I have a written document I cannot
release that says BEFORE the most recent bailout,but after
Fannie/Freddie, the amount of just FOREIGN loans outstanding was
in the $16T range. That is so high I'd like to just put my head
in the sand, but sadly, cannot.

Good thing we owe it all to ourselves, huh? Ooops, at least $1T
of it is owed to China who, BTW, is the one that started the
snowball rolling downhill by literally contacting Henry Paulson
with an ultimatum - either back F & F with "the full faith and
credit of the United States" or we will dump your T-bills on the
world market in one fell swoop,fatally killing the dollar.

Now, just in case you don't believe in conspriacy theories, see
if you can either prove or refute this, I cannot do either.

Cheers!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"catpandaddy" done wrote:


"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"catpandaddy"
done wrote:


"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...

You need a bullet in your head.

And now you threaten violence and murder.

"The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood
of tyrants".

That quote refers to people in elected office though.

So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank Greenberg (not
the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?

Actually I am exempting people who simply post something on Usenet. You
actually threatened a simple Usenet poster (can't remember who at the
moment) with a bullet in the head, and all he did was say something you
disagreed with. That's just not defensible.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

"The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with
the blood of tyrants".

That quote refers to people in elected office though.

So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank
Greenberg (not the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?

I don't advocate violence but quotes like that, taken in
historical context, do refer to elected officials.

Also take into consideration that what started this threadlet, was that he
told a Usenet poster who said something he disagreed with that he deserved a
bullet in his head.

catpandaddy wrote:

"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"catpandaddy" done wrote:


"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message ,
"catpandaddy"
done wrote:


"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...

You need a bullet in your head.

And now you threaten violence and murder.

"The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood
of tyrants".

That quote refers to people in elected office though.

So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank Greenberg (not
the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?

Actually I am exempting people who simply post something on Usenet. You
actually threatened a simple Usenet poster (can't remember who at the
moment) with a bullet in the head, and all he did was say something you
disagreed with. That's just not defensible.

Nor is stupid cross posting, whether you started it or not.

--
lsmft