The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 20:04 <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h916ml$lne$3(a)news.albasani.net... > mikey4 wrote: > >> >> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that the >> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time. > > Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving > MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING > other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just > "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had > been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there > with ya, but that isn't what happened. > > Stephanie My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both* parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*. The republicans win by a land slide and they *think* they have a mandate, they don't, people were sick and tired of what the dems were doing. The dems win by ands land slide and well, you finish the sentence. They have us right where they want us, squabbling about this party did that and the other party did this. News flash, BOTH PARTIES are doing US.!!!
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 20:05 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:3c78b5dkq4ve4qi6qnm42q1ckc8c12drte(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:13:55 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> > wrote: > >> >><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>news:h8uvvd$d18$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> Bill Graham wrote: >>> >>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look >>>> at >>>> the present and near future. >>> >>> Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you >>> try >>> to blame him for where we are. >>> >>No, look at what conress and the senate handed him. >>You really need to learn *who* spends the money. > > Congress was stupid to give the Bush administration so much latitude > as to where the bailout funds would go. Given the administrations > crisis management track record they should have known better and put > more restrictions and oversight on it. > "Congress was stupid". Almost right John however it should have read "Congress IS stupid and greedy and full of it's self."
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 21:14 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:r2b8b5tolud861p2p0b0jvcukqfkj9nc26(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:57:19 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> > wrote: > >> >>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>news:d758b5dm80vb36oimvad9qnc109sb54giq(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:17:28 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:4ab39e49$0$1662$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>>>> mikey4 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Just what do you think is happening right now????????? Why do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> people are so PISSED???????? >>>>> >>>>> You have a very small number of people that are "PISSED" and they are >>>>> pissed because their handlers tell them to be pissed, not because they >>>>> have even the slightest understanding of what's going on. They aren't >>>>> out >>>>> there reading The Economist to gain an in-depth understanding of the >>>>> complex issues, they're listening to lies from Glenn Beck, Sean >>>>> Hannity, >>>>> Rush, and the Heritage Foundation. They have no capacity or desire to >>>>> even >>>>> try to learn. Such is the state of the right-wing. >>>>> >>>>> The rest of the population may not be too happy about the bailouts but >>>>> they have developed the critical thinking skills to understand why the >>>>> government could not let companies like AIG fail, why the major banks >>>>> could not be allowed to fail, and why manufacturers with billions of >>>>> dollars of pension liabilities were better bailed out than allowed to >>>>> fail. Yes, it's not fair. The alternative would have been far worse. >>>>> >>>>> No one blames Obama for this mess. They may put too much of the blame >>>>> on >>>>> George W. Bush since the political philosophy that led us down this >>>>> road >>>>> was began by Ronald Reagan, who has near god-like status among the >>>>> right >>>>> wing, and cannot be blamed for anything. >>>> >>>>People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that >>>>the >>>>"government" is out of control and has been for a very long time. >>>>Problem >>>>is we have no idea what would have happened if any of these those >>>>companies >>>>would have been allowed to fail, only best guesses. AIG spun off their >>>>auto >>>>insurance company which Farmers has picked up. Yes *I know* that's only >>>>one >>>>example, my point is that with the mad rush we will never know how many >>>>other example there could have been. >>> >>> I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but my impression was that the >>> Great Depression is what happened last time the big banks and >>> companies were allowed to fail. >>> >>Banks were not allowed to fail, from >>http://americanhistory.about.com/od/greatdepression/tp/greatdepression.htm >>Throughout the 1930s over 9,000 banks failed. Bank deposits were uninsured >>and thus as banks failed people simply lost their savings. Surviving >>banks, >>unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, >>stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the >>situation >>leading to less and less expenditures. >>Sorry to post the link, there are a few here who can't look up the >>information themselves. >> >>Also: Many believe erroneously that the stock market crash that occurred >>on >>Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 is one and the same with the Great >>Depression. In fact, it was one of the major causes that led to the Great >>Depression. Two months after the original crash in October, stockholders >>had >>lost more than $40 billion dollars. Even though the stock market began to >>regain some of its losses, by the end of 1930, it just was not enough and >>America truly entered what is called the Great Depression. >> >>And: With the stock market crash and the fears of further economic woes, >>individuals from all classes stopped purchasing items. This then led to a >>reduction in the number of items produced and thus a reduction in the >>workforce. As people lost their jobs, they were unable to keep up with >>paying for items they had bought through installment plans and their items >>were repossessed. More and more inventory began to accumulate. The >>unemployment rate rose above 25% which meant, of course, even less >>spending >>to help alleviate the economic situation. >> >> >>The list goes on a little further. FDIC now insures deposits in banks and >>another insurance company insures stock transactions. There are enough >>safe >>guards in place that another "Great Depression" is unlikely. Of the many >>problems we face is that our economy has gone from a primarily >>manufacturing >>one to a consumer based economy. >>Then we have the high unemployment rates along with our F'd up government >>throwing *more* money at the problems which will most likely cause some >>hellish inflation, remember high inflation rates of the 70's? >> >>What's so funny is that it is the government (*both houses*) that create >>these problems. >> >>This is a clip from an email I received the other day. >> Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they >> hire >>and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice >>they >>can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and >>from >>whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into >>the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the >>economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what >>they >>take an oath to do. > > So you agree, then, that without the regulation that we do still have > in place the current recession would likely have been much worse. I was responding to your company and bank failures causing the Great Depression, I have never disagreed that, in general, regulation is needed. I still stand by my statement that we could very well looking at 70's inflation which will not be a good thing.
From: mikey4 on 18 Sep 2009 21:18 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:3cb8b5p912j92gf5mc2ptug0v1haiu6eie(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 19:05:58 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> > wrote: > >> >>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>news:3c78b5dkq4ve4qi6qnm42q1ckc8c12drte(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:13:55 -0500, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>news:h8uvvd$d18$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look >>>>>> at >>>>>> the present and near future. >>>>> >>>>> Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you >>>>> try >>>>> to blame him for where we are. >>>>> >>>>No, look at what conress and the senate handed him. >>>>You really need to learn *who* spends the money. >>> >>> Congress was stupid to give the Bush administration so much latitude >>> as to where the bailout funds would go. Given the administrations >>> crisis management track record they should have known better and put >>> more restrictions and oversight on it. >>> >>"Congress was stupid". Almost right John however it should have read >>"Congress IS stupid and greedy and full of it's self." > > "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is only scary when the > people who believe it's scary are in charge. > > I think it's been noted elsewhere that you don't seem to want any sort > of government, and also that there are such countries in the world you > might try and see if you are happier living in. I think you have missed the point. "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is only scary when the people who believe it's scary are in charge." I disagree. It is scary when you see the out come of the help. I am not painting *all* government workers only the leaders of both houses.
From: Chris Malcolm on 18 Sep 2009 21:32
In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> >> wrote: >>>> "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message >>>> news:h8uea5$q21$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> On 9/17/09 17:33 , SMS wrote: >>>>>> Bill Graham wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they >>>>>>> know that the occupants probably have a gun. >>>>>> >>>>>> In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the >>>>>> occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to >>>>>> be stolen in house break-ins. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some >>>>>>> country where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good >>>>>>> common sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are >>>>>> occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able >>>>>> items are available. An indication that the homeowner is a member >>>>>> of the NRA would indicate the probability that handguns are >>>>>> stored in the house. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras, >>>>> alarms, and >>>>>> get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be >>>>>> much more likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a >>>>>> gun. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Um...when Morton Grove banned handguns, home invasions went up >>>>> 128%. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have >>>> been illegal all of my life. >> >>> Or DC. >> >> Or Tokyo, where people leave their suitases out on the street while >> they have a cup of tea inside the house waiting for a taxi, leave >> their bicycles in the street unlocked with shopping in the basket when >> they're shopping, and where ex-pat American women say how amazing it >> is to be able to walk the streets alone at night feeling quite safe. >> >> There's more to the problem than guns -- the elephant in the room >> nobody wants to talk about is why are US cities such savage places? > Imagine there being an office with a sign on the door that says "Mafia > Headquarters", a Mafia-published newsletter reporting accurately their > activities, and community services openly provided by the Mafia, Mafiosi > running around in a corporate uniform, with any criminal not authorized by > the Mafia likely to have a very short life. > Well it's like that in Japan. Google "Yakuza". Nobody would accuse them of > being "nice guys" but they have rules, and anyone wanting to be a live > criminal in Japan follows them. So the reason the streets of Tokyo are as safe as a remote English country village are not because the Japanese population is so well behaved, but because the Japanese criminals are so well behaved :-) -- Chris Malcolm |