we the people,that means, all americans dems. an reps an ya, you libs too..are no longer in charge of our own economy.that now belongs to the FSB.educate yourselves!!! it is a globalist banker that is now running all firms in this country.April 2, 2009, Now, that is a day that will live in infamy.....
111th congress does not allow opposing bills or amendments to be submitted.Thank you speaker Pelosi. If reacting to economic crisis by giving American sovreignty to unelected foreign central bankers who are not accountable to the people of these United States.You the DNC are to be held just as accountable as all who helped to orcheastrate this massive deconstruction of the Greatest country ever in the history of mankind.And for that I'm sure you are very proud of all those that DNC represents.
It makes them guys who have to deal with morons for a living. At a time when we have to work together and make a lot of intelligent decisions and do it with as little time-wasting as possible.
We're in uncharted territory and we either get it right and get it done or the world economy goes down the tubes.
How long will it ake you to find a "talking point" somewhere, to cut and paste, and then claim victory after you change the subject and call another name?
So, let me get this straight. The biggest economic disaster of our times was caused by excessive borrowing and spending, right? Our "fix" is to increase borrowing to historic levels to get consumers to spend more? Wait, I am totally confused. Didn't B.O. and Geithner just implore the banks to be less prudent than they might be in a normal economy? All to fix a problem caused by banks being less prudent than they should have been in the first place? Hey, who cares? the stock market is up!
Spending Billions is Overreacting, we would be better off if the free market worked its way out of it, Sen. McCain said it best, this is Generational Theft.
He's given you a recovering world economy and a restoration of America's place in the world, as a country that is admired rather than one that is held in contempt.
A one-party system would be worse than a two-party system.
The Founding Fathers wanted a no-party system. Just people debating intelligently. But it's hard to beat a political party using no party. (It's not impossible. Ross Perot almost did it.)
But the Democratic Party is a democratic party. Anybody can join the Democratic Party and change it. That's democracy.
Has the Democratic Party ever changed at all? It went from being the party of slavery to being the party of the Bill of Rights and civil rights for all Americans! That's change we can believe in.
Obama is living up to his promises. Kind of an understatement.
What is so shocking is that I don't think we've ever had a politician before who has not only kept his promises, but whose campaign seems to have been a simple and straightforward explanation of what he was going to do.
When you're doing the right thing and you can explain it in a way people can understand, I guess you don't even have to go in to "campaign mode" as Bush Sr. used to call it.
There are a few single word quotes that are terrible or improper to say and would destroy a politician, regardless of context. This doesn't seem to be one of them. Please try not to overreact to overreaction accusations, because it makes us all look like crazy lefty idiots.
Continuing to play into this left/right "us vs. them" paradigm is the prime reason the end result for the people is always ZERO. True change never manifests because the system we operate in is fundamentally flawed and corrupt.
The problems in our world are NOT political, they are TECHNICAL! And our failure to recognize this collectively is the error which continues to deliver us into the grips of establishment ideologies that are extremely despotic and no longer relevant.
What I expressed does not require one to subscribe to any fanciful conspiratorial notions, especially in respect to individuals such as Alex Jones.
What is required is a personal and collective capacity to recognize that our society is based upon artificial constructs of control which are simply unsustainable.
We have an establishment which perpetuates and conditions destruction and division rather than creation and unification and THAT in my mind justifies our unwavering contempt!
Thats kind of funny seeing as how the 90's created more millionairs than any other decade (under a democrat). yet over the last 8 years over 15% more of the money went from the poor/middle class to the upper (under Republicans).
I ask because it's common knowledge that the technology revolution created the wealth, just wondering if you think Clinton was behind the technology revolution.
Kings were vicious dictators who tortured people. So Bush was moving in that direction, but no. He had not reached full king status by 2008.
Clinton did not micro-manage the U.S. economy. What he did was create an environment in which entrepreneurs could flourish. He probably should have blocked the creation of a behemoth like AIG by opposing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
The British royal family are completely harmless. Kings in the 18th century and before were torturing and beheading people and waging civil war. They were dictators.
The current royal family are buskers for tourists. They do a dance and people put change in a hat for them. They're not "kings" in the sense of being un-elected heads of state ruling by force and terror.
In his reverence for the U.S. Constitution (he, too, people forget, was a constitutional law professor), President Clinton was the very opposite of a king.
So, doing nothing is status quo for these guys. Nothing has apparently changed with them. Perhaps when they see our country in complete ruin, it just might occur to him, that maybe, just maybe there's a problem somewhere. THEN they'll come out with a feasible alternative...Nah!
The stance (non-reactive) of "it'll work itself out" is not an option for a dynamic situation. Reacting is good if the other options are non-reaction or over-reaction... but bad if the other option is: being proactive. Being proactive can either prevent the problem in the first place, or approach the problem as an opportunity for betterment.
There's something that matters even more than debt--and that is whether or not you have a job.
If you have a big balance on your credit card, should you put gas on your credit card so you can get to work or save money and just sit at home on the couch all day?
The technique the Republican Congress tried was spending money like a drunken sailor. The technique Bush used was declaring multiple wars.
The technique Obama is using is assisting the private sector in creating a thoroughly modern highly productive economy with a healthy, educated workforce. He wants to prepare for the industries of the 21st century, rather than clinging to the industries and the energy sources of the 19th century.
A man in debt goes to work. A nation does the same thing.
The best way to avoid bankruptcy is to reassure our creditors. And the best way to do that is to go back to what we were doing from 1945 until 1977: paying down our debt.
The best way to that is to have a strong economy.
And the best way to that is to pass a stimulus package (done) and then just get the banking industry fixed -quickly-, (He's working on it.) so that the private sector can get back to doing what it loves to do (generate profits).
He's a law professor. He has no interest in controlling the banks -whatsoever-. He'll get them back on their feet and immediately sell them to the highest bidder as soon as they're out of bed and walking on their own and eating solid food.
The best way to avoid national bankruptcy is to vote Democratic. That's what the past eight years suggest.
Wait, the banks in question never wanted the TARP monies. They were doing just fine. They didn't need and didn't want the money but Bush forced it on them.
Obama is refusing to let go of control of these banks. Do you approve?
The banks are going to take their vegetables. And they're going to -like- 'em!
Or no dessert!
I said up above that he's going to sell them as soon as they can function. What's the objection?
Hopefully, a second party will emerge some day that isn't just providing corporate welfare for the idle rich among its big contributors, but that actually provides an alternative and that sometimes offers better ideas.
"The banks are going to take their vegetables. And they're going to -like- 'em!... Or no desert!" Sounds dictatorial.
But you never addressed the issue. Some banks, who didn't need TARP monies, were forced into taking them. They want to give the monies back but Obama is refusing so he can continue to control them.
"...he's going to sell them as soon as they can function." They didn't have problems functioning before the TARP monies and have been functioning fine since.
Having a party that lies constantly go up against a party that tells the truth is not really much of a two-party system.
The debates should be between two good proposals on every issue--not what we have now. The Democrats trying to inform and the Republicans trying to con their own supporters.
Bush did not Push nothing on the banks. One week Bush says the economy is strong, turns around and says the world is going to crash without a bailout. I have gone back and read everything on that TARP, Bush didn't force nothing. Bush did what the republicans do all the time. Fear Factor. He bailed out AIG saying if no money comes their way, CRASH. Same with the banks, no money come their way, CRASH. Bush made it sound like we were going to be hit with a nuke if bailout didn't happen. FEAR
The Retardicans are on the receiving end of Rush Limbaugh's teabagging.
ReligulousAoR9 2 years ago
that was fantastic .... haha you have be rolling on the floor right now never thought i would see something that funny hahaha ... HILARIOUS
Chick6517 2 years ago
we the people,that means, all americans dems. an reps an ya, you libs too..are no longer in charge of our own economy.that now belongs to the FSB.educate yourselves!!! it is a globalist banker that is now running all firms in this country.April 2, 2009, Now, that is a day that will live in infamy.....
99kw 2 years ago
111th congress does not allow opposing bills or amendments to be submitted.Thank you speaker Pelosi. If reacting to economic crisis by giving American sovreignty to unelected foreign central bankers who are not accountable to the people of these United States.You the DNC are to be held just as accountable as all who helped to orcheastrate this massive deconstruction of the Greatest country ever in the history of mankind.And for that I'm sure you are very proud of all those that DNC represents.
99kw 2 years ago
this is just stupid... really it is is quite dumb!
prepeesee 2 years ago
Why does the DNC fear Er'ic Cantor?
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
Sweetie they don't fear him. He's a Category 5 Moron.
rakrobn 2 years ago
If he is a category 5 moron, what does that make DNC for spending money to counter him?
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
It makes them guys who have to deal with morons for a living. At a time when we have to work together and make a lot of intelligent decisions and do it with as little time-wasting as possible.
We're in uncharted territory and we either get it right and get it done or the world economy goes down the tubes.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
We're in uncharted territory and we either get it right and get it done or the world economy goes down the tubes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to get back to chartered territory. That means we withhold our money from the government until they come to their senses.
What are we doing lost, with a broken compass, in times like these. The old tried and true is what we need,
Obama's ideas are NOT what made this country great in the first place.
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
Yeah. That is why the DNC spends time effort and money to discredit him. They seem to think everyone is a category 5 moron.
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
Is that you Satan? idiot.
rakrobn 2 years ago
Typical childish retort from the left.
No substantive arguments, just childish name calling. Incapable of any spirited debate.
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
How long will it ake you to find a "talking point" somewhere, to cut and paste, and then claim victory after you change the subject and call another name?
GreatSatan1 2 years ago
So, let me get this straight. The biggest economic disaster of our times was caused by excessive borrowing and spending, right? Our "fix" is to increase borrowing to historic levels to get consumers to spend more? Wait, I am totally confused. Didn't B.O. and Geithner just implore the banks to be less prudent than they might be in a normal economy? All to fix a problem caused by banks being less prudent than they should have been in the first place? Hey, who cares? the stock market is up!
beauzackosta 2 years ago
even bush didnt say no..he said na-new na-new abbadaabadababada ptttft........Hey, at least is was *something*
fauxnewsfilth 2 years ago
RON PAUL/MARK SANFORD 2012
emr1028 2 years ago
Mark Sanford is a jackass.
rakrobn 2 years ago
Yet, with the economic stimulus passed, more layoffs and more people on the government programs. Great job Democrats!
CommonSenseJoe 2 years ago
Nothing but Theft!
Democrats are looting America dry.
psykosochul 2 years ago
hell yea taze that bitch
electric789 2 years ago
Spending Billions is Overreacting, we would be better off if the free market worked its way out of it, Sen. McCain said it best, this is Generational Theft.
nijadi 2 years ago
bored of these childish democrats vs republican back and forth games.cant really take these politicians seriously anymore.
jonz23m 2 years ago 2
my thoughts exactly
rainydays925 2 years ago
Both sides are selling us out. Its the statists fighting the statists.
JCJ77 2 years ago
Poorly done. The quote doesn't work too well.
kathicII 2 years ago
Invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan were a gross overreaction. Can't wait to see Obama's Vietnam fail.
y2knoproblem 2 years ago 2
The Republicans are turning into that toddler who is so overtired that screams no no matter what yes or no question you ask him.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
where those that stats of what Obama has givien us?
Greg78X 2 years ago
He's given you a recovering world economy and a restoration of America's place in the world, as a country that is admired rather than one that is held in contempt.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
the two party war in the us is a fuckin job cant people see that labels are just symbols of pride and only serve to divide
divide and conquer america you have been devided
farfetchedcat 2 years ago
farfetchedcat,
A one-party system would be worse than a two-party system.
The Founding Fathers wanted a no-party system. Just people debating intelligently. But it's hard to beat a political party using no party. (It's not impossible. Ross Perot almost did it.)
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
But the Democratic Party is a democratic party. Anybody can join the Democratic Party and change it. That's democracy.
Has the Democratic Party ever changed at all? It went from being the party of slavery to being the party of the Bill of Rights and civil rights for all Americans! That's change we can believe in.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
I have yet to see a Democrat say "Obama is living up to his promises."
Dllshockk 2 years ago
Obama is living up to his promises. Kind of an understatement.
What is so shocking is that I don't think we've ever had a politician before who has not only kept his promises, but whose campaign seems to have been a simple and straightforward explanation of what he was going to do.
When you're doing the right thing and you can explain it in a way people can understand, I guess you don't even have to go in to "campaign mode" as Bush Sr. used to call it.
You just explain it... and then do it.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
g-hamster. com/emails/
GhamsteR1940 2 years ago
Like the ad, but the quote is weak. As a Virginian, I know that Eric Cantor has said plenty of ridiculous things that would be more damning.
bobdog57 2 years ago
There are a few single word quotes that are terrible or improper to say and would destroy a politician, regardless of context. This doesn't seem to be one of them. Please try not to overreact to overreaction accusations, because it makes us all look like crazy lefty idiots.
fizxgod 2 years ago
Continuing to play into this left/right "us vs. them" paradigm is the prime reason the end result for the people is always ZERO. True change never manifests because the system we operate in is fundamentally flawed and corrupt.
The problems in our world are NOT political, they are TECHNICAL! And our failure to recognize this collectively is the error which continues to deliver us into the grips of establishment ideologies that are extremely despotic and no longer relevant.
VeracityMedia 2 years ago
Alex Jones fan?
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
What I expressed does not require one to subscribe to any fanciful conspiratorial notions, especially in respect to individuals such as Alex Jones.
What is required is a personal and collective capacity to recognize that our society is based upon artificial constructs of control which are simply unsustainable.
We have an establishment which perpetuates and conditions destruction and division rather than creation and unification and THAT in my mind justifies our unwavering contempt!
VeracityMedia 2 years ago
Thats kind of funny seeing as how the 90's created more millionairs than any other decade (under a democrat). yet over the last 8 years over 15% more of the money went from the poor/middle class to the upper (under Republicans).
yeah, they are the same...really.
rdrakken 2 years ago
Are Clinton and Bush Kings?
I ask because it's common knowledge that the technology revolution created the wealth, just wondering if you think Clinton was behind the technology revolution.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
I think what Loose is saying is that technology just gets a little more innovative when there's a Democrat in the White House.
Probably true.
Part of it is just that the Bush administration was so strongly anti-science.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
So you think they are Kings?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Kings were not like the British royal family.
Kings were vicious dictators who tortured people. So Bush was moving in that direction, but no. He had not reached full king status by 2008.
Clinton did not micro-manage the U.S. economy. What he did was create an environment in which entrepreneurs could flourish. He probably should have blocked the creation of a behemoth like AIG by opposing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Kings were not like the British royal family? Was that a Freudian slip?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
The British royal family are completely harmless. Kings in the 18th century and before were torturing and beheading people and waging civil war. They were dictators.
The current royal family are buskers for tourists. They do a dance and people put change in a hat for them. They're not "kings" in the sense of being un-elected heads of state ruling by force and terror.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Completely harmless? Why is Canada still printing the Queens head on it's coins? Are you to suggest that Canadians are doing it with free will?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
I hate kings.
In his reverence for the U.S. Constitution (he, too, people forget, was a constitutional law professor), President Clinton was the very opposite of a king.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Weren't Kings notorious for their sexual escapades?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Yes, with the exception of Bush and Cheney who tortured people, they made American Presidents look like choir boys.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
LOL, that was the most caviler attempt to change the topic.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
So you believe Clinton was the very opposite of a king yet you concede that Clinton has a trait that is synonymous with Kings.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
So, doing nothing is status quo for these guys. Nothing has apparently changed with them. Perhaps when they see our country in complete ruin, it just might occur to him, that maybe, just maybe there's a problem somewhere. THEN they'll come out with a feasible alternative...Nah!
Anomaly100 2 years ago 7
The stance (non-reactive) of "it'll work itself out" is not an option for a dynamic situation. Reacting is good if the other options are non-reaction or over-reaction... but bad if the other option is: being proactive. Being proactive can either prevent the problem in the first place, or approach the problem as an opportunity for betterment.
voyeurdug 2 years ago
Or you can fck it up even more. Ever heard of stop digging yourself even deeper?
LOL, it's humorous to me how to solve the doubling of the debt we should triple the doubling, Brilliance!
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Loose,
There's something that matters even more than debt--and that is whether or not you have a job.
If you have a big balance on your credit card, should you put gas on your credit card so you can get to work or save money and just sit at home on the couch all day?
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
If it gets to the point where all the only thing you spend on is gas and you have to go into debt for it there's other issues to deal with.
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Right. That's what he's doing. Dealing with all the issues that Bush left unaddressed.
If we stimulate the economy, the economy will wake up and go back to work and the machinery will begin to function again.
The way you pay off the national debt is with a strong economy. The way you pay off a credit card is by going to work.
But we can't pay off the national debt without a strong modern economy. Washington Republicans know this. They're just pretending to be stupid.
I hope.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago 2
Wait... The way you pay off the national debt is with debt?
Bush's way of paying off the debt was with more debt. Obama's way of paying off the debt was with... that's right more debt.
When do we stop going deeper into debt?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
The technique the Republican Congress tried was spending money like a drunken sailor. The technique Bush used was declaring multiple wars.
The technique Obama is using is assisting the private sector in creating a thoroughly modern highly productive economy with a healthy, educated workforce. He wants to prepare for the industries of the 21st century, rather than clinging to the industries and the energy sources of the 19th century.
A man in debt goes to work. A nation does the same thing.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
But military funding was only what 20-25% of the budget? All the other funding increased as well.
Do you approve of Obama refusing to receive unwanted Tarp monies so that he can continue to control the banks? Like a King as you will?
A man in debt can also go into bankruptcy, as we all know too well by now. Could our nation go into bankruptcy?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
The best way to avoid bankruptcy is to reassure our creditors. And the best way to do that is to go back to what we were doing from 1945 until 1977: paying down our debt.
The best way to that is to have a strong economy.
And the best way to that is to pass a stimulus package (done) and then just get the banking industry fixed -quickly-, (He's working on it.) so that the private sector can get back to doing what it loves to do (generate profits).
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Debt almost doubled between 1945 and 1977.
:scratching head: Are you suggesting it's not possible to pay down a debt in a bad economy?
The best way to do that is with economic fascism?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
He's a law professor. He has no interest in controlling the banks -whatsoever-. He'll get them back on their feet and immediately sell them to the highest bidder as soon as they're out of bed and walking on their own and eating solid food.
The best way to avoid national bankruptcy is to vote Democratic. That's what the past eight years suggest.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
Wait, the banks in question never wanted the TARP monies. They were doing just fine. They didn't need and didn't want the money but Bush forced it on them.
Obama is refusing to let go of control of these banks. Do you approve?
Are you suggesting one party rule?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
The banks are going to take their vegetables. And they're going to -like- 'em!
Or no dessert!
I said up above that he's going to sell them as soon as they can function. What's the objection?
Hopefully, a second party will emerge some day that isn't just providing corporate welfare for the idle rich among its big contributors, but that actually provides an alternative and that sometimes offers better ideas.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
"The banks are going to take their vegetables. And they're going to -like- 'em!... Or no desert!" Sounds dictatorial.
But you never addressed the issue. Some banks, who didn't need TARP monies, were forced into taking them. They want to give the monies back but Obama is refusing so he can continue to control them.
"...he's going to sell them as soon as they can function." They didn't have problems functioning before the TARP monies and have been functioning fine since.
Do you approve?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Having a party that lies constantly go up against a party that tells the truth is not really much of a two-party system.
The debates should be between two good proposals on every issue--not what we have now. The Democrats trying to inform and the Republicans trying to con their own supporters.
ReliableInsider 2 years ago
So you do approve of a one party rule. Where more than half the country has no representation. Interesting the founding fathers called that tyranny.
Did Obama con his supporters?
Did Democrats in the Senate and the House con their supporters?
LooseLatitude 2 years ago
Bush did not Push nothing on the banks. One week Bush says the economy is strong, turns around and says the world is going to crash without a bailout. I have gone back and read everything on that TARP, Bush didn't force nothing. Bush did what the republicans do all the time. Fear Factor. He bailed out AIG saying if no money comes their way, CRASH. Same with the banks, no money come their way, CRASH. Bush made it sound like we were going to be hit with a nuke if bailout didn't happen. FEAR
shitstepper 2 years ago