Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract you from the collapse...

InDeep wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> InDeep wrote: >> >>> You should see the actual wording that Paulson and his legion of doom >>> had in the bill. They insisted on having NO oversight, and no review, >>> and no ability to challenge what he and his bastards wanted to do. It >>> was Machiavellian what he wanted to do of historic proportions, >>> undermining the very existence of our country and constitution, warped >>> as we are. Paulson would have set us back 200 years. He should be >>> arrested and jailed for trying to pull what he and his assmunch >>> associates wanted to do. And Bush would be impeached if we didn't have >>> an election coming. Thank god we are finally done with this moron. Now >>> all we have to do is make sure the republicans lose and lose badly. >>> Enough is fucking enough of GWBush. >>> >>> >> Giving Bear Stearns Bank a bailout was vital - otherwise the financial >> system and the thing that unkind people call the "credit/money bubble", >> would have collapsed. >> >> Bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was also vital - otherwise the >> financial system would have collapsed. Senator Dodd and and Senator >> Obama were not paid a fortune by Fannie and Freddie for nothing. >> >> > > LOL. The real quandary for the political elite from any party is to come to the > realization that there is a finite market to grow up & into and then you hit a wall. > > It's not an ever-expanding universe, as was the car salesman's' pitch, eventually > all the available market is tapped and there is nowhere else to go but to feed > inwardly on your own young or in this case, fuck the homeowner and tax payer once, > and then come back and rape them again and again. The 'securitization' of debt and other > financial schemes are only now being understood by us mere mortals, as we try to > either take yet another ass pounding from GWBush, or finally say stop, I'm bleeding > you'll have to give me a break for a while. > > GW's rating is as low as it's ever been, history will not be kind to this complete > flaming asshole. Our country has to stop living by keywords uttered by statistically > driven politicians, and using religion to run the government. We're in as deep of > shit as Iran, only dressed up in 'christian' values. Most of these people prove to > be the least informed, the sad part is Iran knows it's all bullshit, here in the US > people volunteer to be and stay ignorant. > > > > >> And bailing out AIG was vital to - otherwise, again, the financial >> system would have collapsed. >> >> And now all the "bad housing debt" of /all/ the financial services >> companies must be taken up by the government - otherwise the financial >> system will collapse. >> >> As to that asshole Bush: >> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 >> -- originally published in 1999, remind me who was Prez in 1999? >> >> > > Yes, we actually had a balanced budget, something scientists say is impossible > despite it having already been proven to indeed be possible. > > I didn't follow up this point: Clinton may have balanced his budget, but he left behind toxic waste for future generations: One person seems to have escaped blame for the current financial crisis. He's the same man who should shoulder much of the blame for 9/11 - William Jefferson Clinton. For it was under Clinton that the foolish proposals to invite sub-prime borrowers to borrow way in excess of what they could afford were devised. A piece <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1>; from the New York Times in 1999 - written 9 years ago this week - noted that the rationale behind Clinton's foolhardy policy was, as ever, politically correct claptrap. Clinton wanted to make sure his chums in the black and Hispanic communities finally became homeowners, even though they couldn't ever afford the repayments. Read the piece: it is prescient. And it reminds us quite how irresponsible Clinton was. "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidised corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s". If Clinton had spent less time being given a helping hand in the Oval Office by his interns and more time governing effectively, America wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 and its economy wouldn't be facing meltdown today. So let's not hear quite so much cant from the left as they dance on the grave of capitalism. Capitalism, free-market economics and the banking system will survive this crisis. Bill Clinton's reputation should not. http://donalblaney.blogspot.com/2008/10/history-lesson-for-leftists.html ;o) -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

On Oct 1, 5:52 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > InDeep wrote: > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > >> InDeep wrote: [SNIP] Y'all been reading too much of the opinionated news from "broadcasters" pretending to be journalists and forgetting the facts. Clinton's response to earlier terrorist attacks was to launch a couple of cruise missiles and call it a day. Not to mention he also dismantled the foreign operatives in favor of spy satellites. The issue of subprime mortgages isn't so much a Clinton issue, but one of the entire system ignoring their fiduciary duty. The sad thing is that today's congress critter is more inclined to do the wrong thing if it will get him/her more votes. If I lived in California, I'd vote Pelosi out of office. What a Maroon! I bet she probably could have worked for Informix Marketing had she not decided on a life of politics. As to the UK... HSBC makes the majority of their money from their US operations. So what does that tell you? -G

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 1, 5:52 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> InDeep wrote: > [SNIP] > > Y'all been reading too much of the opinionated news from > "broadcasters" pretending to be journalists and forgetting the facts. > > Clinton's response to earlier terrorist attacks was to launch a couple > of cruise missiles and call it a day. Not to mention he also > dismantled the foreign operatives in favor of spy satellites. > > The issue of subprime mortgages isn't so much a Clinton issue, but one > of the entire system ignoring their fiduciary duty. > A president can do only so much, it takes accomplices to help to do a lot of the financial mess, and I find it hard to believe any president has a full grasp of what's going on, geez, he's only one man, not god. > The sad thing is that today's congress critter is more inclined to do > the wrong thing if it will get him/her more votes. > true > If I lived in California, I'd vote Pelosi out of office. What a > Maroon! I bet she probably could have worked for Informix Marketing > had she not decided on a life of politics. > True true, she could sponsor Botox too. > As to the UK... HSBC makes the majority of their money from their US > operations. So what does that tell you? > > -G Clit-uhn, as they pronounce it in New Jersey, didn't leave on good terms which made it easy for GW to get in. Al Gore suffered the sins of Bill, and bad coaching, but Bill has great charm--except lately he needs to up his fiber intake, kinda cranky. Even the most ardent republicans find it hard not to like him, and even now, his teflon mojo is still woikin'. It was really the kooky religious right that went after him and wasted a lot of money and consciousness on the useless pursuit of Whitewater, geez what a waste of resources. During Bill's tenure our country was a whole lot less internet, a whole lot less communication, a whole lot more willing to believe sound bites and to that extent an even higher amount of religious right-wing nonsense pecking at Bill. Even TV was still cable and rabbit-ears, still limited press compared to what we have today, and more willing to filter news than they do today. The internet has changed a lot of the way the press works. People are starting to get more informed about the issues but still a long way to go. Despite some of his mistakes, Clinton had a balanced budget, and like Gumby said, he really did come close to taking out some of the terrorists on the down low. Today Bill searches for relevancy, but he would be re-elected in a landslide if he were able to run again, Obama would be irrelevant up against Slick Willy.

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > The sad thing is that today's congress critter is more inclined to do > the wrong thing if it will get him/her more votes. > "The sad thing is that today's congress critter is more inclined to do what the people he represents want, rather than what other people who know better than the majority, want." -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

-----Original Message----- From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list-bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of InDeep Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:07 PM To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract you fromthe collapse... Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > On Oct 1, 5:52 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: >> InDeep wrote: >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> InDeep wrote: > [SNIP] > > Y'all been reading too much of the opinionated news from > "broadcasters" pretending to be journalists and forgetting the facts. > > Clinton's response to earlier terrorist attacks was to launch a couple > of cruise missiles and call it a day. Not to mention he also > dismantled the foreign operatives in favor of spy satellites. > > The issue of subprime mortgages isn't so much a Clinton issue, but one > of the entire system ignoring their fiduciary duty. > A president can do only so much, it takes accomplices to help to do a lot of the financial mess, and I find it hard to believe any president has a full grasp of what's going on, geez, he's only one man, not god. > The sad thing is that today's congress critter is more inclined to do > the wrong thing if it will get him/her more votes. > true > If I lived in California, I'd vote Pelosi out of office. What a > Maroon! I bet she probably could have worked for Informix Marketing > had she not decided on a life of politics. > True true, she could sponsor Botox too. > As to the UK... HSBC makes the majority of their money from their US > operations. So what does that tell you? > > -G Clit-uhn, as they pronounce it in New Jersey, didn't leave on good terms which made it easy for GW to get in. Al Gore suffered the sins of Bill, and bad coaching, but Bill has great charm--except lately he needs to up his fiber intake, kinda cranky. Even the most ardent republicans find it hard not to like him, and even now, his teflon mojo is still woikin'. It was really the kooky religious right that went after him and wasted a lot of money and consciousness on the useless pursuit of Whitewater, geez what a waste of resources. During Bill's tenure our country was a whole lot less internet, a whole lot less communication, a whole lot more willing to believe sound bites and to that extent an even higher amount of religious right-wing nonsense pecking at Bill. Even TV was still cable and rabbit-ears, still limited press compared to what we have today, and more willing to filter news than they do today. The internet has changed a lot of the way the press works. People are starting to get more informed about the issues but still a long way to go. Despite some of his mistakes, Clinton had a balanced budget, and like Gumby said, he really did come close to taking out some of the terrorists on the down low. Today Bill searches for relevancy, but he would be re-elected in a landslide if he were able to run again, Obama would be irrelevant up against Slick Willy. _______________________________________________ Informix-list mailing list Informix-list@iiug.org http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list I will never understand this worship of Clinton. He was an embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in front of the world. And then he made it even worse by telling those ridiculous, unbelievable, transparent lies - with Hillary standing by her man. And of course the "other side" had to express their righteous indignation to the world on the 6 o'clock news. When it comes to policy, isn't there a delay. I believe many of the pieces of the great 'Clinton' economy were already in place from previous administrations. He was smart enough not to screw it up and took full and sole credit for it. Nobody, so far, can give any specific examples of his policies that brought about his miracle. And some of his policies are coming back to bite us now. We know what the free trade agreement has done (and is still doing) for blue collar America. This was hailed as one of his greatest achievements - screwing the middle class that he promised to assist. Didn't he normalize trade with Walmart oops I mean China? In the beginning, we were gonna outsource to third world countries all of the drudgery that Americans are too proud to do now and keep the intellectual jobs. Since I'm in IT, I'm really glad that wasn't just a huge load! And these same people that worship Clinton forgive and forget his very public and adolescent transgressions but hold others to a higher moral standard. And religion - please - if you believe in God then you are considered some type of moron or superstitious fool. The only religion that is tolerated now is the kind you can cast off if it becomes inconvenient and put it back on again for the sake of appearances - just make up the rules as you go and don't offend anyone. Hillary ssid she would not let her religion get in the way of science. I believe embryonic stem cell research for Michael J. Fox was the science in vogue at that moment. I was eating lunch with some people who proudly proclaimed the new liberal mantra "I believe in science". I thought "cool maybe we can have an interesting discussion or debate - maybe I'll learn something". It was an election year so I mentioned supply-side economics. They had never heard of it. So much for economics - perhaps it's a discipline and not a science. I asked "Then how do you decide who gets your vote?" One of them voted for Clinton because he looked better in a suite; another voted for him because he resembled JFK. Apparently, its not necessary to apply any scientific process or logical reasoning to "believe in science". All you have to do is get on the bandwagon and make fun of "the religious right". I seem to be the only one to remember the 70's. The new ice age was coming because the greenhouse gasses were blocking the sun. So we put catalytic converters on vehicles and passed some progressive legislation that the automotive industry can never live up to. Same panic and rhetoric as now except they have completely reversed their position on climate change. (Which really bolsters my confidence in them 100 percent!) And Al Gore, who doesn't even practice what he preaches, has somehow become their leader. What I remember about the S&L bailout - those poor bankrupt bastards only got to keep one mansion and one mercedes. What a sacrifice! (What would happen if they were actually poor for one week or even a day?) And Bush has been an utter and complete dissappointment. Judging by his spending, he should've been in the pentagon. I won't even mention Iraq. I looked up inept in the dictionary and found a picture of Bush - Cheney was listed as a synonym. I hesitate to bail out "the economy" since we did it once before and "the economy" learned nothing from that fiasco other than how to fleece the taxpayers. But, I'm not sure we have any choice at this point. Isn't it supposed to be the democrats who want Big Brother to rescue them and don't mind paying obscenely high taxes? Perhaps we could get China to float us a few billion for this bailout? I can't reme

Campbell, John (GE Money) wrote: > I will never understand this worship of Clinton. He was an > embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in front of the world. A quick study of world leaders would quickly demonstrate that essentially all of them suffer from that same basic alpha behaviour. It would also demonstrate that the most moral leaders, shall we take Jimmy Carter for an example, don't fare all that well in the eyes of history. Churchill was a deeply flawed human being for which the British will be eternally grateful. In this country we might spend a fair amount of time discussing the flaws in Washington, Adams, and Jefferson if we had an electorate well enough educated to actually know more about them than fairy tales about chopping down cherry trees. I would further dispute the idea that there is anyone worshiping a Clinton: Either of them. There are just people with enough working synapses to remember when Republicans stood for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. When the difference between the two parties was not predicated on "tax-and-spend" versus "borrow-and-spend." I will gladly support any president with his pants around his ankles so long as I am not the one he is asking to bend over. Daniel Morgan

DA Morgan wrote: > Campbell, John (GE Money) wrote: > >> I will never understand this worship of Clinton. He was an >> embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in front of the world. > > A quick study of world leaders would quickly demonstrate that > essentially all of them suffer from that same basic alpha behaviour. It > would also demonstrate that the most moral leaders, shall we take Jimmy > Carter for an example, don't fare all that well in the eyes of history. > Churchill was a deeply flawed human being for which the British > will be eternally grateful. In this country we might spend a fair > amount of time discussing the flaws in Washington, Adams, and > Jefferson if we had an electorate well enough educated to actually > know more about them than fairy tales about chopping down cherry trees. > > I would further dispute the idea that there is anyone worshiping a > Clinton: Either of them. There are just people with enough working > synapses to remember when Republicans stood for a balanced budget and > fiscal responsibility. When the difference between the two parties was > not predicated on "tax-and-spend" versus "borrow-and-spend." > > I will gladly support any president with his pants around his ankles > so long as I am not the one he is asking to bend over. > > Daniel Morgan Here here! Bartender another pint--er whatever it is he's drinking!

Campbell, John (GE Money) wrote: > > I will never understand this worship of Clinton. Me either. I didn't particularly care for the guy, but care even less for the ultra right wing religious kooks we have in the center of this country, now even at this late date too dumb to know who to vote for without taking direction from their pastor or their republican car salesman. Interestingly enough the Palin debate takes place in the heart of kook and redneck country, St. Louis, Mo. Remember we had our Atty General John Ashcroft from Missouri. Washington University, where this latest round will go down is somewhat of an intellectual oasis, considered by many to be the Harvard of the midwest. Ironic that Palin will have her 15 mins here, on any other occasion she would be irrelevant. > He was an > embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in front of the world. > And then he made it even worse by telling those ridiculous, > unbelievable, transparent lies - with Hillary standing by her man. And > of course the "other side" had to express their righteous indignation to > the world on the 6 o'clock news. When it comes to policy, isn't there a > delay. I believe many of the pieces of the great 'Clinton' economy were > already in place from previous administrations. He was smart enough not > to screw it up and took full and sole credit for it. Nobody, so far, can > give any specific examples of his policies that brought about his > miracle. Yeah maybe so. But at least we could travel outside the US and not have to hang our heads in shame telling people where we came from. The rest of the world loved Bill. And they love Obama. GW? the laughing stock of the rest of the world, along with his sinister dr evil dickhead cheney. > And some of his policies are coming back to bite us now. We > know what the free trade agreement has done (and is still doing) for > blue collar America. This was hailed as one of his greatest achievements > - screwing the middle class that he promised to assist. Didn't he > normalize trade with Walmart oops I mean China? In the beginning, we > were gonna outsource to third world countries all of the drudgery that > Americans are too proud to do now and keep the intellectual jobs. Since > I'm in IT, I'm really glad that wasn't just a huge load! And these same > people that worship Clinton forgive and forget his very public and > adolescent transgressions but hold others to a higher moral standard. He's great to impersonate. > And religion - please - if you believe in God then you are considered > some type of moron or superstitious fool. The only religion that is > tolerated now is the kind you can cast off if it becomes inconvenient > and put it back on again for the sake of appearances - just make up the > rules as you go and don't offend anyone. Hillary ssid she would not let > her religion get in the way of science. I believe embryonic stem cell > research for Michael J. Fox was the science in vogue at that moment. I > was eating lunch with some people who proudly proclaimed the new liberal > mantra "I believe in science". I thought "cool maybe we can have an > interesting discussion or debate - maybe I'll learn something". It was > an election year so I mentioned supply-side economics. They had never > heard of it. So much for economics - perhaps it's a discipline and not a > science. I asked "Then how do you decide who gets your vote?" One of > them voted for Clinton because he looked better in a suite; another > voted for him because he resembled JFK. Apparently, its not necessary > to apply any scientific process or logical reasoning to "believe in > science". All you have to do is get on the bandwagon and make fun of > "the religious right". I seem to be the only one to remember the 70's. I remember the '70s... it was a good time... got really good smoke back then but a lot less potent than now, man the stuff now is wow. Or is it just me? *<8o) There is a profound difference between being religious and being stupid. You can be spiritual without being stupid too. You can be liberal, which under libertarian thinking makes you a "classical liberal" or basically someone who believes "live and let live". You want to worship and be religious? Great. Just don't cram it down other people's throat or run the government with it. > The new ice age was coming because the greenhouse gasses were blocking > the sun. So we put catalytic converters on vehicles and passed some > progressive legislation that the automotive industry can never live up > to. Same panic and rhetoric as now except they have completely reversed > their position on climate change. (Which really bolsters my confidence > in them 100 percent!) And Al Gore, who doesn't even practice what he > preaches, has somehow become their leader. What I remember about the S&L > bailout - those poor bankrupt bastards only got to keep one mansion and > one mercedes. What a sacrifice! (What would happen if they were actually > poor for one week or even a day?) And Bush has been an utter and > complete dissappointment. Judging by his spending, he should've been in > the pentagon. I won't even mention Iraq. FWIW, my son will NOT be going to IRAQ. I told him to skip on up to Canada until this ridiculous war is over if he is pressed into service. There is no honor in fighting and dieing in a war that has been COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS, and our boys are dieing FOR NOTHING BUT OIL AND RICH PEOPLE. They can sucker other people into this fight, my son will be sitting this one out. All that god and apple pie nonsense has ruined our national reputation, our standing, and made us look foolish and uneducated to the rest of the world. We could have handled IRAQ without lifting a single rifle. > I looked up inept in the > dictionary and found a picture of Bush - Cheney was listed as a synonym. Yep we almost done with these kooky right wing jackasses who want to go to war with everybody. > I hesitate to bail out "the economy" since we did it once before and > "the economy" learned nothing from that fiasco other than how to fleece > the taxpayers. But, I'm not sure we have any choice at this point. Isn't > it supposed to be the democrats who want Big Brother to rescue them and > don't mind paying obscenely high taxes? Perhaps we could get China to > float us a few billion for this bailout? I can't remember when we last > had a worthwhile presidential candidate. Just looking at all of the > current candidates gives me a feeling in the pit of my stomach that is > neither warm nor fuzzy. I am not a big fan of income taxes at all, the Huckster ( Mike Huckaby ) actually had the consumption-based tax thing right, he was just the wrong guy to articulate it, because he's part of those mid-west religious kooks that like to manipulate people with that religious twang. Very annoying, but he did get the consumption tax concept right. Imagine no income tax, that's an instant 27% pay raise, but most people think we can't run the country without income tax. The truth is the consumption tax would raise more money more fairly and would not have to be a political football every election.

Campbell, John (GE Money) wrote: > > I will never understand this worship of Clinton. Me either. I didn't particularly care for the guy, but care even less for the ultra right wing religious kooks we have in the center of this country, now even at this late date too dumb to know who to vote for without taking direction from their pastor or their republican car salesman. Interestingly enough the Palin debate takes place in the heart of kook and redneck country, St. Louis, Mo. Remember we had our Atty General John Ashcroft from Missouri. Washington University, where this latest round will go down is somewhat of an intellectual oasis, considered by many to be the Harvard of the midwest. Ironic that Palin will have her 15 mins here, on any other occasion she would be irrelevant. > He was an > embarrassment. He was caught with his pants down in front of the world. > And then he made it even worse by telling those ridiculous, > unbelievable, transparent lies - with Hillary standing by her man. And > of course the "other side" had to express their righteous indignation to > the world on the 6 o'clock news. When it comes to policy, isn't there a > delay. I believe many of the pieces of the great 'Clinton' economy were > already in place from previous administrations. He was smart enough not > to screw it up and took full and sole credit for it. Nobody, so far, can > give any specific examples of his policies that brought about his > miracle. Yeah maybe so. But at least we could travel outside the US and not have to hang our heads in shame telling people where we came from. The rest of the world loved Bill. And they love Obama. GW? the laughing stock of the rest of the world, along with his sinister dr evil dickhead cheney. > And some of his policies are coming back to bite us now. We > know what the free trade agreement has done (and is still doing) for > blue collar America. This was hailed as one of his greatest achievements > - screwing the middle class that he promised to assist. Didn't he > normalize trade with Walmart oops I mean China? In the beginning, we > were gonna outsource to third world countries all of the drudgery that > Americans are too proud to do now and keep the intellectual jobs. Since > I'm in IT, I'm really glad that wasn't just a huge load! And these same > people that worship Clinton forgive and forget his very public and > adolescent transgressions but hold others to a higher moral standard. He's great to impersonate. > And religion - please - if you believe in God then you are considered > some type of moron or superstitious fool. The only religion that is > tolerated now is the kind you can cast off if it becomes inconvenient > and put it back on again for the sake of appearances - just make up the > rules as you go and don't offend anyone. Hillary ssid she would not let > her religion get in the way of science. I believe embryonic stem cell > research for Michael J. Fox was the science in vogue at that moment. I > was eating lunch with some people who proudly proclaimed the new liberal > mantra "I believe in science". I thought "cool maybe we can have an > interesting discussion or debate - maybe I'll learn something". It was > an election year so I mentioned supply-side economics. They had never > heard of it. So much for economics - perhaps it's a discipline and not a > science. I asked "Then how do you decide who gets your vote?" One of > them voted for Clinton because he looked better in a suite; another > voted for him because he resembled JFK. Apparently, its not necessary > to apply any scientific process or logical reasoning to "believe in > science". All you have to do is get on the bandwagon and make fun of > "the religious right". I seem to be the only one to remember the 70's. I remember the '70s... it was a good time... got really good smoke back then but a lot less potent than now, man the stuff now is wow. Or is it just me? *<8o) There is a profound difference between being religious and being stupid. You can be spiritual without being stupid too. You can be liberal, which under libertarian thinking makes you a "classical liberal" or basically someone who believes "live and let live". You want to worship and be religious? Great. Just don't cram it down other people's throat or run the government with it. > The new ice age was coming because the greenhouse gasses were blocking > the sun. So we put catalytic converters on vehicles and passed some > progressive legislation that the automotive industry can never live up > to. Same panic and rhetoric as now except they have completely reversed > their position on climate change. (Which really bolsters my confidence > in them 100 percent!) And Al Gore, who doesn't even practice what he > preaches, has somehow become their leader. What I remember about the S&L > bailout - those poor bankrupt bastards only got to keep one mansion and > one mercedes. What a sacrifice! (What would happen if they were actually > poor for one week or even a day?) And Bush has been an utter and > complete dissappointment. Judging by his spending, he should've been in > the pentagon. I won't even mention Iraq. FWIW, my son will NOT be going to IRAQ. I told him to skip on up to Canada until this ridiculous war is over if he is pressed into service. There is no honor in fighting and dieing in a war that has been COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS, and our boys are dieing FOR NOTHING BUT OIL AND RICH PEOPLE. They can sucker other people into this fight, my son will be sitting this one out. All that god and apple pie nonsense has ruined our national reputation, our standing, and made us look foolish and uneducated to the rest of the world. We could have handled IRAQ without lifting a single rifle. > I looked up inept in the > dictionary and found a picture of Bush - Cheney was listed as a synonym. Yep we almost done with these kooky right wing jackasses who want to go to war with everybody. > I hesitate to bail out "the economy" since we did it once before and > "the economy" learned nothing from that fiasco other than how to fleece > the taxpayers. But, I'm not sure we have any choice at this point. Isn't > it supposed to be the democrats who want Big Brother to rescue them and > don't mind paying obscenely high taxes? Perhaps we could get China to > float us a few billion for this bailout? I can't remember when we last > had a worthwhile presidential candidate. Just looking at all of the > current candidates gives me a feeling in the pit of my stomach that is > neither warm nor fuzzy. I am not a big fan of income taxes at all, the Huckster ( Mike Huckaby ) actually had the consumption-based tax thing right, he was just the wrong guy to articulate it, because he's part of those mid-west religious kooks that like to manipulate people with that religious twang. Very annoying, but he did get the consumption tax concept right. Imagine no income tax, that's an instant 27% pay raise, but most people think we can't run the country without income tax. The truth is the consumption tax would raise more money more fairly and would not have to be a political football every election.