BF2S Forums Its about change................

Turquoise wrote:

Marine....  is there any reason you quote yourself occasionally?

because my post screamed so much turth that he didnt want to touch it

If Pelosi really was in charge, then Obama's policies would be a lot more left-wing.  Obama is actually pretty moderate compared to her.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If Pelosi really was in charge, then Obama's policies would be a lot more left-wing.  Obama is actually pretty moderate compared to her.

yes but he allowed her to introduce a bill with so much pork on it that it would be immoral for a muslim to touch it.  that bill was so far let it fell off the wing.  it would have been way worse had not the media, repubs, or some dems blown the whistle.  you remember obama saying during his campaign that all bills will be visible to the american people before it was voted on?  well guess what, we didnt see it till after words.

Research what the Republicans have been protesting.  As Spark pointed out in another thread, they didn't exactly aim to cut the pork much.  Most of the cuts they wanted involved cutting spending on the government programs involved.

The point I'm trying to make here is that, unfortunately, the opposition to this bill seems about as misguided as the bill itself is.  I don't think this debate is really about the pork -- it's about who is receiving the pork and how much we plan to spend on government projects.

The Republicans pretty much destroyed their credibility as pork slashers between 2001 and 2006.

The bill definitely caters to liberal interests, but I don't see this as being any different from how so many bills catered to conservative interests when Bush and the Republicans had all the power.  To say Pelosi is in charge now would be the equivalent of saying Dennis Hastert was president when the Republicans had everything.

lowing wrote:

Nobama is a socialist Marxist liberal in every way shape and form.

How can you possibly make that assumption after one month when you didn't once criticise Bush's many lies, removal of liberties and war mongering of 8 years?
Possibly because you got contracts to fix military choppers that wouldn't have been there if Obama had been president and he is a threat to your future employment?
Possibly because you don't want to give any part of the money you made in the good times(for you) back to help your country in times of financial difficulties?
Difficulties which came about on the watch of the same guys who caused those choppers to be in the ME.

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nobama is a socialist Marxist liberal in every way shape and form.

How can you possibly make that assumption after one month when you didn't once criticise Bush's many lies, removal of liberties and war mongering of 8 years?
Possibly because you got contracts to fix military choppers that wouldn't have been there if Obama had been president and he is a threat to your future employment?
Possibly because you don't want to give any part of the money you made in the good times(for you) back to help your country in times of financial difficulties?
Difficulties which came about on the watch of the same guys who caused those choppers to be in the ME.

Pretty easy, Bush is not a socialist Marxist liberal, add to it, he did what he thought was best for the country and stuck to his convictions even the liberals blew in the direction of the wind. All those that critized the war voted for it. and voted to continue funding it.

I am marketable, I can find work working on airplanes ( or helicopters) whenever I need a job. I have been through this. I already worked for this company when the project came up to work on these helicopters, they asked me if I wanted on the project I said yes. I have no regrets and I am proud of hte work I did and the lives that it saves.

I already give money back, in the good times as well as the bad. At what amount do you suppose I give enough of what I EARN to those that refuse to? I didn't create this problem, I pay my mortgage and always have. Go bitch the ones who sign up for loans they can not afford. ansd their liberal masters that forced banks to extend them.

This "economic crisis" was in the making long before Bush took office. Try during the Clinton years. But to stay consistent with the popularity of blaming Bush for all of your problems and the fuckin weather. Yeah it did finally collapse during his administration.

I am quite sure though if it happened 6 months from now, you would still be blaming Bush and you would not be spouting off about whose watch was whose

Braddock wrote:

A couple of points lowing...

On the issue of wreckless lending and borrowing and the bail-out scenario we now find ourselves in... free-market capitalism and a penchant for deregulating everything that moves is what has got us into this mess and that kind of mentality is primarily the preserve of the right-wing, so if you want to point a finger of blame somewhere please take that into account. Yes, the people who took these stupid loans out are responsible for their own mess but the economic 'masterminds' that created the scenario which made such fatuous financial transactions possible in the first place must also share in the blame because a responsible Government should have taken measures to avoid this type of eventuality.

On the issue of blaming Obama for everything under the sun... seriously lowing, I know I don't live in the US and don't have the same frame of reference as you but the guy is just in the door, how can one man be responsible for the world's problems after just three or four weeks? I would imagine half of the bills he's passed haven't even had any kind of ostensible impact on real life yet.

On the issue of Obama being a socialist Marxist liberal in every way shape and form... no he's not. You guys wouldn't know what proper socialism was if it took a dump in your mouth.

It was the liberal congress that forced the banks into making loans for people who did not qualify. So you have a liberal congress inventing shitty loans for shitty people who would never pay them back anyway.

I do not blame Obama for everything under the sun, that was you guys against Bush. I blame Obama for his lies, and his spending bill, that will do nothing to stimulate the economy but will give the govt. vast control over our lives.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

A couple of points lowing...

On the issue of wreckless lending and borrowing and the bail-out scenario we now find ourselves in... free-market capitalism and a penchant for deregulating everything that moves is what has got us into this mess and that kind of mentality is primarily the preserve of the right-wing, so if you want to point a finger of blame somewhere please take that into account. Yes, the people who took these stupid loans out are responsible for their own mess but the economic 'masterminds' that created the scenario which made such fatuous financial transactions possible in the first place must also share in the blame because a responsible Government should have taken measures to avoid this type of eventuality.

On the issue of blaming Obama for everything under the sun... seriously lowing, I know I don't live in the US and don't have the same frame of reference as you but the guy is just in the door, how can one man be responsible for the world's problems after just three or four weeks? I would imagine half of the bills he's passed haven't even had any kind of ostensible impact on real life yet.

On the issue of Obama being a socialist Marxist liberal in every way shape and form... no he's not. You guys wouldn't know what proper socialism was if it took a dump in your mouth.

It was the liberal congress that forced the banks into making loans for people who did not qualify. So you have a liberal congress inventing shitty loans for shitty people who would never pay them back anyway.

I do not blame Obama for everything under the sun, that was you guys against Bush. I blame Obama for his lies, and his spending bill, that will do nothing to stimulate the economy but will give the govt. vast control over our lives.

I'm not familiar with whatever legislation you are talking about in relation to the Liberal congress so I'll have to take you at your word but was it not Reaganomics that advocated as little Government oversight over economic practices as possible? Lack of oversight and regulation has allowed banks to gamble with money they simply did not have.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

It was the liberal congress that forced the banks into making loans for people who did not qualify. So you have a liberal congress inventing shitty loans for shitty people who would never pay them back anyway.

Forced? I thought you said it was all about personal responsibility. That these people are the ones at fault, for taking on loans they knew they couldn't pay.

They are at fault ultimately for signing, but it was the liberal congress that pressured the banks int ocreating such loans. Look it up

http://www.4president.us/issues/clinton … ousing.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ … drive.html

From what I can tell, this all started around 1994.

Yep.  What's your point?

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

It was the liberal congress that forced the banks into making loans for people who did not qualify. So you have a liberal congress inventing shitty loans for shitty people who would never pay them back anyway.

I do not blame Obama for everything under the sun, that was you guys against Bush. I blame Obama for his lies, and his spending bill, that will do nothing to stimulate the economy but will give the govt. vast control over our lives.

I'm not familiar with whatever legislation you are talking about in relation to the Liberal congress so I'll have to take you at your word but was it not Reaganomics that advocated as little Government oversight over economic practices as possible? Lack of oversight and regulation has allowed banks to gamble with money they simply did not have.

Yup and if the liberals in congress would have minded their own buiness instead of treying to put every person in America into a home who could not afford one, this would not have happened. SO yer right, little govt. control is best.

Little Government is not necessarily best here lowing. We never had this supposed equality issue in our lending practices here in Europe and yet we are in the same boat too because of reckless lending; our scenario would have been helped by Government oversight vetting dangerous lending practices, little Government failed us in our case... ironic really that you claim big Government fucked you guys while lefty Europe got fucked by small Government!

lowing wrote:

Pretty easy, Bush is not a socialist Marxist liberal, add to it, he did what he thought was best for the country and stuck to his convictions even the liberals blew in the direction of the wind.

Actual what Bush was was a corporate socialist; the very worst kind of socialist.

He allowed the mega corps and financials to keep profits private and made their debts part of the public bill.


He is an abject failure in every possible way, unless you consider his explosion of the executive branches power to be a good thing.

You would have to be a blathering idiot to claim he did anything good whatsoever for our country.

There has been no serious terrorist attack after 9-11 because the terrorist blew their wad. If there were seriously motivated terrorist wanting to do harm all they would have to do is come up through Mexico. Or are you suggesting Bush accomplished border security? If so, then the millions of illegal aliens coming during his time as president were allowed to come, which again leads back to the abject failure of his terms.

He encouraged the banks to give money to illegal aliens, which in turn created the housing bubble. So in my opinion, he is as directly responsible for this sorry state of affairs as anybody in the world. He appointed the former CEO of Goldman-Sachs to oversee the bailout, which is nothing more or less than a grotesque power grab by a bunch of politicians.

I hope george bush gets sodomized by Satan in a pool of boiling semen in hell.