Dear Don…. Thanks for the full disclosure!
And, all I had said was that the neo-cons were successful…in their economic goal of stripping the treasury of public monies so there could be no more great society, no more welfare state etc. In this they have succeeded beyond I’d guess even their own dreams. Even though this was all laid out by them decades ago and predicted by those who follow such things, I find it yet another thing that the public in the US has been tranced into buying…..until it was far too late. As to the neo-con ideology, yes, you and any one who has eyes and ½ of a brain can see that they were dreaming and had no basis in reality for imposing democracy and ideological financial institutions and mechanisms on another country as proof of their wisdom. At least no basis for success…other than delusion. And, IF anyone took anything that came out of the White House over the last 8 years as truth, they deserve to be disillusioned and quickly. For many of us the omnipresent deception was a way of life…even leaving out the ‘true believer’ aspects of it all. The Dems don’t need to prove there’s not enough money. They inherited the deficit (lack of money)…and I hope radical righties don’t try to reinvent history now too. I’ve been against the welfare for the rich that has been posing as ‘saving’ the financial structures of the world over the last half year or so….and have been all too vocal about it. I don’t like much of what Obama is doing either. I saw his ‘colors’ long ago… The only thing I will accept with a little grace is the fact that there appear to be a few drips and dribbles of the ‘trickle down theory’ reaching under the middle class for the first time in a long time. Even though it is borrowed money, some people need to eat and have shelter now. The little they get will in no way change the insane financial machinations that have been passing for sound policy for far too long. I wish them well with the small and used up bone thrown to ‘em! On Mar 4, 9:06 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > You gave me a wonderful idea! We just need to cut the budget of the > secret service in half. Might solve all our problems.(jk,,,mostly) > > Just for the record, I am a spring chicken(42 last Saturday), I > usually have a positive outlook on life(been difficult lately), > haven't read a book since Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and I > used to own Haliburton stock. I even considered going to work for KBR > before I came to my senses. So you've got me pegged. > > As far as neocons being successful I would think not. Looking at the > original plans for the war and budgeting; the Bush admin. had > radically underestimated costs. We were supposed to be down to 35,000 > troops by 2006. Iraq was supposed to throw rose pedals under the > boots of our invading forces, remember? Didn't happen like that. > Once we got there we didn't want another 'Nam so we had to stick it > out. Plus we needed to protect our oil interests. That is after all > the real reason we went over there, right? Oh yeah, that and WMD's. > > The Democrats are proving there's no such thing as not enough money. > We'll just borrow and print more. They are assuming an economic turn > around this year and basing budget projections on it. Seems overly > optimistic to me so maybe they are trying what your saying the neocons > did. We'll see. > > dj > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Don, I'll loan you some Tums! > > > Yet, your misdirecting hyperbole aside, those who probe for facts find > > that members of congress have been forced by the intel agencies to > > take private transport due to threats against their persons…this even > > though they wanted to do otherwise. > > > Of course, I’m happy to see that you at least can submit to a few > > things the neo-cons did as having been not so good for the common > > good. Yet, if you don’t see them as having been successful, either you > > are quite young, naïve, unread or a lobbyist for Halliburton! (Just > > kidding….kinda….) > > > I’m not so sure about the banks. The first batch didn’t go to help the > > problem. In fact, a banking friend of mine said he was ill during that > > hand out and had time to read all 100+ pages of the bill. The truth is > > that it was written so that the banks could/should do exactly what > > they did, buy up other banks! Oh, and have parties of course. > > > I would want those who have funds in banks to be insured. The rest of > > it can fall as far as I’m concerned. And, IF one loves the > > institutions so much as to hand ‘em trillions and say do as you will > > with it….and then feign shock and awe when they do…perhaps a simple > > nationalization would do for the short run. In fact, even though I had > > mentioned that ‘N’ word months ago, during the last week or so Obama > > has too…interesting. > > > Oh…and you say ‘liberal’ like it is a 4 letter word…I find it > > invaluable when it comes to liberty. While humans, not ‘parties’, have > > their poisons, I would bet my lunch that if a list of numbers of > > people and money in both parties were amassed….going back even 30 > > years, that the very nature of those who advocate for the rich would > > be in the majority of the payees. > > > Now that we have a tis/tisn’t match going….I’ll go have lunch! > > > On Mar 4, 4:40 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dude, I thought you were rich. I had pictures of you in my head > >> riding around in a huge black limo with Green Peace and Deadhead > >> stickers on the bumper. Seriously, if that was the neocon plan it > >> didn't work. I agree that Bush hemorrhaged dollars like crazy. Why > >> this is used as an excuse for the new administration to open up > >> another vein is beyond my understanding. We should be making cuts > >> across the board but instead we are very likely to triple Bush's > >> deficit. Absolutely foolish and completely irresponsible. We HAVE to > >> save the banks. I don't like it but it's necessary. We should be > >> cutting everything else to pay for it. Instead the Dems get private > >> jets to take them home every weekend and Obama gets a fleet of new > >> helicopters and every liberal lobby in the known universe got a > >> healthy payoff from the latest 'stimulus' package. 'scuze me while I > >> go find the anti-acids. > > >> dj > > >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > "...They are currently trying to run this country into the > >> > ground at full speed and succeeding...." - DJ > > >> > I truely don't understand how you can say that after the Bush years. > >> > There is very little 'ground' left to run into. All the money was > >> > given to the military industrial complex....and then the banks...and > >> > then the largest corps. ..and then.... > > >> > This was the neocon plan all along. This is not conjecture. It is > >> > clearly stated in many of their manafestos. They wanted to spend all > >> > of the public wealth (read: give it to the 'haves') and leave the > >> > funds dry. That way there would be nothing left for any sort of social > >> > welfare. I'd say they were quite successful. What little tinkering the > >> > Dems are doing seems to at least share the additional debt being > >> > racked up with haves and have-nots.. since the latter have been > >> > ignored for way too long I see little harm in comparison. If I had a > >> > dollar for every time I heard 'the middle class'.....I'd be rich. > >> > The notion of the common good has waxed and all but disappeared. > > >> > On Mar 3, 5:55 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Republican majority, yes. Republican controlled, um, I think not. > >> >> Semantics, perhaps, but the Dems did some damage and were a general > >> >> nuisance with what passes for a filibuster these days. Repubs don't > >> >> have enough to filibuster now. We actually have a Dem. controlled > >> >> Congress. They are currently trying to run this country into the > >> >> ground at full speed and succeeding. I'm on pins and needles waiting > >> >> to see what moonbats get appointed as supreme court justices. > >> >> Conservatives don't have the votes to block anything. > > >> >> Please don't mistake me for a fan of Bush. Clinton, despite being a > >> >> lying hound dog, was the better president. I would not have admitted > >> >> that in 2004, but I freely admit it now. He absolutely deserved the > >> >> impeachment but even back then I was glad he wasn't removed from > >> >> office. > > >> >> dj > > >> >> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, ornamentalmind > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > "...In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought > >> >> > the > >> >> > problem before the then democratic controlled congress...." - Craig > > >> >> > Before we revise history too much, when bush took office, the House > >> >> > was controlled by the Republicans and was throughout his > >> >> > administration. The Senate started out controlled by Cheney...the tie > >> >> > breaker of 50/50.....later a republican switched to independent. And > >> >> > it switched back and forth. So, historically, the congress was > >> >> > Republican controlled when Bush took office. > >> >> > For those who have forgotten, the vote to impeach Clinton was made by > >> >> > a Republican controlled branch too. > > >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary > > >> >> > On Mar 3, 10:04 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Slip, > >> >> >> Are you serious? You think its the financial institutions fault? > >> >> >> You > >> >> >> really think they would have lent to people that they knew wouldn't > >> >> >> pay them back out of their own free will? The institutions were > >> >> >> coerced to do what they did. Equal Housing Opportunity, imposed by > >> >> >> the government, is what brought this whole thing to fruition. The > >> >> >> institutions would not have lent to people that could not afford to > >> >> >> pay the institutions back. They are in the business of making money, > >> >> >> not throwing it away. > >> >> >> In fact, at the beginning of Bush's administration, he brought the > >> >> >> problem before the then democratic controlled congress. They gave > >> >> >> him > >> >> >> a big middle finger and told him not to mess with their Equal Housing > >> >> >> Opportunity pet project. He backed off, and that is why we are in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> mess we are in now. If he would have went after that as aggressively > >> >> >> as he did Iraq we might not be in as big of economic mess now. > > >> >> >> On Mar 2, 9:27 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > I apologize for the belated welcome but nevertheless, Welcome! > >> >> >> > What you have to understand, wood, is that many people have not the > >> >> >> > slightest idea of financial calculation and are "told" by financial > >> >> >> > experts that they "can" afford the house, the car, the credit card. > >> >> >> > We cannot blame the people alone but more so the financial > >> >> >> > institutions that have taken advantage of those who cannot perceive > >> >> >> > their own financial worth and capability of repayment. The US > >> >> >> > unfortunately is full of sharks that have taken control of > >> >> >> > government, > >> >> >> > taken control of the poor situations in which people live. > >> >> >> > Who of you out there would not want to have a better home, car, and > >> >> >> > other amenities in life? > >> >> >> > What is happening now is an "Atrocity" perpetrated by the wealthy > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> > control of the government. > > >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 8:02 pm, wood <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > As much as I would love to blame, the government for this mess, > >> >> >> > > but > >> >> >> > > the government is not entirely to blame—The problem is closer to > >> >> >> > > home. > >> >> >> > > People only have themselves to blame for putting themselves into > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
