Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OMG! You know its election time when some say they wanted to vote for it, but they want their job. Well hey jerk, what about those retirees who have invested their livelihood on Wall St. only to realize YOUR job of getting re=elected is More important? What about those who have current retirement plans locked up in this mess. Get a broom and start sweeping and if YOU think Barrack Hussein Obama is going to do better - you better think again. Its politics as usual.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting that the House Republicans bailed on this. Bush and McCain were all for it. Why didn't they support thier party, their President, and their Candidate?

Also, I have always admired that Barak Hussein Obama has the same name as the late, and much beloved, King Hussein of Jordan. He was a great American ally and a brilliant leader.

Hope the name brings Obama luck.

Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

97 Dems and 113 Republicans voted against it. Welcome to the next totally complete welfare country, cause folks we are nearing that mark. Perhaps people will get their famous Hussein as president cause he is heading to that big house. God hep us!

Posted by dovechase (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Can you say socialism? You better learn how to.

Posted by tedhinson (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good for the Dems and Repubs who voted against this corporate welfare program. Now they will be forced to come up with a good plan that works for the American public.

How about the one I heard about today....give each American citizen 18 or older 450k, let each one be taxed on that amount which would leave about 250 to 300k and the whole deal could be done for about 65 billion and the government would get back about 15 billion in taxes. Everyone could pay off cars, houses, credit cards or put the money in investments. I wonder how that would affect the economy?

Just thinking out loud.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7...

tedhinson, I also heard that and that's the plan I would support if given the chance. It would be a MAJOR stimulous to the economy.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard about that plan also. It's probably just wishful thinking on our part, and too easy a solution for the feds. But think how many people could start their own business which would create more jobs and generate more taxes. Then people could pay off their debts and buy homes. It would certainly be a win-win scenario.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This would get bogged down by the leftward leaning folks wanting to give it to the illegals also. :(

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

what nonsense

and way to go House Republicans, I want this rescue money paid back and I want the fat cat executives to suffer for their greed and mismanagement, get it in the bill or no bill.

no need to act in haste, and waste more money for the benefit of fat cat Wall Streeters

I'm not worried, Wall St needs to clean its act up and maybe this shakeout will straighten things out, plus reset real estate values too.

there is too much emphasis on abstract financing these days, maybe now we can get back to real work for real pay, real jobs that produce goods or services. I'm tired of bureaurcratic executives getting rich for no work, and taking advantage.

Our country has survived economic hard times, we will again.

And don't forget Obama has direct ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his campaign staff made millions from these institutions, and he received over $100,000 too, it is the Democrats that have blocked the corrections both Bush and McCain have attempted to make the last several years.

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and NO earmarks either!!!

there's just no sense rushing something through that will just enable more thieving of our tax money and throw the country into deeper debt

Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

does anyone know how Rep Chip Pickering voted?

I hope he voted NAY!

make Wall St squirm

Does anyone actually know someone who really has a retirement plan locked up by this mess?

NEVER have over $100,000 in any one account!!!

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Democrats — Childers, N; Taylor, N; Thompson, N.

Republicans — Pickering, Y.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Socialist Democrats voted to punish the nasty, evil Wall Street bunch that got caught at the tail end of the pyramid scheme started by their buddy Carter and put on steroids by their hero Clinton.

Republican tried to stave off 'the end of the world as we know it'.

Liquidity in the capital markets is now molasses.

You will not be able to sell your car for anything near what you owe on it. If you're a car salesman, start looking for a job.

Disneyworld is going to shut down.

You will now be able to get your preferred seat on any airline flight.

Limit on your credit cards will be lowered.

Stores will carry less inventory because they can't borrow to fund same.

On and on.

Like all pyramid schemes, this one was bound to bust. The Wall Street bunch just happened to be the ones at the end left trying to collect on the worthless tailpieces. What is happening now is not their fault, BUT their greed got them in the game to start with.

The fault lies with............ ( fill in your favorite )

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS
"Are you ready for some football?!!!!!"

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You guys are all over the map.

Republicans can't seem to figure out WHO to blame.

Too bad, that has become your major way to get through the day -- blaming the other guy. Now your guys are the other guy. Go figure.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea

The fault lies with............ ( fill in your favorite villan )

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

villain
I admit my spelling is .....??? Doesn't mean I can't think.
My excuse is having attended Gubmint Schools.

One daughter, having attended alternative educational facilities, is now the editor for a major technical journal.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For you Louisiana readers

LOUISIANA

Democrats — Cazayoux, N; Jefferson, N; Melancon, Y.

Republicans — Alexander, N; Boustany, N; McCrery, Y; Scalise, N.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No economic system can withstand the repeated intrusions of the political class.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From Investors Business Daily

Cutting corporate taxes helped Ireland in a generation go from being the "sick man of Europe" to the second richest country in the European Union, with a per capita GDP higher than that of Germany, France and Britain.

In the 1980s, things looked bleak for Ireland. "We went on a borrowing, taxing and spending spree, and that nearly drove us under," said Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney in 2005. "It was because we nearly went under we got the courage to change."

We should be so lucky on Nov. 4.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dr. Sowell...... A GREAT American

Can Congress Fix A Problem It Caused?
By THOMAS SOWELL | Posted Monday, September 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury."

Moreover, he said the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd wanted government to push financial institutions to lend to people they wouldn't lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who've spent their whole careers doing so is so obviously absurd that no one should take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis happened on George W. Bush's watch, that's enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Gregory Mankiw, his chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been it would to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Fed, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the idea this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions, they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

Posted by Username (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it's funny that FOX NEWS is now saying that Ron Paul is an economic genius when just less that a year ago they banned him from a FOX presidential debate.
Anyone that has been paying attention to what Dr. Paul has BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS has been completely aware of this crisis and been trying to let others know that our country has been living beyond it's means.
I also find it humorous that if you watch the republican debates on youtube the only person addressing this crisis is Ron Paul.

So maybe I can encourage some of you to check out the web site http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ and see what more you can do to stop this out of control government that is putting such a huge burden on our children and grand children's future.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wall Street speculators minus regulations equals disaster.

I wonder if Katie Couric has received the list of regulations John McCain voted for that Sarah Palin promised her?

This financial crisis came on soo quickly. Just a few days ago, we were being assured that our economy was fundamentally sound.

Surely, the republican president with republican control of the house and senate for the major part of the past 8 years could have taken whatever was wrong (all those things that Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and possibly Thomas Jefferson messed up) and made it right.

Change does require courage.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

McCain's Straight Lies
By Thomas Sowell
February 1, 2008

https://www.gopusa.com/commentary/tsowel...

We have been hearing for years that Senator John McCain gives "straight talk" and his bus has been endlessly referred to as the "straight talk express." But endless repetition does not make something true.

The fact that McCain makes short, blunt statements does not make him a straight-talker.

There are short, blunt lies -- and he told a big one on the eve of the Florida primary, when he claimed that Mitt Romney had advocated a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Even the Washington Post, which supports McCain, said that the Senator "has distorted the meaning" of what Governor Romney said, that Romney "has never proposed setting 'a date for withdrawal.'"

During Mitt Romney's ABC News interview that Senator McCain twisted, Governor Romney was asked by the interviewer whether he agreed with President Bush's veto of Congressional legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal, and whether Romney as President would veto similar legislation.

"Of course," was Romney's reply. There was no ambiguity.

Confronted with his lie on Wednesday night's debate, McCain blustered and filibustered in a manner reminiscent of Captain Queeg in "The Caine Mutiny," when he was caught in a lie during a navy inquiry.

When confronted with any of his misdeeds, Senator McCain tends to fall back on his record as a war hero in Vietnam.

Let's talk sense. Benedict Arnold was a war hero but that did not exempt him from condemnation for his later betrayal.

Being a war hero is not a lifetime get-out-of-jail-free card. And becoming President of the United States is not a matter of rewarding an individual for past services.

The Presidency is a heavy responsibility for the future of the nation, including generations yet unborn. Character and integrity are major qualifications.

The passing years and a friendly media have allowed Senator McCain's shortcomings in the character and integrity department to fade into the background.

McCain was one of "the Keating five" -- Senators who used their influence to try to protect a failing savings & loan company, which also became the subject of a corruption investigation.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

During the 2000 primaries, the Associated Press reported Senator McCain's joking about people with Alzheimer's.

This went beyond bad taste because (1) it was known at the time that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's and (2) the media to whom McCain was pandering hated Ronald Reagan.

It is especially ironic now to see McCain wrapping himself in the mantle of President Reagan.

With the momentum of his Florida primary win behind him, going into the "Super Tuesday" primaries, John McCain has now been restored to the position of front runner that the media gave him at the outset.

Other Republicans are jumping on his bandwagon. This may have less to do with McCain's own qualities than with the prospect of getting Cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments as rewards for their political support.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman

Wall Street did not cause this. Politicians did.

This has NOT been quick. A slowly festering sore is a more appropriate description.

"Surely, the republican president with republican control of the house and senate for the major part of the past 8 years could..." They did nothing. They just wanted to be 'liked' .

Thomas Jefferson most assuredly did NOT "mess up".

Posted by iconoclast (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Republicans are hypocrites! They are the ones, especially McCain, that have pushed for deregulation of the financial markets (see the bill McCain authored in 1999 as well as the 1980's savings & loan fiasco). For McCain to say "The regulators were not doing their jobs" is total hypocrisy. We now see how the "markets take care of themselves." You reap what you sow.

As far as this Wall St. vs Main St. nonsense, if Wall St. goes down, Main St. goes down with it. This bill must pass or our entire financial system is gone.

Posted by CanYouHearMeNow (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we all need to vote for Dave Ramsey for President!!! Whatcha think?

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yea

I agree. We no longer have any true 'Statesmen'. At least, they don't appear on the ballot.

I simply think we have gone far enough down the path of socialism and will vote for the person who will run the slowest.

Posted by iameubu (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

icono
Yes repubs did push for deregulation, BUT in order to be 'liked' they went along with MASSIVE regulation.

Posted by dmackZuluking (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The American Congress @ True Thugs For Real while the rest of You fight over the BS that clouds the truth about American & World Power...Good Luck in the new world coming !

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

More on Sowell

Sowell is an interesting writer, prolific, insightful and extremely broad in his views. But I am afraid he has succumbed to fame, and is prone to making broad sweeping "cute" statements designed to advance his career as a popular columnist. I do not take anything away from the man -- he is brilliant in his writing -- he has many books full of revolutionary populist twists.

Sowell is one of those marketing writers in the vein of FOX news that sells populist witicisms. He is a hero on the FOX networks.

One of his pet ideas is that southern black culture is really redneck culture, something that would certainly warm the heart of any redneck. This sort of statement is a key to his popularity, he tends to take popular beliefs, turn them half around, and sell them through his columns.

Many blacks view him as an "Uncle Tom" for latching onto populist Republican views, defining racism out of existence, claiming that colonialism does not adversely affect the cultures of nations, and other such shockingly marketable slogans.

A few of his quotes, designed to more be marketable than anything else.

"One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence.”

“The least productive people are usually the ones who are most in favor of holding meetings”

“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with”

“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”

“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything.”

“The big divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, or women and men, but between talkers and doers.”

“One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them”

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There's a couple of youtube clips that say in March of 2008 a secret meeting of congress was held and they knew then that there would be a collapse at the end of the year prior to the election. The speaker, a radio show host says some in congress were freaked out by the meeting and agenda and began leaking the information. He also says a lot more which is pretty freaky, if it's true... like Bush might bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran, prior to the election and put us all under martial law on October 1st. Dennis Kucinich is also on youtube saying there was a secret meeting held and that he refused to sign that he would keep it secret. There have been very few secret meetings held, so somethings up. Google martial law Oct 1st and also secret meeting held in March 2008.

Another radio host on xm radio said the US has been living beyond it's means on borrowed money from other countries that now refuse to loan to us.

Posted by JohnQ (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I dont know why anyone acts like it's such a big surprise considering Bush ran Tx into the ground. And then America votes the clown into office and he does the same thing. You cant put the blame on the stock market, you can only blame the fool who tries to run this country. Maybe people should start voting on candidates who actually have the qualifications to be a leader.
Im so sick and tired of Americans in general making the same mistakes, and then crying about it. Its time to grow up America. Our ForeFathers would whip us for our immaturity and our lack of responsibility for our actions or lack there of.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I recall that username and some newsfolk referred to Ron Paul as the Republican comedy relief. I like Ron Paul and prefer him to McCain.

Posted by Username (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change have you seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-pSzqzFR...

Martial Law was declaerd by the speaker saturday night 9/27/2008

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh...McCain was exonerated of any wrongdoing in the Keating Five case...you conveniently failed to mention that...as you so conveniently fail to mention anything that is against your world and political view.

Bush tried and failed several years ago to forestall this situation by proposing a bill to curb Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac's risky loans...Dems refused to help pass it.

The Dems have been in charge now for two years and have done nothing to help the situation, on the contrary, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac loan money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did so knowing that this kind of bail out was in the cards if they failed.

This bail out was a Dem grab at inflicting socialism on the people without them knowing that it was indeed socialism. The socialistic part was Dems subsidizing, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the inevitable bail out, essentially free housing for non-productive people in our society. It was a terrible bill and the House Republicans called the bluff.

Now maybe we'll be able to clean up this mess with loans and insurance rather than socialist government buy outs...at least the bad guys on Wall Street won't prosper. If we do it this way and the strong, uncorrupted companies will make this work and the taxpayer won't be buying houses for those who shouldn't have bought them to start with.

Regarding regulation...the laws and regulations on the books are sufficient to police the markets, but they weren't policed. This was the primary failure of the Bush administration, no one blew the whistle. Now we'll have a knee jerk reaction resulting in an avalanche of regulations that will only increase the cost of lending when all of this settles out.

Iconoclast...the Dems are, ironically, the TRUE hypocrites...they didn't want a good bill, they wanted the presidency and socialism in one swell foop...this was a designed palace coup!

Posted by Username (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

time4change I have NEVER "referred to Ron Paul as the republican comedy relief" (I have to confess you rubbed me the wrong way with that comment)
You can go freely read ALL my posts on this newspaper and see that I have never done such an outlandish thing.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rather than snarling like partisan dogs, perhaps a tad of rational thought might help. It does seem that the U.S. does have a credit problem without this “bailout”. This affects us all, and a solution is needed. If you recall borrowing money for a home back in the old days of Natchez Building and Loan (?) and similar institutions across the country, our loans were not sold, and the building societies were not regarded as banks. The loan repayments were loaned out for new home mortgages, and the lenders knew the value of the loans. This is not true today and has not been true for over 20 years. This lies at the heart of the problem. Then, there is the point about CEO remunerations. Just take a look:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/12/lead...

Here's a few who've recently been in the news - with last year's pay:

Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide Financial $102,840,000
Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs $73,720,000
Richard Fuld, Lehman Brothers $71,900,000
Kerry Killinger, Washington Mutual $64,560,000
James Cayne, Bear Stearns (2005) $26,300,000 [Bush Pioneer]
Henry Paulson, Goldman Sachs (2006) $16,400,000 [Bush Pioneer]
Martin Sullivan, AIG $10,930,000*

* Mr. Sullivan, having managed AIG into bankruptcy, paid himself $47 million as a 'golden parachute' in June of 2008, while simultaneously negotiating with the Federal Reserve to have the American taxpayers subsidize his failure to the tune of $85 billion. http://www.cnbc.com/id/25482825

Finally, regarding McCain and the Keating Five, the facts are:
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammoron, I only included that article for a bit of Sowell variety after the first Sowell article. The parts you didn't like -- he said it -- I didn't -- and he is the hero of the right. Not everything I put on here is part of some uberconspiracy -- some is just for reading. Go figure. The conflicts are curious.

I would think Sowell would impress you as a writer -- he has the same sort of simplistic condescending FOX mentality as you do. You might like his writing.

I actually don't give much of a flip about what those wacked out partisans say to discredit one another -- the thrust of Sowell's article I pasted. When he wrote that I figured one of the other Republicans paid him to do that hatchet job. Of course in a conflict with Obama I would expect a whole different spectrum of admiration for McCain from Sowell, though at last time I checked he had not endorsed him.

Re the bailout, I have mixed feelings. This is Republican theater -- you guys arranged for this one to happen -- you work your own way out of it. I know you would never ask for an entitlement to shirk your blame. Pelosi and the GOP guys will get the few votes they need. No need for whining in the meantime. I would be happy either way as both paths have merit. My money is pretty safe.

Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"How about the one I heard about today....give each American citizen 18 or older 450k, let each one be taxed on that amount which would leave about 250 to 300k and the whole deal could be done for about 65 billion and the government would get back about 15 billion in taxes. Everyone could pay off cars, houses, credit cards or put the money in investments. I wonder how that would affect the economy?

Just thinking out loud."

Computing quietly would show you that you have made an error of about a factor of 1000. Each would receive about $400 not $400,000. Repeating errors of facts may be OK in a closed society, but you find trouble when you wander outside the tribe.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Franks don,t give a rat,s hinny. He will just go back to Wall street where he came from with his millions. They are all crooks,every last one. Why hasn,t somebody been jailed for all this. It,s the same thing as robbery> They have robbed thousands of people yet no one will pay except taxpayers...Let it all go bust. It,s going to ahyway when they bail out ...the american dollar will be worthless instead of worth 20 cents if it,s worth that now...

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They will just change the business names and steal it all over again,and again, and again.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

She probably went on a no payback pell grant like all the whining minorities. Freebies while we workers have to pay out the yang,yang. Go fish,stop the welfare .....give out commodites like they did in the 50,s. Help the farmer with his surplus.;

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Freddie mac..fannie wanny..and franks are laughing there butts off at the taxpayers. They love it..Literally sticking it to us again and again.. If it works lets keep sticking it to the taxpayers..I might not see it in my lifetime,but all the bailouts and freebies ARE going to end..even the ocean will run dry if you suck hard and long enough on it.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, I wasn't going to say this but you gave me such an opening with the remarks about Sowell being an Uncle Tom I want to get your reaction on the claims that Obama is a poverty pimp- that he has made his living exploiting the poverty of others to further his own political career. Any comments on that?

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

username, I meant that I had heard someone on the news refer to Ron Paul that way...not you. It was back during the debates and may have been on CNN since that's the news channel I watch most of the time. Fox news isn't part of my programming package.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

on northcom.mil it says they are doing an exercise in October...that must be where that martial law stuff came from.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bombingeight, the 400 mil sounded better, but then everyone would quit work, and it would only help for a little while lol.

Posted by time4change (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow bombingeight, that's interesting information. Sounds like they were being grossly overpaid. Turns out there was more to it than people simply losing their homes. The CEOs were racking up as well.

Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome to the U.S.S.A.!!!!!
The United Socialist States of America

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Enkik -- I'll bite:

" Obama is a poverty pimp....."

My snap thought is that political ambition per se is not corrupt except to the hopelessly cynical for whom public-sector altruism is philosophically snuffed already. But also because of his blackness and the fact he is a Democrat there are a lot of people whose face just starts to twitch at the thought of Obama-style ambitious success -- and the poverty-pimp designation is the pimple that pops from that.

It's hard to compare a misfortune-oriented effort such as Obama's poverty ramp to success with Sowell's golden enterprise soothing the angst of a less-needy crowd. If you want you could compare him to those Simon Legree physicians who hang around sick people to take their money -- one could do that I suppose. And argue his profit is out of proportion.

Of course those who think poverty is only the dominion of those who experience it and they only cause it themselves cannot allow themselves to view Obama's efforts as altruism in any form -- their self-image rests on the rightness that government involvement in poverty is the perpetuator of poverty. Perhaps half-true.

I do believe the only prescription for their souls is to be born into the body of an ignorant person with bad parents, to have life thrust upon them a bit too quickly because of that, have a terribly sick child with no insurance. Those are the great evolutionary circumstances some wish to use for education of economy and some would hope others use for education in compassion.

Sowell's customers tend to be the former.

My claim on Sowell -- many blacks view him as an "Uncle Tom" for latching onto populist Republican views -- is right on.

I didn't say he WAS an UncleTom. The same way FOX likes to pretend that welfare is NOT for the injured or infirm -- that it is by and large a giveaway to lazies -- and that to sell ad space -- Sowell pretends the same sorts of things about economics and race -- significantly to sell to a niche market. Southern whites tend to love him because he scratches an itch that most intellectual economists are too proud to scratch in such a folksy way.

While the man is a good writer, his advice is good for those already smart and fit enough to take responsibility for themselves, but his vaccine does not tend to reach those below that surface.

Obama has a much broader appeal, and Obama's rising effort was centered on people that fall below Sowell's radar -- who don't buy so many books, and who don't need their conservative itches scratched. And Obama's special efforts can scale up better than Sowell's -- Obama may actually prevent the detonation of a nuclear device in New York one day -- by replacing McCain's gut aggression -- or bring health care to a few million people in the real world before they lose a child or two.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am vehemently opposed to this bailout plan. I favor an alterative free market solution. Suspend the capital gains tax, lower corporate tax, and remove the mark to market provivision in SOX.

We are at a truly pivotal point in our history, we are looking at a bailout plan that I feel will be devastating. The most socialist candidate, Obama is leading in the polls. What happened to a free market economy?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Corruption. That's what happened.

When the free market crowd squandered the national treasury they challenged themselves to something other than dogma -- and failed. They still have nothing but the same slogans and the same remedies.

The other party then stepped up, warts and all.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jrn59 (anonymous<<<<<<<<<<< I knew it was Obamas falt, I just couldn't figure out how you were going to get around to making the case. Lets see, I believe Obama is a Senator right? You know what, I don't recall the Senate Voting yesterday. I do remember two thirds of the Democrats voting FOR a REPUBLICAN BILL and two thirds of the REPUBLICANS Voting against it, Go Figure......>>>>>>

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

. God hep us!<<<<<<<<< Well, GOD hasn't spoken to me on this subject, But OBAMA WILL help YOU, even though you don't Vote for HIM........>>>>>>>>>>>

Posted by tedhinson (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bombingeight, you are right, I should not have just posted something that was obviously incorrect without having checked it myself. For that, I appologize. Do I still get kicked out of the tribe now?..lol

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"65 billion "<<<<<<< Actually Ted its one hundred and forty five Trillion,(Assuming three hundred million) of course when you take the below eighteen away that would reduce it, but still well into the Trillions. Your basic principle is sound though, ( TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS), thats what Obama wants to do on a smaller scale......>>>>>>>>>

Posted by tedhinson (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Hippie! I just got back on a little while ago and noticed everyone is still at it. I see that you have been having some fun...lol. Makes for some interesting reading too. Got to run. Have some business to take care of. Have a good day. I'll catch up with all you "wild thangs" later. I'm outta here.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A much smaller scale. That's revolutionary thinking fellows.

Nobody gets kicked out of the tribe. We eat the slowest.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is leading in the polls. What happened to a free market economy?<<<<<<<< What part of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON"T WANT YOUR" FREE" MARKET, (FOR RICH PEOPLE) system is it that you don't understand?? Your Republican buddies have stole the treasure of this Country until you "FINALLY" woke up that "SLEEPING GIANT" which is the AMERICAN ELECTORATE and they are taking your TOY away. Get used to it.........>>>>>>>>>

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we should be kind to bunny for a while Hippie.

I really found nothing wrong with her opinion. She stated it well. I just don't agree with her pessimism and I am scared of her agents.

Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Before anyone reads the posts about martial law and panics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb1ppwq_1...

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think we should be kind to bunny for a while Hippie.'

<<<<<<<< Been there, tryed that several times, with several Posters yeahuhuh and got atacked each time I let my gard down, so its balls to the wall now,LOL. I ain't got enough sense to be scared of anything, (it's that "ACID" that perp. refered to, LMAO!!!>>>>>>>>

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew a guy one time who was in California in the 60's and took some Purple haze. He played a guitar with 2 strings on it for a while, and didn't sound half bad, considering. I wonder what happened to that guy.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

unfortunately this bailout is a necessary evil. It isn't about bailing out fat cats. This is about keeping Main St from going bankrupt.

All of you opposed to this fail to understand that this bailout will keep the economy running. Without it the lending institutions will cease to function and the economy will seize up.

The US economy functions on lending--lending happens thousands of times a day. Without lennding there is no economy.

You will lose your job. Your company will go bankrupt. And then how will you survive?

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And for all the chicken little's out there...the sky is not falling. What happens when the economy goes south, the automakers offer special financing because they need to sell cars.

Mortgage qualifications will only be restricted as far as requiring prudent credit underwriting, as it should have always been.

Banks will not stop lending, that's the primary reason they exist.

I am fairly certain my employer will not go bankrupt. If your employer needs a loan, please have them call me, I'd be happy to look at the request.

You see...banks have NOT stopped lending.

Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Mortgage qualifications will only be restricted as far as requiring prudent credit underwriting, as it should have always been"--YES, of course. But it wasn't and we do not have the ability to go back in time and force the GOP to fix their mess.

And when your bank needs to borrow money from another bank?? They aren't going to get it or if they do they are going to get it at a huge rate. That rate will then be passed on to the customer.

Crimony. Pay attention.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I knew a guy one time who was in California in the 60's and took some Purple haze. He played a guitar with 2 strings on it for a while, and didn't sound half bad, considering. I wonder what happened to that guy.

<<<< I spent the Summer of 73 in Denver and attended some Killer Parties there and a few miles out of town, up on the Plat River. Caught a Freight Train to Salt Lake City and Hitched to Berkley Calif.. Ran into and crashed with a lot of "Pickers", but don't recall a two string Picker, LOL>>>>>>>>

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Happybunny...you are absolutely correct...this is a big socialist gambit on the part of the Dems to have what they've always wanted...government ownership of private assets and to pin it on cooperative panicky Republicans in an election year...it's like Christmas in September for them and many Republican's, including McCain (to his own demise) are carrying the presents.

Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam and happy,

I am with yall. The best thing this all has done is level out the price of existing and new homes to a reasonable level over the last few months. I remember what the prices of homes in Rankin County were selling for 3 years ago and now, they have lost about 18%. This is realistic, when you consider houses selling for $200k now instead of $236k just 3 years ago. It is a balancing point in history, just like October of 1987. We came out of that and we will come out of this even if we do not have a $2500/person in the USA bailout.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And anoher bright side...I bought some stock at a really sweet price :)
I wish they would go for Newt Gingrich's idea, it makes perfect sense and could be a huge capital injection into the market as well as corporate america. I keep on dreaming!

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I am a Democrat and My money is safe, So I say why in the world would the Democratic want to lay their heads on the "Chopping Block" to bail out the Republican Party? Just come on home and let the Market do what ever it wants to do and let the Republicans deal with the Voters.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sammohon, gee golly, I heard on the tv that this was George Bush's proposal. I even saw him with my own eyes saying that if his proposal was not passed that the consequences would be dire. And all this time I thought he was a member of the republican party....

You must have been listening to Rush - he sounded a bit weak today - not quite so blustery - the scales are not easy to tilt when there's a big rock on one side. Or maybe his drugs had not yet kicked in.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a memorable George Bush quote for all of his fans:

"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."—Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, I just don't know what is happening in the Republican Party. No one is listening to George Bush, or John McCain, or the House leader. I am afraid that they may be contiplating converting to an "Independent Party" and just leave old George and McBush hanging. Oh, and Sister Sarah also. I saw today where several high ranking Republican Columist, such as "George Will", are requesting that she develope a "Family Emergency". I guess it just goes to show that there is NO honor among thieves, LOL.........

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oldhippie, I been thanking on it and I shore do believe McCain is backed up aginst the stump.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I'm a conservative and when the president doesn't act like a conservative I get off the wagon. Bush has never acted like a conservative...he cut taxes yes, but he never cut spending and almost never used the veto...haven't got much for him except his foreign policy, the successful War Against Terror and he's better than any of the Dem alternatives.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Southernwoman, I ain't touching that with a ten foot pole, LMAO !!!

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sammohon,

Believe what you will.

Bush's foreign policy stinks - he pulled the troops out of Afghanistan for the "Iraq lie" while al qaeda flourished. No one believes what he says - world leaders or our citizens, even about the economy. He stole the first election with the help of his brother in Florida and won the second by scaring women into voting for him. If we switch commanders in chief in the middle of a war, they'll kill us all don't you know. And was in both elections only because George the First was his father.

McCain went along with Bush 90 percent of the time. Now McCain tells his Reaganesque and POW stories and claims to be Teddy Roosevelt reincarnate, admits he doesn't know much about the economy and chooses a vice-presidential nominee who says the bailout is all about health care.

I gotta go - I'm having a panic attack.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No self respecting idiot on the brink of insanity would give folks billions of dollars that just got through losing billions of dollars.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The ones who made this mess should be put in front of a firing squad instead of laughing..Where is any mention of anyone taking the blame or anyone getting jail time for fraud,legalized theft,embezzlement, at the least.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barack Obama from his own book::::

From Dreams of My Father:'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

From Dreams of My Father:'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

From Dreams of My Father:'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

And FINALLY the Most Damning one of ALL of them!!!

From Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I agree with you, in that I will believe what I will, based on facts and not your hysterical twisting of them.

As I said before, GWB ain't my idea of the perfect president...far from it, but what have the Dems offered lately that wasn't so far left as to be unacceptable? Obama, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson...the lineage and litany is clear...as time goes by Dems get more liberal...the more liberal, the less the Dems win.

The last "conservative" Democratic president was John Kennedy...if he were alive today and expressed his politics, he'd be a Republican...Dems are the Republican's best campaign assets...unfortunately, GWB, who hasn't acted like a Republican president is our worst campaign asset.

McCain isn't perfect either, he's for this socialistic bail out and I'm not, but he kicks the heck out of Obama's near communistic ideals.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I forgot to mention...I hope your panic attack goes away...after a McCain victory in November...I think you realize that it's a very real possibility and that's what's making you panic...LOL.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sammohon, you are exactly right, but I'm feeling calmer by the moment (smile).

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

presby, can you say "out of context"?

Here's the quote from Audacity of Hope:

"Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/ll, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality; for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Barack Obama is talking about preventing abuse of American citizens!

Need I remind you that the terrorists who attacked our country were not citizens, but enrolled in flight school here and told the instructors they did not need to learn to land a plane, only to fly one.

Maybe you should be worrying about our country's intelligence capabilities rather than misquoting Barack Obama.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sammohon, and I forgot to mention...your statement of believing what you will based on facts and not my hysterical twisting of them - I suggest you read something or listen to someone besides Rush once in a while - he even warns you that he is an entertainer, not a newsman.

Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman...I haven't listened to Rush in almost a year...how does that shake up your stereotype of a conservative?...I make up my mind on my own based on my own research...I don't need MSNBC to tell me what to do unlike you libs...now you've been stereotyped, do you like the feeling?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, that is gracious to Republicans that you feel entitled to claim Kennedy as one of your own in spirit. Of course you see yourself entitled to do so.

I know that violates the stereotypes -- which you cling to more than most -- that you guys are hard-working self-reliant types. I say you are so arrogant that you think the world owes you credit for virue itself, for work, for wisdom, for peace, and now the corpse of Kennedy. Puhleeese.

When Lyndon Johnson signed Kennedy's Civil Rights Bill -- after Kennedy's death -- he is reported to have said -- that in signing that bill he gave the Southern States to the Republican Party in perpetuity -- or something to that effect.

That is completely true -- Republican ethic, largely that of the southern segregationist block -- was totally opposed to the Kennedy ethic and his insistence on civil rights. No amount of fiscal anything trumped hatred of Kennedy in the South by the majority.

To prove that, it was southerners who moved away from the party of Kennedy and Kennedy's dream -- not a confused Kennedy who accidentally was in the wrong camp, or a Party that lost Kennedy's vision while the Republicans gained it.

More than anything Kennedy defined the Democratic Party in the south -- to this day. No matter he is not remembered honestly by most whites. But you in particular are special to claim his ethos.

Your claiming Kennedy's corpse is about as disingenuous as claiming to be the Party of God, the party of work ethic, the party of freedom and the ha,ha! the PRO-LIFE party.

Bush was the evidence that political conservatism has become so unentitled to speak about what it is that it even had no political party to call it's own. McCain is more of the same rhetoric without substance.

Conservatism, after betraying us the way Bush betrayed them, is even less entitled to describe who their enemy is. But it is an entitlement they write for themselves despite what they have actually earned.

When you face that, the effort to honestly begin re-building your movement begins for you.

How bout that?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I noticed the comments are already removed from the Seale Article above. I have a postulation.

Because racism is passe and the Republican south is now supportive of civil rights, the comments were removed because of black folks' nasty comments .....he,he! (that's humor)

Or, if they left the comments even fewer people would move here with that sort of Klan advertising in the Democrat.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sammohon, giving up Rush - good thinking.

I AM a conservative:

I believe in spending wisely and that got me through the Reagan years.

I vote for candidates who best show me they have a brain, a sense of reason, and are willing to take responsibility for their actions and that's conservatism, too.

I don't have "old yeller" embroidered on the back of my lime green jacket yet, but I'm thinking on it if things get any worse in our country.

I have no idea what MSNBC is.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MSNBC is a TV network. Keith Olbermann and other liberal commentators are there in the evening.

MSNBC has decided to do what FOX did for conservatives and do it for the emerging other side. So now liberals have a place to go to hear the rhetoric that supports their movement. It is actually a bit more fact-oriented than FOX. AND PULLS NO PUNCHES.

Anyone who doesn't like what they see in government should go there and take a look. You might find they make great sense.

The rest of the networks mostly try to be neutral, and that means shooting at both sides. No matter which side you are on there is something to be offended by as bias on most networks -- a fact conservatives lie about and call it "liberal bias".

People shouldn't be so nieve as to think the safe response is to take a position in the middle. Sometimes that is cowardly if your country is what is at stake.

Sometimes if you try to be neutral in the news business, you hide the guilty side by giving them the entitlement to present their offerings as equal. That benefits liars. MSNBC addresses the lies of the Bush administration and the Republicans in a way that FOX never showed the character to do.

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

posted from another user and story. Sorry guys but I thought it was to hilarious not to share...

"Please don't turn this into a political debate because you will bring out that moronic hippie and his sidekick duhhuh....or even that stupid axx southern woman...."

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Or, if they left the comments even fewer people would move here with that sort of Klan advertising in the Democrat."

Yeah, people and businesses.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You have a simple little sense of humor don't you?

I think it's sweet what a school fish you are -- and how partisan, and loyal.

You tell us happybunny, some way, when you and your buddies get flushed down the Bush toilet, tell us if all the pet goldfish that get flushed down the toilet are still alive!!!! He,he!

The day when folks could spew that simple conservative poop but not be held accountable are over!

Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blo......

10 links to walk you through today’s financial crisis — and make you smarter than 99% of other people

This is an interesting article I got by e-mail today, it's not partisan. Just thought you all might be interested.

Sorry huhuh...I am easily amused, keeps me a happy bunny!

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are not happy, happybunny, at least on here. I was serious though that your loyalty to those putzes is sweet.

It was interesting with my comments to Sammoron above I saw just a clip of VP candidate Dan Quayle trying to basically claim Kennedy's --- something -- and VP candidate Lloyd Bentson telling him "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy -- you're no Jack Kennedy."

Dan Quayle reminds me a little of Sammoron. Sam could be Dan's Un-fun big brother.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi bunny, a minister said he thinks it's good to associate with people you don't like because he was pretty sure that Jerry Falwell was going to be in heaven and he might as well get used to the sob now.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please don't turn this into a political debate because you will bring out that moronic hippie and his sidekick duhhuh....or even that stupid axx southern woman...."

<<<<<<<<<<<< Yes the Democrat shut that "Comment" down. Too many of you Racist I guess talking about assinating a Presidential Candidate. Must have been embarrassing even for the Democrat, although I don't know why from the Cartoon charatures on the Opinion Page most days. That crap attracts the Sicko's of the World.>>>>

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, that discussion was about race. I would have commented on it anyway.

They're just lucky I had to work some this morning. I see they self-destructed that thread on their own.

Yet despite the whining and accuations about us, I have put up probably 700 posts and never been censured. I do keep writing until there is some progress on one side or the other, and I think that intimidates some folks.

Not everyone's opinion is equally well thought-out, and no one should insist the conversation stops so their opinion does not have to be examined. And if someone writes something that is just untrue, I don't think they should expect mercy.

I encourage everyone to write anonymously, don't fear embarrassment, and let your ideas stand or fall in the public eye.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree yeah, its the bald faced lies that trip my trigger. I go through and read every Post and let a lot of things that I dis-agree with slide, but when I see one of these "Trolls" doing what they do, I do to,LOL..........

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

Talk about all in the family. A genealogist claims that Hillary Clinton is related to a bevy of celebs, including ...

... international mother of the year Angelia Jolie.

Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, in turn is related to ...

... Jolie's baby daddy and long-term boyfriend, Brad Pitt. And oh yeah - Republican nominee John McCain is related to First Lady Laura Bush.
Brangelina, meet your new cousins, Clobama.

Proving again that politics makes strange bedfellows, genealogists announced Tuesday that Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, while Hillary Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

Maybe they can all adopt a village in Cambodia.

"When you get back into your ancestry, you eventually find that you're related to lots of people," said genealogist Christopher Child, who guided the presidential research for the New England Historic Genealogical Society. "Presidential candidates are no exception."

The family trees of this year's White House contenders only get weirder from there, according to the study, which was based entirely on vital records kept by cities, counties and towns.

Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette, Child found.

Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. Presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins.

Meanwhile, McCain is a sixth cousin of First Lady Laura Bush.

Child said that while the candidates often focus on pointing out differences between them, their ancestry shows they are more alike than they think.

"It shows that lots of different people can be related; people you wouldn't necessarily expect," he said.

Obama has the most prolific presidential lineage, featuring Democrats and Republicans.

His distant cousins include President George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, as well as Gerald Ford, Harry S Truman and James Madison.

Obama often jokes on the campaign trail about earlier genealogical surveys that have tied him to Vice President Dick Cheney, saying he wishes he could be related to someone "cooler."

It's all good, Barack - your family tree includes civil rights-era President Lyndon Johnson, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Clinton has a touch of British blood in her veins as well - she's a distant cousin of Camilla Parker Bowles, wife of Prince Charles of England, and beatnik author Jack Kerouac.

Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins, linked by Edwin Hickman, who died in Virginia in 1769. Clinton and Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed, both related to Jean Cusson who died in St.Sulpice, Quebec, in 1718.

dsaltonstall@nydailynews.com

With Wire Reports

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman, Anyone and everyone who traces some of their roots to colonial New England will find they are related to quite a few famous people. I've found that I am related to George Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Richard Nixon, Shirley McClain, Raquel Whelch, Clint Eastwood, Humphrey Bogart, and so on and so on. Lots of presidents and actors and such. Tracing back so far really allows you to understand that we truly are one big family here in the USA.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeahuhuh, you said "I have put up probably 700 posts and never been censured".

Sorry but your comment on 28-September 5:03 pm was deleted. I remembered seeing that and went back to find it. I have no idea why it was deleted and don't remember what you said to warrant it (if anything).

But don't worry. I saw Fenwick get deleted when he did nothing but wish Jake well, express guarded support for Joyce and then take a swipe at the idiots who blame the Historical Society for all of Natchez woes.

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrandDad, I read somewhere that we're at least 64th cousins to everyone in the world. I certainly don't have the knowledge to back that up, but found it interesting anyway.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good Post Southern woman and I agree OldGrandDad, thats why I never shook that Tree, I was afraid of what might fall out of there, LOL.....

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

southernwoman, I wouldn't doubt that. They say that everyone in the UK can trace their lineage back to Edward the II. We have 2 grandfathers, 4 great-grandfathers, 8 great-greats, etc. It doubles with every generation. Go back about 20 generations and you're looking at great(times million) grandfather.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oldhippie01, I shook mine and some Confederate soldiers fell out. And also a preacher who was hanged (lynched) for his abolitionist sentiments. Go figure.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the heads up on that removal Grandpa. I never got censured for that even if it was removed. I feel like a bad boy now, he,he!

I'll bet it was one of those references where I used an n word sanitized by putting asterisks where the g's went. Seems I remember a reference to the most often quoted reasons not to vote Obama that I reported. I did think it was pertinent.

As to lineage, I think I am a reincarnated Chinese Black dude with British blood.

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It would seem the Democrat would do themselves a service by informing people when and why they got deleted. It might prevent repeat occurences of the same. But maybe if the deletions are born of early morning bad moods and the pre-coffee grumpies, then maybe they'd rather not tell us. :)

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bailout Bill now length of a novel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_o...

This is an area that I hope all of us could agree and recognize the dangers. There is no possible way the representativs and the senators will be able to read all of this and digest it before they will be asked (forced) to vote on it.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I think you're right about that, Gramps.

I accept that we might need something right now to curtail losses -- my stocks have tanked and not due to the fault of the companies I invested. If it were just about bailing the big financial institutions I might let them dry on the vine.

It's like Bill Clinton said today (wish he could run) the big investment banks have tanked already. The bill addresses not the bailout of individuals (there are payback provisions) but the health of the system. This is to provide continuity and confidence in future deals -- a guarantee we won't let it get worse for those who wish to invest in our system. I'm sure the bill won't do that by itself.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It would seem the Democrat would do themselves a service by informing people when and why they got deleted. It might prevent repeat occurences of the same. But maybe if the deletions are born of early morning bad moods and the pre-coffee grumpies, then maybe they'd rather not tell us. :)"

<<<<<<<<<OGDad I didn't see the original post,(It had been deleted by staff), but then later someone else who had copy and pasted it, put it back up on the Site and thats when they shut down all discussion. What it was, was some idiot making references to assinating a Presidential Candidate and I'm sure I don't have to say which one. Those people are idiots, They don't realize that if the Secret Service were to hear of that,( and they are everywhere) they could find themselves as "Person's of Interest" and end up in Gitmo., LOL.......

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

oldhippie01, I did see the original post and ignored it since I figured it would be (rightfully) deleted. But I did not personlly contact the Democrat asking them to delete it. About 2 months ago I saw a post concerning someone who had died and the poster said one of the coldest, most cruel things I had ever read on a board; something totally out of line and unecessary. After careful thought I contacted the Democrat about removing the post. The post remained. And I determined to never again give them my opinion on such a matter. They can police it for themselves.

I agree with you about the idiots. And the folks agreeing with the deleted post were shocking.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These people that do business the way they do have no plan or structure. They play like they want and the USA bails them out. Most are goverment employees who don,t keep their jobs but a few terms,so they shift back and forth between that and the private sector like Franks,who worked for wall street. He will just go back when his job ends...It,s a game,they don,t care if things fail, they don,t care if they succeed. They just want to steal and rob folks blind. They don,t get any hard time or jail time so they don,t give a rip. They don,t have a set way of doing anything,it,s all about ripping people off. Don,t try to figure them out, There,s nothing to figure. They are crooks period of the highest order, and thats the worst kind.

Posted by presby (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The country is going down whether they bail out or not,makes no diff.We might as well take wall street with us when we go,maybe that will wake some of them up finally

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope ya'll see that both candidates, who are each running on a re-form platform, are supporting this banker bailout (excuse me, taxpayer rescue as they are both now calling it); further, this banker bailout (sorry, taxpayer rescue) is being promoted by the incumbent.

Fundamental difference means one candidate would be for and one against. But both are for the basic idea, that we must "clear the balance sheets" and "unclog the credit system" by buying the bad debts and holding them "until the markets improve". Further, we are going to let the people who created the problem run the new system. Now that's what I call change.

A new broom sweeps clean doesn't it?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 3:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Both of these re-form can-di-dates are for creating an economic dictator for the country- but of course he'll have oversight, a blue ribbon committee to rubberstamp his decisions and show bipartisan support. Our new economic dictator will be able to reset both principal and interest on some existing troubled loans.

He can also manage the mortgage related assets he takes over. Wouldn't it be funny if he decided to repackage them once again into yet another layer of instruments with new classifications to make them more marketable in the interest of making profits for the taxpayers he is rescuing? He wouldn't do that would he?

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

More evidence of cultism in politics Yeahuhuh:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

So you see, it doesn't matter which is your preferred flavor, the other is unpalatable. They are both personality cults though, based on the solar hero archetype. Jesus is the truth, the light and the way- and so is Barack Obama, GW, and Mithras.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 5:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"After describing the "mass outrages" of the "Red Guards," the Russian Communist official newspaper further hit the nail on the head when it thus questioned the Chinese euphemism, the great proletarian cultural revolution: "Why is the 'proletarian' movement...going on without any participation by the working class?"

The answer to that question is the "proper" education of school children.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

MY HOLIDAY WITH JOHN McCAIN

by Mary-Kay Gamel

It was just before John McCain's last run at the presidential nomination in 2000 that my husband and I vacationed in Turtle Island in Fiji with John McCain, Cindy, and their children, including Bridget (their adopted Bangladeshi child). It was not our intention, but it was our misfortune to be in close quarters with John McCain for almost a week, since Turtle Island has a small number of bungalows and their focus on communal meals force all vacationers who are there at the same time to get to know each other intimately. He arrived at our first group meal and started reading
quotes from a pile of William Faulkner books with a forest of Post-Its sticking out of them. As an English Literature major myself, my first thought was "if he likes this so much, why hasn't he memorized any of it yet?" I soon realized that McCain actually thought we had come on vacation to be a volunteer audience for his "readings" which then became a regular part of each meal. Out of politeness, none of the vacationers initially protested at this intrusion into their blissful holiday, but people's buttons definitely got pushed as the readings continued day after day. Unfortunately this was not his only contribution to our mealtime entertainment. He waxed on during one meal about how Indo-China women had the best figures and that our American corn-fed women just couldn't meet up to this standard. He also made it a point that all of us should stop Cindy from having dessert as her weight was too high and made a few comments to Amy, the 25 year old wife of the honeymooning couple from Nebraska, that she should eat less as she needed to lose weight. McCain's appreciation of the beauty of Asian women was so great that David, the American economist, had to move his Thai wife to the other side of the table from McCain as McCain kept aggressively flirting with and touching her. Needless to say I was irritated at his large ego and his rude behavior towards his wife and other women, but decided he must have some redeeming qualities as he had adopted a handicapped child from Bangladesh. I asked him about this one day, and his response was shocking: "Oh, that was Cindy's idea – I didn't have anything to do with it. She just went and adopted this thing without even asking me. You can't imagine how people stare when I wheel this ugly, black thing around in a shopping cart in Arizona . No, it wasn't my idea at all.

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I actively avoided McCain after that, but unfortunately one day he engaged me in a political discussion which soon got us on the
topic of the active US bombing of Iraq at that time [i.e., Clinton era policing of no-fly zone]. I was shocked when he said, "If I was in charge, I would nuke Iraq to teach them a lesson". Given McCain's personal experience with the horrors of war, I had expected a more balanced point of view. I commented on the tragic consequences of the nuclear attacks on Japan during WWII –- but no, he was not to be dissuaded. He went on to say that, if it were up to him, he would have dropped many more nuclear bombs on Japan. I rapidly extricated myself from this conversation as I could tell that his experience being tortured as a POW didn't seem to have mellowed out his perspective, but rather had made him more aggressive and vengeful towards the world. My final encounter with McCain was on the morning that he was leaving Turtle Island. Amy and I were happily eating pancakes when McCain arrived and told Amy that she shouldn't be having pancakes because she needed to lose weight. Amy burst into tears at this abusive comment. I felt fiercely protective of Amy and immediately turned to McCain and told him to leave her alone. He became very angry and abusive towards me, and said, "Don't you know who I am." I looked him in the face and said, "Yes, you are the biggest a**h**e I have ever met" and headed back to my cabin. I am happy to say that later that day -when I arrived at lunch - I was given a standing ovation by all the guests for having stood up to McCain's bullying. Although I have shared my McCain story informally with friends, this is the
first time I am making it public. I almost did so in 2000, when McCain first announced his bid for the Republican nomination, but
it soon became apparent that George Bush was the shoo-in candidate and so I did not act then. However, now that there is a very real possibility that McCain could be elected as our next president, I feel it is my duty as an American citizen to share this
story. I can't imagine a more scary outcome for America than that this abusive, aggressive man should lead our nation. I have observed him in intimate surroundings as he really is, not how the
media portrays him to be. If his attitudes toward women and his treatment of his own family are even a small indicator of his real personality, then I shudder to think what will happen to America were he to be elected as our President.
--
Mary-Kay Gamel
Professor of Classics, Comparative Literature, and
Theater Arts
Cowell College
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, California 95064
831-459-2381 (office); 831-429-8803 (home)
mkgamel@ucsc.edu

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 7:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Truthorfiction.com has this as "unproven", because they have been unable to contact the Author, but my 84 year old friend in NY., who sent me this knows Mary-Kay and assures me that it is a true account........

Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just wanted to let you know in advance whose fault it will be if Sarah Palin does not do well in the debate tonight.

Gwen Ifill's!

Yesterday, the right-wing talk show hosts devoted most of their time to dissing Gwen and "prepping the republicans".

Their criticism is that she has written a book (to be published next January) about how black people have bettered themselves and will feature a photo of Barack Obama on the dustcover. Therefore, they say, she is not capable of monitoring an unbiased debate.

Just what I expected from them - Gwen Ifill is a brilliant and professional journalist.

I wish Barbara Jordan were here to give us her opinion!

Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

oldhippie01, that makes McCain sound like a terrible person. I'll almost feel guilty voting for him. :)

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OldGrandDad, this might be a good time to get on the winning side. You know those people that wait until after the election before they put the winning Bumper Stickers on their Car, LOL. I donated $100. to Obama's campaign, so he owes me BIG TIME!!! ROTFLMAO,LOL!!!!

Posted by oldhippie01 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes SouthernWoman, that just goes to show how smart the Republicans are. The fact that Gwen had written that Book has been published in the Media for a Month or better.

It's all a lot to do about nothing anyway, because Biden's record of Qualifications is a matter of Record, so the Ball is in Palin's Court. She is the one that has something to prove, or not.........

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EnKikur, it does not matter to me if there is a cult of Obama and a cult of McCain -- a cult of socialism and a cult of economic Darwinism.

Fact is one cult has ruled for too long and their excesses are starting to become toxic. Unless we don't expect bedsores and bad habits to fester, then we need to replace one group of crooks with the other. It is a cleansing process.

It is how we have done it for a long time. It is how we find out how rotten the other guys were-- what they pulled. And how we correct it. If you don't put the other guys in you never even find out what was done wrong.

Your cultist view, Marty is a self-indulgence. It is true that some folks elevate their views to the status of a cult. It is also true that men of higher order must use them as they are.

Something worse than picking the lesser of the evils is to not do anything and let the cults decide. NOT MY STYLE.

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This thread is coming to an end it seems.

Maybe I don't know but I think the majority of points the other side brought up were pretty much shown to be without merit -- or not true as presented. They tried to persist and repeat, and repeat, but what was glaring was their inability to actually admit they got it wrong when they read and believed their side's talking points.

We have totally proven my main contention -- People like what the GOP says -- It's a shame they are such liars.

McCain supporters portray us as meanines for pointing that out and sticking with it. It is our obnoxious behavior they cite as why they are right to opposes us. A lot like McCain's reasons for voting against Obama.

A party that is 38% of our country should not demand or expect to rule and they certainly should not do it by lying to people about how scary their opposition is. But it is up to people to learn to recognize lies even if it is their lies, or the lies of their side.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is the way with cult thinking Yeahuhuh. Opposing cults can never find merit in the idols of the other even if those idols have done some good. (I said if)

George Washington had this to say about the cult system in politics: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

And he had this to say about public credit: "...cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt....it is essential that you...bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not...inconvenient and unpleasant..."

My cultist view is not a self indulgence. If I am so off base why do so many of our government and banking buildings look like temples? Though the two above examples are extreme even in our little out of the way hamlet the sentiments embodied are echoed in the overwhelming praise for one's chosen savior. Animosity arises even if the opposing cults are worshipping the same Solar Deity as they are in this case, the High Temple of The Black Sun ruled over by The Dark Priests of Banking.

To follow your logic that supporting this system through playing one cult against the other (an idealistic dream) your only logical choice in this election would be McCain since the office of president and the Congress have equal power. The Democrats are in control of Congress so to maintain balance in your plan requires your vote for McCain.

I understand if you just cannot bring yourself to support a party whose president lied to the American people. "I...did...Not...have...sex...with...that...woman".

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wonderful insight on the balance of power Enkikur. The rest of your reply is just self-aggandising fluff for your cult philosophy.

Had the damage done not been done by a stacked congress and Administration, that would be wonderful logic about playing one against the other. But the wound is too deep left by the last guys. We are ready to change the game more than that. It is our call -- the other side -- you -- whoever -- should have curtailed the damage instead of leaving the players in place for all this time.

Fact is, true, we are playing one against the other right now. Fact is McCain is already the results of a party pushed all the way to it's left. But he is an idiot to use the same campaign playbook to show us how un-different he is. Had he not chosen Palin, had he not chosen the low road with his claims about the other side, perhaps we could have made do with him.

He is his own worst enemy right now -- not my fault -- his. What people have seen makes him less electable, not more.

Our approaches perhaps describe us. In politics, I am not moved by a need for empirical integrity unvalued by my culture, I will be a pragmatist in politics, in love and in finance -- till I pass. It's a very conservative approach.

Regarding your Bill Clinton -- standards of truth claim -- there is less chance the Republicans have gained some expertise in the last ten minutes than there is Democrats are even better now at doing what they were doing 10 years ago. I won't bet on the sure loss.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am curious, how is my occult theory of politics self aggrandizing? The more I look at it the more true it seems. When I examine the workings of cults and the workings of political parties, they seem very similar. I don't see how you don't see it, except that cult members always deny they are members of a cult.

Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You see Yh, I belonged to a cult before. I didn't buy the whole package but I bought enough of it to disrupt my life. The only thing that saved me from buying the whole thing was my natural bs detector that allowed me to see the paradoxes of word and deed in the lower echelons of the cult.

Freeing oneself from such influence gives one a clear vision of its presence in other groups.

What did you think of the video of the children singing Obama's praise?

Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I didn't see that video. That's so sweet to hear the little children -- he,he! NOT. But not a big deal either. Let people love what they w