OT: Obama photo causes huge stir

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:01 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>That was just one rogue guy with the wrong advisors
>who really should have listened to his Dad.

All the congresspeople who rolled over to the lies in the first couple
of years bear a little responsiblity. The Republicans and other
people who are to this day trying to cover up the lies bear a lot of
responsiblity as well.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 11, 8:01 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> record number of consecutive quarters of
> >>>> economic growth
>
> >>> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
>
> >> There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case
> >> you missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case
> >> you missed it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that
> >> spending.
>
> > To be fair, the Repubs also spent like crazy.  However, when the GNP and
> > other indices were showing strong growth/performance, the media completely
> > and totally ignored it.  Now that a perfectly normal (and inevitable)
> > slowdown cycle has arrived, it's 24/7 DOOM & GLOOM.  Given the documented
> > bias of both the mainstream media and most of cable news and blogosphere,
> > it's hardly surprising.
>
> I'm most certainly NOT defending the disgraceful actions of the Republicans
> and their spending sprees which made teenage girls look conservative. But
> nevertheless there would be no spending without Democrat controlled
> Congressional approval and they more than signed up in that corner.- Hide quoted text -

Although both parties went to the trough in overriding the veto of the
farm bill. Neither party is immune from being bought by special
interests -- or even local interests. In Oregon, the farm bill means
that payments will continue to depressed logging counties, and salmon
fisherment will get disaster relief. I like to see these people make
it economically, but really, at some point people have to pack up and
leave an area or an industry. And I see no reason for paying money to
farmers who are making record profits. --- Jay Beattie.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f54daf10-229d-4a40-a4dc-09c5d227212c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 11:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > And being foreclosed on at record rates!... not exactly "ownership" in
> > > any sense... and personal debt is far higher than ever in history.
> >
> > So your position is that it is bad to own your own home?
>
> My position is that the period of "high ownership" was due to insane
> and unregulated lending policy.

Then by all means supply some sort of documentation to back that up. I did
see some excesses but the homes in this area in which I've talked to
representatives didn't show "insane and unregulated lending policy" as the
reasons they were foreclosed on. In many cases people had gotten so fed up
with California politics they moved back east from whence they came in the
first place.

> The banks were not responsible for the money they lent, so
> they didn't care if the borrower could pay it back.

Look, if you've NEVER worked with lending institutions I suggest that you
simply don't repeat ignorant rants you've gotten from others who don't
understand what happened either.

> I can remember the days when you needed to put down 20%, and
> your payments could not exceed 30% of your gross.

By all means explain how that could possibly work in an area where a home
costs $600,000 for THE AVERAGE HOME.

> > > The low unemployment rates are due to the fact that there are no more
> > > unions and after your 6 months of unemployment benefits you are
> > > officially no longer unemployed.
> >
> > Wrong. You don't disappear from the roles until over a year. We actually
> > have had a long period of very low unemployment.
>
> "Benefits can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most States."
> http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp

Why are you referencing that? That is NOT information pertaining to when you
are dropped from the unemployment rolls. That is merely the time that you
can NORMALLY draw unemployment. And in case you missed it - that is likely
to be extended very soon.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Perhaps you've missed the news the last few years? We could have bought a
> country fair & square (as we used to back in the day... it wouldn't
> exactly
> be a banana republic though... maybe dates & figs?) for a whole lot less
> money than we've spent trying to mold it. That wasn't a democrat or
> republican thing even. That was just one rogue guy with the wrong advisors
> who really should have listened to his Dad.

I suggest that you're entirely incorrect in the main point - that we
shouldn't be in Iraq. I think that within 20 years Bush will be hailed for
his actions in overview while not in detail. Placing a working democracy in
the middle of all of those strongman ruled countries will be seen as a
turning point in the middle east.

> At least Johnson had the "Great Society" which he'd hoped, incorrectly, to
> be his legacy. The present administration will be blamed for inflation,
> devaluation of the dollar, and an ongoing pacification that's already gone
> on far longer than anticipated by even the scariest scenarios at the time.

> | > Due to job seekers giving up.
> |
> | Then you DO have a reference for that statement?
>
> Everybody plays with statistics. That's why you want to avoid something
> more
> tangible when you're in office. Makes it a lot easier to manipulate things
> and get away with it.

The leftists simply lie about the employment rates which have been almost
unbelievably good. Note: if you want to see them even better, watch what
happens in the Midwest if coal-to-fuel programs get going.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> BTW, I watch very little TV, but I try to never miss David Letterman's
> "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." It 'stars" George W. Bush,
> with actual footage of bumbling, inarticulate, nonsensical speech.
> It's invariably hilarious.

The scary part about Obama is that he isn't bumbling - he is a complete and
utter puppet of someone and when he isn't reading speeches he demonstrates
that he is really stupid and not simply inarticulate.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> We have a system of government that's designed to minimize the amount of
> damage that any one person can do.

Luckily that's true. At this point however we're sort of in trouble - just
like we should never have had a Republican President with a Republican
controlled house and senate, we shouldn't have a Democrat President with
Democrat controlled house and senate. It is absolutely asking for trouble.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what happens if Obama gets
elected and tries to turn this country into the Communist capital as his
backer Soros and Moveon.org really want.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Perhaps you've missed the news the last few years? We could have
>> bought a country fair & square (as we used to back in the day... it
>> wouldn't exactly
>> be a banana republic though... maybe dates & figs?) for a whole lot
>> less money than we've spent trying to mold it. That wasn't a
>> democrat or republican thing even. That was just one rogue guy with
>> the wrong advisors who really should have listened to his Dad.
>
> I suggest that you're entirely incorrect in the main point - that we
> shouldn't be in Iraq. I think that within 20 years Bush will be
> hailed for his actions in overview while not in detail. Placing a
> working democracy in the middle of all of those strongman ruled
> countries will be seen as a turning point in the middle east.

Unless Obama wins and completely undoes all the success in, oh, about 4
months.

>> At least Johnson had the "Great Society" which he'd hoped,
>> incorrectly, to be his legacy. The present administration will be
>> blamed for inflation, devaluation of the dollar, and an ongoing
>> pacification that's already gone on far longer than anticipated by
>> even the scariest scenarios at the time.
>
>>>> Due to job seekers giving up.
>>>
>>> Then you DO have a reference for that statement?
>>
>> Everybody plays with statistics. That's why you want to avoid
>> something more
>> tangible when you're in office. Makes it a lot easier to manipulate
>> things and get away with it.
>
> The leftists simply lie about the employment rates which have been
> almost unbelievably good. Note: if you want to see them even better,
> watch what happens in the Midwest if coal-to-fuel programs get going.

Won't happen until after the election...and even then, not with a Republican
in office.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> BTW, I watch very little TV, but I try to never miss David
>> Letterman's "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." It 'stars"
>> George W. Bush, with actual footage of bumbling, inarticulate,
>> nonsensical speech. It's invariably hilarious.
>
> The scary part about Obama is that he isn't bumbling - he is a
> complete and utter puppet of someone and when he isn't reading
> speeches he demonstrates that he is really stupid and not simply
> inarticulate.

Wonder when Letterman will put together a highlight reel of Obama stammering
and stumbling?!?

Oh, wait. Doesn't fit the template.

Never mind.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 11:05 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > We have a system of government that's designed to minimize the amount of
> > damage that any one person can do.
>
> Luckily that's true. At this point however we're sort of in trouble - just
> like we should never have had a Republican President with a Republican
> controlled house and senate, we shouldn't have a Democrat President with
> Democrat controlled house and senate. It is absolutely asking for trouble.
>
> On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what happens if Obama gets
> elected and tries to turn this country into the Communist capital as his
> backer Soros and Moveon.org really want.

It is the first time I hear that Soros and Move on are communists. Can
you send me the reference? I doubt that Soros has any sympathy for
Marxism and never heard any reference about Marxism by move-on. If
your definition is that anyone critical of GWB is a communist, then
70% of the US falls under that definition. However, that is not the
acceptable definition. BTW, Marxists, neoMarxists and other left wing
groups and entities do not consider Soros, move-on or Obama to
represent their ideology or interests. I consider myself a socialist,
and don't know of any position that Obama has taken that represents my
ideology or way of thinking. He is, very articulate and well educated
and obviously intelligent. However, I haven't heard a single thing
that would lead me to believe that he is a socialist of any sort.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> watch what happens in the Midwest if coal-to-fuel programs get going.
>
> Won't happen until after the election...and even then, not with a
> Republican in office.

Most of those companies lining up are WELL funded and they're are quite a
few of them putting together several different kinds of programs. GE is
behind one very nice system of converting coal almost directly to gas.

The government hasn't any real say in this and the finances of
coal-to-liquid-fuel are now so good with the dumb-ass Arabs cutting their
own throats that we're likely to see a major shift in sourcing in the not
very distant future.

 

[Ron Ruff]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > I can remember the days when you needed to put down 20%, and
> > your payments could not exceed 30% of your gross.
>
> By all means explain how that could possibly work in an area where a home
> costs $600,000 for THE AVERAGE HOME.

How do you think the price of houses got so high? This doesn't "just
happen"! That $600k house probably cost ~$150k to build... the rest is
specualtion and land appreciation... which can only increase in
proportion to the number of people who can afford it... or in recent
history, you don't even have to afford it. The price of real estate
would be much lower if credit was not so loose... and all the people
wanting to buy a house to *live in* would be better off.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Jun 11, 11:36 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > The scary part about Obama is that he isn't bumbling - he is a
> > complete and utter puppet of someone and when he isn't reading
> > speeches he demonstrates that he is really stupid and not simply
> > inarticulate.

Please...!... Have you paid any attention W in the last 8 years? The
guy who needs to have Cheney with him at the 9/11 hearings and debates
with a "wire"? And who is Obama a puppet of?

> Wonder when Letterman will put together a highlight reel of Obama stammering
> and stumbling?!?
>
> Oh, wait.  Doesn't fit the template.

I'll wait for a reel of him peeing his pants and staring into space
for 10 minutes if/when the country is under attack...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>> watch what happens in the Midwest if coal-to-fuel programs get
>>> going.
>>
>> Won't happen until after the election...and even then, not with a
>> Republican in office.
>
> Most of those companies lining up are WELL funded and they're are
> quite a few of them putting together several different kinds of
> programs. GE is behind one very nice system of converting coal almost
> directly to gas.

But if McCain is President, then the Dems will legislatively block anything
that will help solve the energy problem and/or improve the economy.

Just watch.

> The government hasn't any real say in this and the finances of
> coal-to-liquid-fuel are now so good with the dumb-ass Arabs cutting
> their own throats that we're likely to see a major shift in sourcing
> in the not very distant future.

Unless they pass laws to prevent it. Won't surprise me a bit.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 11, 10:38 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:05 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > We have a system of government that's designed to minimize the amount of
> > > damage that any one person can do.
>
> > Luckily that's true. At this point however we're sort of in trouble - just
> > like we should never have had a Republican President with a Republican
> > controlled house and senate, we shouldn't have a Democrat President with
> > Democrat controlled house and senate. It is absolutely asking for trouble.
>
> > On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what happens if Obama gets
> > elected and tries to turn this country into the Communist capital as his
> > backer Soros and Moveon.org really want.
>
> It is the first time I hear that Soros and Move on are communists. Can
> you send me the reference? I doubt that Soros has any sympathy for
> Marxism and never heard any reference about Marxism by move-on. If
> your definition is that anyone critical of GWB is a communist, then
> 70% of the US falls under that definition. However, that is not the
> acceptable definition. BTW, Marxists, neoMarxists and other left wing
> groups and entities do not consider Soros, move-on or Obama to
> represent their ideology or interests. I consider myself a socialist,
> and don't know of any position that Obama has taken that represents my
> ideology or way of thinking. He is, very articulate and well educated
> and obviously intelligent. However, I haven't heard a single thing
> that would lead me to believe that he is a socialist of any sort.

In February of this year, 81% of the US was communist. I love the way
TK throws around the communist label. It gives me fond memories of
the duck and cover days. I don't fear commi attack because they would
not want to damage their valuable collateral. I think it is more
likely that we will see a commi repo action -- sort of like the French
and Mexico. We will see armed debt collectors storming the treasury
and till-tapping the IRS. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[A Muzi]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> In February of this year, 81% of the US was communist.

Yeah, I knew that from watching primary election results. It's nice to
see someone else citing it.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And who is Obama a puppet of?

Ain't that something we all want to know?

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=11422&PN=1

"My School In Indonesia Was Christian" - NOT EXACTLY,

you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies
for making faces (check your own book).

February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama
recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them from
memory with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully
uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described
the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'
This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says
'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash
troubling facts.'

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Jun 11, 2:08 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > And who is Obama a puppet of?
>
> Ain't that something we all want to know?
>
> http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=11422&PN=1
>
> "My School In Indonesia Was Christian" - NOT EXACTLY,
>
> you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies
> for making faces (check your own book).
>
> February 28, 2008.  Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:  Mr. Obama
> recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them from
> memory with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully
> uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described
> the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'
> This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says
> 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash
> troubling facts.'

??? He is a puppet of... Muslims?! Now that is a powerful group in the
US for sure! This is just plain crazy Tom... there is no way you could
be stupid enough to believe that... is there? Does BS like this
actually get traction on idiot talk show rants?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Ron Ruff
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jun 11, 2:08 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > And who is Obama a puppet of?
>>
>> Ain't that something we all want to know?
>>
>> http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=11422&PN=1
>>
>> "My School In Indonesia Was Christian" - NOT EXACTLY,
>>
>> you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies
>> for making faces (check your own book).
>>
>> February 28, 2008.  Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago:  Mr. Obama
>> recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them from
>> memory with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully
>> uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described
>> the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'
>> This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says
>> 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash
>> troubling facts.'
>
>??? He is a puppet of... Muslims?! Now that is a powerful group in the
>US for sure! This is just plain crazy Tom... there is no way you could
>be stupid enough to believe that... is there?

Yes, he does. It's sad.

>Does BS like this
>actually get traction on idiot talk show rants?

Yes it does. It's scary.

 

[Brian Huntley]

On Jun 11, 11:31 am, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > [Obama is
> > the most-gifted speaker we've seen in quite some time, and, in DC, style
> > *does* matter and *does* get things done. Substance is debated endlessly.
> > But gifted speakers can motivate people and draw them together.
>
> Well, I'd feel a lot better about him if he were running for Poet
> Laureate instead of President.

One of your poet laureates wrote "Deliverance." They're a tricky
bunch.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ab116386-d4fe-4c00-9857-d03fe8087512@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> ??? He is a puppet of... Muslims?!

If you're not going to be serious there's no point in discussing it. Obama
plainly doesn't have the intelligence himself to be a President. And the
people he hangs around with aren't trustworthy of themselves. What's more,
he obviously likes to distort or even blatantly lie about his past. Mind
you, that's not an uncommon trait, but not acceptable in Presidents unless
there are some serious interest involved.