date:20090305


Add to that, Ted Kennedy's Knighthood, and it's time to cue the old Pink 
Floyd tune... "And when the band you're in starts playing different tunes... 
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon."

CW

- Original Message - 
From: "rigsy03" 
To: "PoliticalForum" 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 05:35
Subject: Re: Acting President Obama wants communism in America



Thank heavens my parents are dead to not face the shaming of their
efforts by this administration. I might have to smash china, slash
linens and paintings, flush jewels down the toilet, etc. America is
experiency its Crystal Night. Who could have dreamed some South Side
Chicago con-man would be in charge of our nation? Who could have
dreamed up Hitler?

On Mar 4, 11:17 pm, Travis  wrote:
> Like the rest of 'em. owned by the CFR. Even Mike Huckabee joined the CFR.
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, plainolamerican
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Obama wants communism in America
> > ---
> > true
> > but remember, puppets don't really have wants
>
> > On Mar 4, 7:38 pm, Travis  wrote:
> > > From: *Travis*
> > > Date: Wed, Mar 4, 2009
> > > Subject: Acting President Obama wants communism in America
>
> > > Of course. That was clear even before the elections.
>
> > > What DID people expect.
>
> > > B
>
> > >http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/dieckmann/090222
>
> > > Acting President Obama wants communism in America
> > > By *JR Dieckmann* 
>
> > > Hundreds of billions of dollars are now set to flow into left wing
> > liberal
> > > and environmental programs from the Government Stingallus
> > (*sting-all-us*)
> > > Bill. But what concerns me more is how much of this money — *OUR 
> > > MONEY* —
> > > will be funneled into the Democrat party as campaign contributions in
> > 2010
> > > and 2012 to assure political power remains in Democrat hands?
>
> > > Does anyone think there are any provisions in the bill to prevent the
> > money
> > > from being used for that purpose? Of course not. Pelosi, Reid, Obozo, 
> > > and
> > > the Democrats are now rewarding campaign contributors with handouts of
> > our
> > > money. You can bet that those organizations and unions will recycle 
> > > our
> > > money back to liberal organizations and Democrat candidates.
>
> > > There is a reason why most of the money won't be released until after
> > 2010.
> > > It's going to be needed by Democrat candidates in 2012 when Obozo's
> > campaign
> > > contributions are more closely scrutinized than they were last year. 
> > > It
> > may
> > > not be quite so easy to get away with accepting money from foreign 
> > > donors
> > > next time.
>
> > > This disastrous pile of socialist fly paper called a "Stimulus Bill" 
> > > does
> > > little or nothing to stimulate the free market economy. It does
> > everything
> > > possible to stimulate the growth of socialist government and the 
> > > Democrat
> > > party. The communistic policies that Obozo is putting into place 
> > > through
> > > Congress and by use of executive orders are no different from what we 
> > > saw
> > in
> > > the Soviet Union before it imploded.
>
> > > Language added to the Government Stingallus Bill now provides for 
> > > state
> > > legislators to overrule the decision of their governor to refuse to 
> > > take
> > > federal money with federal strings attached. Here is another power 
> > > grab
> > of
> > > states' rights and a trashing of the 10th Amendment. The Federal
> > government
> > > is now attempting to usurp the powers of state governors who oppose
> > Obozo's
> > > socialism, by crippling their ability to veto liberal legislators.
>
> > > Acting President Obozo very quietly signed a pro union executive order 
> > > on
> > > Friday that mandated the exclusive use of union labor for federal
> > > construction projects mandated in the Stingallus Bill. This assures 
> > > that
> > any
> > > federal money will go to benefit unions, which contributed 
> > > considerable
> > > amounts of money to Democrat campaigns. It also pretty much guarantees
> > that
> > > a lot of that money will be delivered into Democrat campaign funds in
> > future
> > > elections.
>
> > > Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has made the
> > following
> > > statement.
>
> > > *"President Obama's executive order will drive up the cost of
> > government
> > > at a time when we should be doing everything possible to save taxpayer
> > > dollars. Federal contracts should go to the businesses that can offer
> > > taxpayers the best value — not just the unions who supported the
> > Democrats'
> > > campaigns last year. Quietly signing executive orders to payback
> > campaign
> > > backers undermines Obama promise to change Washington . It is a
> > > disappointment for Americans hoping for more transparency and less
> > politics
> > > as usual in Washington."*
>
> > > On February 19, Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC) called opposition to 
> > > the
> > > stimulus package "a

PROP 8 ORAL ARGUMENTS (Live at 12:00 p.m. ET)

12:00 p.m. ET - Thur March 05 
PROP 8 ORAL ARGUMENTS
Oral arguments are scheduled before the California Supreme Court in a challenge 
to Proposition 8, a ban on same-sex marriage passed by voters in 2008.

http://www.cnn.com/live/

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

I Daresay It Is Time We Deal With the Mutineers Aboard the S.S. Conservatism



I Daresay It Is Time We Deal With the Mutineers Aboard the S.S. Conservatism
[ed. note: a number of you have written requesting I invite T. Coddington Van 
Voorhees VII back for another analysis of the sad state of the conservative 
movement. After some cajoling and a bottle of VSOP, he agreed.]


T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII
Editor, the National Topsider
Membership Chairman, The Newport Club


Much has been written about the fate of the conservative movement in the months 
since last I corresponded with you. I won't belabor the barrels of ink expended 
in the printing of its obituary, nor will I bore you with further reading of 
its entrails. Suffice it to say the grand old ship is in the doldrums, adrift 
in the electoral currents, with nary a harbor on the horizon. But it is time we 
leave such map room mopery aside and navigate a bold new course for the 
conservative armada. One needn't have a 400-year old heirloom scrimshaw sextant 
for this task; but, fortunately, I do. 

It's quite a handsome instrument, I might add, skillfully hewn from North 
Atlantic whalebone by some long forgotten crewman on De Gouden Hoer, the sleek 
Dutch galleon that once transported great- great- great- great- great- great- 
great- great- great- great- great- great- great-grandfather Marinus Van 
Voorhees to the New World, safe beyond the reach of the angry Amsterdam mobs 
who mistakenly blamed him for some unpleasant business there involving tulip 
futures. According to family legend grandpapa Marinus won it in a high stakes 
high seas game of Kaiserspiel, trumping that unlucky crewman's queen-high flush 
with his trusty pearl handled rapier. Although it doomed the crewman to a 
tragic fate as shark chum in the Gulf Stream, his beautifully crafted sextant 
has since proven a treasured family keepsake -- passed down from generation to 
generation of Van Voorheeses as we migrated westward with the great American 
expansion; from Newport to Greenwich to Manhattan, and finally back east again 
to the summer compound in Montauk. 

Today the Van Voorhees family sextant rests proudly atop my private shipboard 
desk. I'm admiring it now; there it sits, in its protective crystal bell jar, 
alongside Marinus' rapier, both still bearing the sanguinary patina of their 
provenance. They were, of course, the deathbed bequest of my visionary father, 
T.C. Van Voorhees VI, rakish founder of the National Topsider and the modern 
conservative movement. Last year, after our final emotional handshake, he 
looked at me with those anxious, fading eyes, and said: 

"the helm awaits, my lad; I trust you will steer it well. And, it appears, 
I have soiled myself." 

With that, old Dad slipped off this mortal coil. A sad moment, to be sure, but 
I took comfort in the stoic grace with which he finally relinquished control of 
both the conservative movement and his bowels. His beloved sextant is a 
constant reminder of my grave responsibility as conservatism's new helmsman, 
and a testament to the timeless truth that fate favors the bold - and the 
well-bred.

This was, as you know, the theme of the National Topsider's exclusive January 
conference at the private Breakers Club in Nassau where I hosted a veritable 
murderer's row of top tory thinkers to diagnose the troubles with conservatism. 
Dame Peggy Noonan was there, of course, along with Kathleen Parker, Douglas 
Kmiec, and those two mighty Davids of conservative intellect, Brooks and Frum. 
But enough of the namedropping. The order of the day, after mixed badminton 
doubles, was to formulate an Rx for our ailing patient. In this regard we were 
in surprising accord: in order to survive, conservativism simply must start 
appealing to a better class of people. The sad fact of the matter, as we noted, 
is that one no longer finds admitted conservatives in any of America's prestige 
zip codes nor the faculty redoubts of her selective academies. During our 
Bahamian summit many gambits were proposed to win back America's elite 
electoral precincts from the left; sponsoring various hip hop colloquia at the 
better Ivies, supporting integration of gays into Nascar, endorsing state 
ownership of the means of production. Rod Dreher, whose sensational exegesis 
"Crunchy Cons" sold well over 200 copies last year, recommended a full embrace 
of the environmental movement, which as I understand is quite the rage among 
youthful voters and the trendsetting thespians of Hollywood. Good and bold 
ideas all, and necessary steps to get the movement started again. But there 
remains a daunting obstacle - namely, the benighted rubes who constitute so 
much of our so-called "base," and whose existence make it nigh on impossible to 
recruit their social betters.

That conundrum of electoral calculus was the topic of much discussion two weeks 
ago, when my Nassau confreres and I were summoned to the White House for an 
intimate repast with the new President and his inner circle. Mr. Obama was 
radiant as eve

Re: does anyone else find it funny the dems are now comparing nobama to Reagan?

Good Morning PlainOl'!!

First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.  There was
some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.  Second, the
record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages"; that is a
misnomer.

With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware of
any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than there is
an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and producers
who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do not
hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.

This is a shame, because there should have been a black list back in the
day.   Obviously, Joe McCarthy was correct, and these individuals had
infiltrated not only Hollywood, but also upper levels of our government.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, plainolamerican
wrote:

should I continue?

==

Keith Responds:

Please do, as you have yet to cite or reference any "lie" that Ronald Reagan
was caught up in.

>
>
>
> On Mar 4, 5:51 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > What is it that you believe Reagan lied about?
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > comparing nobama to Reagan
> > > ---
> > > both lied without remorse
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 4:32 pm, Ohio mark  wrote:
> > > > these fools have never had one good thing to say about President
> > > > Reagan, yet in their desperate attempts to make nobama appear
> > > > presidential, they are now comparing the two.  what a joke.- Hide
> quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>  >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Obama to Drop Shield if Russia Helps with Limbaugh

Obama to Drop Shield if Russia Helps with Limbaugh
by Scott Ott  
(2009-03-05) - President Barack Obama has reportedly written another private 
note to his Russian counterpart offering to halt deployment of a defensive 
nuclear missile shield in Europe, this time in exchange for Russia's help in 
dealing with U.S. talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh.

The White House immediately denied the existence of the letter to President 
Dmitry Medvedev, but acknowledged "ongoing internal deliberations over a 
measured response using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy."

Dealing with Mr. Limbaugh has taken the Obama administration's focus off of 
other global trouble spots like North Korea, Iran and Chicago. 

The rift between President Obama and Mr. Limbaugh started in October when the 
radio kingpin said of Mr. Obama "I hope he fails." Tension escalated when 
Democrat pollsters discovered that Rush Limbaugh is the only remaining divisive 
Republican with name recognition higher than 10 percent.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, during his daily review of cable TV and 
radio personalities, said that President Obama won election, in part, "on a 
promise to be more inclusive, to talk with enemies, and to present an American 
face to the world that is more about dialogue and multilateral solutions than 
confrontation."

"If President Obama intends to find common ground with the Mullahs in Iran," 
said Mr. Gibbs, "He can certainly find a way to appease Rush Limbaugh."

An unnamed State Department source said that when Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton returns from the Middle East, the president will "dispatch her to 
Florida to engage Limbaugh in high-level talks to keep this situation from 
mushrooming."

The State Department also released its standard diplomatic response statement, 
which covers everything from nuclear weapons deployment by hostile regimes, to 
Israeli destruction of houses in Palestinian 'settlements', calling Mr. 
Limbaugh's remarks "unhelpful."

www.scrappleface.com




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

The Peanut Farmer Was Right: 30 Years Later And Suffering!

2009-03-05 Thread Doc Holliday


http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090228/NEWS06/902280342/1023/NEWS

February 28, 2009

Jimmy Carter's hard truth is now America's reality

By RAY WADDLE

Early warning about the financial fiasco surfaced not last year or
last decade but 30 years ago.

In 1979, in the middle of a recession, President Jimmy Carter got on
TV and told Americans we need to embrace a new age of limits, a more
responsible attitude toward energy independence and consumerism. We
face a crisis of spirit, he declared.

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
self-indulgence and consumption," he said.

Carter was immediately denounced. Too pessimistic, media pundits said.

Opponents dubbed it the "malaise" speech, though Carter never uttered
the word. Politicians got the message. Don't tell the people hard
truths.

I remember that night. I thought the president was speaking honest
thoughts that God-fearing Americans might understand. Instead, he was
reviled. After that, no one dared suggest we plan for future energy
needs or work harder for the common good. A year later, Carter lost re-
election to a man of sunnier disposition, Ronald Reagan.

Why the harsh reaction to Carter's speech? We might have received it
less defensively. We might have agreed there are problems to solve and
Americans can solve them.

Instead, we defined ourselves as big-time buyers and spenders. Running
up impressive deficits, we outspent the Russians and won the Cold War.
We were unstoppable.

Previously, 5 percent annual corporate profit margins were celebrated.

Now, Wall Street demanded 15-20 percent, an unsustainable fantasy.

Wealth was stratospheric for some. CEOs, competent or not, became
billionaires. Anti-government anger reached new intensities. Cable
news personalities took up more space, brandishing the tricks of
professional wrestlers – fake scowls, rude interruptions. Any
criticism against national myths of limitless growth was met with
howling accusations of socialism.

The malaise is real

Malls replaced farmland. Celebrity news filled the brain. Even when
the American economy soared as the strongest in history, it relied on
overspending. The nation's 17,000 economists gave no compelling
warnings that anything was wrong. Anyway, nobody listened.

In the 1940s, publisher Henry Luce declared, "God had founded America
as a global beacon of freedom." Many took that to mean that anything
America does has God's blessing, and nobody has the right to
criticize.

Another interpretation: divine laws protecting a great free society do
not include flimflam public policy and compulsive shopping.

This time the malaise is real. Someday it will pass. Meanwhile, a
spiritual realignment is likely — an embrace of simplicity and beauty,
maybe, and a rejection of glittering nonsense.

"We can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America's
people, America's values, and America's confidence," an embattled
president said 30 years ago.>end

Peace,
Doc

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Peanut Farmer Was Right: 30 Years Later And Suffering!

This is laugable, it was Carter who started the Community Reinvestment Act,
which is the cause of our Nation's economic plight!  This man is an
embarassment to all who hail from the Southeastern United States!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/ibd-carter-more-blame-financial-crisis-bush-or-mccain

Carter was actually the first President, (and the only Democrat) that I
cast a vote for.  I realized that I had made a huge mistake once I saw Jimma
and Rosilyn in that tacky dress walking down Pennsylvania Avenue dragging
that snot nosed kid Amy by their side on inauguration day.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Doc Holliday wrote:

>
> http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090228/NEWS06/902280342/1023/NEWS
>
> February 28, 2009
>
> Jimmy Carter's hard truth is now America's reality
>
> By RAY WADDLE
>
> Early warning about the financial fiasco surfaced not last year or
> last decade but 30 years ago.
>
> In 1979, in the middle of a recession, President Jimmy Carter got on
> TV and told Americans we need to embrace a new age of limits, a more
> responsible attitude toward energy independence and consumerism. We
> face a crisis of spirit, he declared.
>
> "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
> communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
> self-indulgence and consumption," he said.
>
> Carter was immediately denounced. Too pessimistic, media pundits said.
>
> Opponents dubbed it the "malaise" speech, though Carter never uttered
> the word. Politicians got the message. Don't tell the people hard
> truths.
>
> I remember that night. I thought the president was speaking honest
> thoughts that God-fearing Americans might understand. Instead, he was
> reviled. After that, no one dared suggest we plan for future energy
> needs or work harder for the common good. A year later, Carter lost re-
> election to a man of sunnier disposition, Ronald Reagan.
>
> Why the harsh reaction to Carter's speech? We might have received it
> less defensively. We might have agreed there are problems to solve and
> Americans can solve them.
>
> Instead, we defined ourselves as big-time buyers and spenders. Running
> up impressive deficits, we outspent the Russians and won the Cold War.
> We were unstoppable.
>
> Previously, 5 percent annual corporate profit margins were celebrated.
>
> Now, Wall Street demanded 15-20 percent, an unsustainable fantasy.
>
> Wealth was stratospheric for some. CEOs, competent or not, became
> billionaires. Anti-government anger reached new intensities. Cable
> news personalities took up more space, brandishing the tricks of
> professional wrestlers – fake scowls, rude interruptions. Any
> criticism against national myths of limitless growth was met with
> howling accusations of socialism.
>
> The malaise is real
>
> Malls replaced farmland. Celebrity news filled the brain. Even when
> the American economy soared as the strongest in history, it relied on
> overspending. The nation's 17,000 economists gave no compelling
> warnings that anything was wrong. Anyway, nobody listened.
>
> In the 1940s, publisher Henry Luce declared, "God had founded America
> as a global beacon of freedom." Many took that to mean that anything
> America does has God's blessing, and nobody has the right to
> criticize.
>
> Another interpretation: divine laws protecting a great free society do
> not include flimflam public policy and compulsive shopping.
>
> This time the malaise is real. Someday it will pass. Meanwhile, a
> spiritual realignment is likely — an embrace of simplicity and beauty,
> maybe, and a rejection of glittering nonsense.
>
> "We can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America's
> people, America's values, and America's confidence," an embattled
> president said 30 years ago.>end
>
> Peace,
> Doc
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Elder: Interesting Commentary

 .

LET'S DESTROY THE GOOSE THAT LAYED THE GOLDEN EGG.  AND WE'LL SEE
WHAT'S LEFT.

The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse
every time Congress meets.
Will Rogers

[image: The Sage From South Central] [image: Larry Elder]

In the waning, pre-TARP
days
of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500
billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion
Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a $789
billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system. Even
CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the administration's
approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."


Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion
budget,
intends to spend – strike that – "invest" on things such as creating "green
jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and enabling "
homeowners " to remain
in their unaffordable homes. How does the president intend to pay for all
these things? He wants to tax "the rich" – those earning $250,000 or more.
He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the wealthy.
What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to
achieve its desired objectives?


 The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health care
spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates, intends
for government to control the rest. What happens when – as in
Canada,
France and elsewhere – this fails to achieve its stated goal of
accessibility, affordability and accountability?


The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money actually
reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy other
institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of the
"bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?


The government now holds equity positions in several institutions,
including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking these
positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the taxpayers
deeper and deeper in the hole. General
Motors,
one of the Small Three, received – so far – some $13.4 billion in federal
loans . But its losses
continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.


The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special projects
designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan he
recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he square this
legislation with his promise to end pork spending?


 Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in non-defense,
non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency and both
houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act (designed
to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway bills;
expanded the federal government's role in education through, among other
things, the No Child Left Behind Act; passed – with the
prescriptionbenefits
bill for seniors – the largest expansion of Medicare in decades; and
increased government regulation as much as or more than under Democratic
administrations.

But the Obama administration now puts spending on steroids, and all but
three Republicans voted against the latest legislation. How does the Obama
administration explain its failure to achieve its vaunted "bipartisanship"?


RNC Chairman Steele needs to focus on the merits of the Republican approach
– lower taxes, less government domestic spending and fewer
regulations.
Punishing high achievers by taxing them destroys incentive and thus destroys
jobs. Transferring money from one pocket to another destroys the initiative
of the giver and the given. Private capital knows best whether, how and when
to "invest." The private sector "creates or saves" jobs, not government.
When Obama's "new New Deal" fails to achieve the desired objectives, we
already know what happens next.

Blame Rush Limbaugh, who, by the way, is not just laughing all the way to
the bank. At today's bargain-basement prices, he probably owns several.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls

Re: Elder: Interesting Commentary


this is just more "bailout" smoke

responsible people are responsible for thier own debts - everyone who
want others to contribute to their debt relief are the takers in our
society, of which we need less, not more

On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>  .
>
> LET'S DESTROY THE GOOSE THAT LAYED THE GOLDEN EGG.  AND WE'LL SEE
> WHAT'S LEFT.
>
> The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse
> every time Congress meets.
> Will Rogers
>
> [image: The Sage From South Central] [image: Larry Elder]
>
> In the waning, pre-TARP
> days
> of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500
> billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion
> Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a $789
> billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
> announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system. Even
> CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the administration's
> approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."
>
> Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion
> budget,
> intends to spend – strike that – "invest" on things such as creating "green
> jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and enabling "
> homeowners " to remain
> in their unaffordable homes. How does the president intend to pay for all
> these things? He wants to tax "the rich" – those earning $250,000 or more.
> He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the wealthy.
> What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to
> achieve its desired objectives?
>
>  The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health care
> spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates, intends
> for government to control the rest. What happens when – as in
> Canada,
> France and elsewhere – this fails to achieve its stated goal of
> accessibility, affordability and accountability?
>
> The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money actually
> reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy other
> institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of the
> "bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?
>
> The government now holds equity positions in several institutions,
> including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking these
> positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the taxpayers
> deeper and deeper in the hole. General
> Motors,
> one of the Small Three, received – so far – some $13.4 billion in federal
> loans . But its losses
> continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.
>
> The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special projects
> designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan he
> recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he square this
> legislation with his promise to end pork spending?
>
>  Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in non-defense,
> non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency and both
> houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act (designed
> to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway bills;
> expanded the federal government's role in education through, among other
> things, the No Child Left Behind Act; passed – with the
> prescriptionbenefits
> bill for seniors – the largest expansion of Medicare in decades; and
> increased government regulation as much as or more than under Democratic
> administrations.
>
> But the Obama administration now puts spending on steroids, and all but
> three Republicans voted against the latest legislation. How does the Obama
> administration explain its failure to achieve its vaunted "bipartisanship"?
>
> RNC Chairman Steele needs to focus on the merits of the Republican approach
> – lower taxes, less government domestic spending and fewer
> regulations.
> Punishing high achievers by taxing them destroys incentive and thus destroys
> jobs. Transferring money from one pocket to another destroys the initiative
> of the giver and the given. Private capital knows best whether, how and when
> to "invest." The private sector "creates or saves" jobs, not government.
> When Obama's "new New Deal" fails to achieve the desired objectives, we
> already know what happens next.
>
> Blame Rush Limbaugh, who, by the way, is not j

Re: Elder: Interesting Commentary

I agree, wholeheartedly.




On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, plainolamerican
wrote:

>
> this is just more "bailout" smoke
>
> responsible people are responsible for thier own debts - everyone who
> want others to contribute to their debt relief are the takers in our
> society, of which we need less, not more
>
> On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> >  .
> >
> > LET'S DESTROY THE GOOSE THAT LAYED THE GOLDEN EGG.  AND WE'LL SEE
> > WHAT'S LEFT.
> >
> > The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
> worse
> > every time Congress meets.
> > Will Rogers<
> http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/willrogers386904.html>
> >
> > [image: The Sage From South Central] [image: Larry Elder]
> >
> > In the waning, pre-TARP<
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=90741#>
> > days
> > of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500
> > billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion
> > Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a
> $789
> > billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy
> Geithner
> > announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system. Even
> > CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the administration's
> > approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."
> >
> > Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion
> > budget,
> > intends to spend – strike that – "invest" on things such as creating
> "green
> > jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and
> enabling "
> > homeowners " to
> remain
> > in their unaffordable homes. How does the president intend to pay for all
> > these things? He wants to tax "the rich" – those earning $250,000 or
> more.
> > He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the
> wealthy.
> > What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to
> > achieve its desired objectives?
> >
> >  The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health care
> > spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates,
> intends
> > for government to control the rest. What happens when – as in
> > Canada,
> > France and elsewhere – this fails to achieve its stated goal of
> > accessibility, affordability and accountability?
> >
> > The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money actually
> > reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy
> other
> > institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of the
> > "bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?
> >
> > The government now holds equity positions in several institutions,
> > including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking these
> > positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the
> taxpayers
> > deeper and deeper in the hole. General
> > Motors,
> > one of the Small Three, received – so far – some $13.4 billion in federal
> > loans . But its
> losses
> > continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.
> >
> > The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special
> projects
> > designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan he
> > recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he square
> this
> > legislation with his promise to end pork spending?
> >
> >  Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in non-defense,
> > non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency and
> both
> > houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act
> (designed
> > to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway
> bills;
> > expanded the federal government's role in education through, among other
> > things, the No Child Left Behind Act; passed – with the
> > prescription >benefits
> > bill for seniors – the largest expansion of Medicare in decades; and
> > increased government regulation as much as or more than under Democratic
> > administrations.
> >
> > But the Obama administration now puts spending on steroids, and all but
> > three Republicans voted against the latest legislation. How does the
> Obama
> > administration explain its failure to achieve its vaunted
> "bipartisanship"?
> >
> > RNC Chairman Steele needs to focus on the merits of the Republican
> approach
> > – lower taxes, less government domestic spending and fewer
> > regulations.
> > Punishing high achievers by taxing them destroys incentive and thus
> destroys
> > jobs. Transferring money from one pocket to another destroys the
> initiative
> >

Re: The Peanut Farmer Was Right: 30 Years Later And Suffering!


yeah, Jimmy had and still has a soft spot in his heart for the poor
and minorities.
Forcing banks to make considerations for them is just plainolwrong.

It was passed as a result of national pressure to address the
deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income
and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta
of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to
pass, and later to enforce the Act.

On Mar 5, 9:36 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> This is laugable, it was Carter who started the Community Reinvestment Act,
> which is the cause of our Nation's economic plight!  This man is an
> embarassment to all who hail from the Southeastern United States!
>
> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/20/ibd-carter-more...
>
> Carter was actually the first President, (and the only Democrat) that I
> cast a vote for.  I realized that I had made a huge mistake once I saw Jimma
> and Rosilyn in that tacky dress walking down Pennsylvania Avenue dragging
> that snot nosed kid Amy by their side on inauguration day.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Doc Holliday 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090228/NEWS06/902280342/1023/NEWS
>
> > February 28, 2009
>
> > Jimmy Carter's hard truth is now America's reality
>
> > By RAY WADDLE
>
> > Early warning about the financial fiasco surfaced not last year or
> > last decade but 30 years ago.
>
> > In 1979, in the middle of a recession, President Jimmy Carter got on
> > TV and told Americans we need to embrace a new age of limits, a more
> > responsible attitude toward energy independence and consumerism. We
> > face a crisis of spirit, he declared.
>
> > "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit
> > communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship
> > self-indulgence and consumption," he said.
>
> > Carter was immediately denounced. Too pessimistic, media pundits said.
>
> > Opponents dubbed it the "malaise" speech, though Carter never uttered
> > the word. Politicians got the message. Don't tell the people hard
> > truths.
>
> > I remember that night. I thought the president was speaking honest
> > thoughts that God-fearing Americans might understand. Instead, he was
> > reviled. After that, no one dared suggest we plan for future energy
> > needs or work harder for the common good. A year later, Carter lost re-
> > election to a man of sunnier disposition, Ronald Reagan.
>
> > Why the harsh reaction to Carter's speech? We might have received it
> > less defensively. We might have agreed there are problems to solve and
> > Americans can solve them.
>
> > Instead, we defined ourselves as big-time buyers and spenders. Running
> > up impressive deficits, we outspent the Russians and won the Cold War.
> > We were unstoppable.
>
> > Previously, 5 percent annual corporate profit margins were celebrated.
>
> > Now, Wall Street demanded 15-20 percent, an unsustainable fantasy.
>
> > Wealth was stratospheric for some. CEOs, competent or not, became
> > billionaires. Anti-government anger reached new intensities. Cable
> > news personalities took up more space, brandishing the tricks of
> > professional wrestlers – fake scowls, rude interruptions. Any
> > criticism against national myths of limitless growth was met with
> > howling accusations of socialism.
>
> > The malaise is real
>
> > Malls replaced farmland. Celebrity news filled the brain. Even when
> > the American economy soared as the strongest in history, it relied on
> > overspending. The nation's 17,000 economists gave no compelling
> > warnings that anything was wrong. Anyway, nobody listened.
>
> > In the 1940s, publisher Henry Luce declared, "God had founded America
> > as a global beacon of freedom." Many took that to mean that anything
> > America does has God's blessing, and nobody has the right to
> > criticize.
>
> > Another interpretation: divine laws protecting a great free society do
> > not include flimflam public policy and compulsive shopping.
>
> > This time the malaise is real. Someday it will pass. Meanwhile, a
> > spiritual realignment is likely — an embrace of simplicity and beauty,
> > maybe, and a rejection of glittering nonsense.
>
> > "We can succeed only if we tap our greatest resources — America's
> > people, America's values, and America's confidence," an embattled
> > president said 30 years ago.>end
>
> > Peace,
> > Doc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Elder: Interesting Commentary


we usually do

btw - Merc implied you're euwe - tell me that's not true

On Mar 5, 10:45 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> I agree, wholeheartedly.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, plainolamerican
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > this is just more "bailout" smoke
>
> > responsible people are responsible for thier own debts - everyone who
> > want others to contribute to their debt relief are the takers in our
> > society, of which we need less, not more
>
> > On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > >  .
>
> > > LET'S DESTROY THE GOOSE THAT LAYED THE GOLDEN EGG.  AND WE'LL SEE
> > > WHAT'S LEFT.
>
> > > The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
> > worse
> > > every time Congress meets.
> > > Will Rogers<
> >http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/willrogers386904.html>
>
> > > [image: The Sage From South Central] [image: Larry Elder]
>
> > > In the waning, pre-TARP<
> >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=90741#>
> > > days
> > > of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500
> > > billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion
> > > Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a
> > $789
> > > billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy
> > Geithner
> > > announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system. Even
> > > CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the administration's
> > > approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."
>
> > > Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion
> > > budget,
> > > intends to spend – strike that – "invest" on things such as creating
> > "green
> > > jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and
> > enabling "
> > > homeowners " to
> > remain
> > > in their unaffordable homes. How does the president intend to pay for all
> > > these things? He wants to tax "the rich" – those earning $250,000 or
> > more.
> > > He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the
> > wealthy.
> > > What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to
> > > achieve its desired objectives?
>
> > >  The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health care
> > > spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates,
> > intends
> > > for government to control the rest. What happens when – as in
> > > Canada,
> > > France and elsewhere – this fails to achieve its stated goal of
> > > accessibility, affordability and accountability?
>
> > > The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money actually
> > > reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy
> > other
> > > institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of the
> > > "bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?
>
> > > The government now holds equity positions in several institutions,
> > > including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking these
> > > positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the
> > taxpayers
> > > deeper and deeper in the hole. General
> > > Motors,
> > > one of the Small Three, received – so far – some $13.4 billion in federal
> > > loans . But its
> > losses
> > > continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.
>
> > > The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special
> > projects
> > > designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan he
> > > recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he square
> > this
> > > legislation with his promise to end pork spending?
>
> > >  Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in non-defense,
> > > non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency and
> > both
> > > houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act
> > (designed
> > > to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway
> > bills;
> > > expanded the federal government's role in education through, among other
> > > things, the No Child Left Behind Act; passed – with the
> > > prescription > >benefits
> > > bill for seniors – the largest expansion of Medicare in decades; and
> > > increased government regulation as much as or more than under Democratic
> > > administrations.
>
> > > But the Obama administration now puts spending on steroids, and all but
> > > three Republicans voted against the latest legislation. How does the
> > Obama
> > > administration explain its failure to achieve its vaunted
> > "bipartisanship"?
>
> > > RNC Chairman Steele needs to focus on the merits of the Republican
> > approach
> > > – lower taxes,

Rove: Presidential Bait & Switch

Presidential Bait-and-Switch What Obama once promised, and what he's
delivering. By KARL
ROVE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621161271234665.html

Barack Obama won the presidency in large measure because he presented
himself as a demarcation point. The old politics, he said, was based on
"spin," misleading arguments, and an absence of candor. He'd "turn the page"
on that style of politics.

Last week's presentation of his budget shows that hope was a mirage.

For example, Mr. Obama didn't run promising larger deficits -- but now is
offering record-setting ones. He'll add $4.9 trillion before his term ends
and $7.4 trillion if given a second, doubling the national debt in five
years and tripling it in 10. Mr. Obama's deficits will be much larger than
he admits because he relies on rosy economic assumptions and gimmicks that
mask spending and debt (like assuming popular new programs he supports won't
be renewed).

Nor did Mr. Obama run promising more earmarks. Instead, he said he'd reform
the earmark culture and "scour the federal budget, line by line, and make
meaningful cuts." Now he wants to wave through a $410 billion omnibus
spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion
stimulus bill signed into law two weeks ago.

His justification comes to us from the White House's budget director, Peter
Orszag, who recently called the omnibus spending bill "last year's
business." But it will fund the federal government for the next six months.
Mr. Obama could veto the legislation or push congressional Democrats to
ditch the earmarks. But he has given little indication that he will do
either.

Nor is it credible to claim that the spending spree on Mr. Obama's watch is
someone else's responsibility, as Mr. Orszag did by saying the president had
"inherited" these deficits.

Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the
stimulus bill that is history's largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama
got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also
proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next
fiscal year.

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's
decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and
dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush's eight-year
total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to
the national debt. If America "cannot and will not sustain" deficits like
Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain
the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?

There is more. Mr. Obama pledged "no tax hikes on any families earning less
than a quarter million dollars." What he didn't draw attention to was $600
billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade
system on carbon emissions. These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips
a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.
Mr. Obama devoted four times as much space in his campaign stump speech to
cutting taxes as he did to talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. In
the election's most widely watched speech, his Denver Convention address, he
didn't even mention raising taxes, instead stressing he'd "cut taxes -- cut
taxes -- for 95% of all working families." Yet higher taxes are what every
American is going to get.


Today's White House health-care summit should also remind us of one of Mr.
Obama's most popular ads, which declared, "On health care reform -- two
extremes. On one end, government-run health care, higher taxes. On the
other, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama
says both extremes are wrong."

Mr. Obama's plan will lead us to the extreme of government-run health care.
And in an effort to reach that goal, Mr. Obama's budget proposes, as a
starting point, a $630 billion fund to expand government-run health care.
And that $630 billion comes not from reduced spending, but higher taxes.

Mr. Obama's personal popularity remains higher than support for his
proposals. A raft of opinion surveys show Americans take the conservative
side on issues ranging from the efficacy of government spending, to
nationalization of banks, to bailouts for auto companies, to whether tax
cuts or government spending will create more jobs. Packaging Mr. Obama's
proposals is easier than rigorously defending them. Team Obama will find
this out as the details of their budget and other plans are scrutinized.

Barack Obama has been president for a little more than five weeks. During
his speech to a joint session of Congress last week, he showed what a
skilled speaker he is and how persuasive he can be. But words delivered from
a teleprompter, while important, have to line up with actions. Promises have
to be met. And a president who promised to be one thing cannot be another.
At some

Re: does anyone else find it funny the dems are now comparing nobama to Reagan?


First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.
--
yes, Reagan and his fellow criminals did trade arms for hostages
It began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein
Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically
influential group of Iranians; the U.S. would then resupply Israel and
receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do
everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages,
who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah. The
plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in
which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange
for the release of the American hostages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair

  There was
some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.
Second, the
record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages";
that is a
misnomer.
---
wrong again
on March 4, 1987, Reagan admitted in a televised
national address, "A few months ago, I told the American people I did
not trade arms for hostages.  My heart and my best intentions still
tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is
not."


With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware
of
any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than
there is
an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and
producers
who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do
not
hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
---
official or not - it happened and it's well documented


On Mar 5, 8:38 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Good Morning PlainOl'!!
>
> First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.  There was
> some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.  Second, the
> record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
> transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages"; that is a
> misnomer.
>
> With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware of
> any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than there is
> an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and producers
> who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do not
> hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
>
> This is a shame, because there should have been a black list back in the
> day.   Obviously, Joe McCarthy was correct, and these individuals had
> infiltrated not only Hollywood, but also upper levels of our government.
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, plainolamerican
> wrote:
>
> should I continue?
>
> ==
>
> Keith Responds:
>
> Please do, as you have yet to cite or reference any "lie" that Ronald Reagan
> was caught up in.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 5:51 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > What is it that you believe Reagan lied about?
>
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > comparing nobama to Reagan
> > > > ---
> > > > both lied without remorse
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 4:32 pm, Ohio mark  wrote:
> > > > > these fools have never had one good thing to say about President
> > > > > Reagan, yet in their desperate attempts to make nobama appear
> > > > > presidential, they are now comparing the two.  what a joke.- Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Elder: Interesting Commentary

Hey PlainOl'!!

Although I have the utmost respect for Euwe,  we are not one in the same,
and Euwe and I  are far from seeing eye to eye politically!!   I reside in
Tampa Florida, and I believe that Euwe is in Ohio, or somewhere in the
midwest.

With all due respect to Mecury, she is a woman who is troubled, obviously
with a number of issues.

I wish her nothing but the best!!






On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:50 AM, plainolamerican
wrote:

>
> we usually do
>
> btw - Merc implied you're euwe - tell me that's not true
>
> On Mar 5, 10:45 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > I agree, wholeheartedly.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM, plainolamerican
> > wrote:
>  >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > this is just more "bailout" smoke
> >
> > > responsible people are responsible for thier own debts - everyone who
> > > want others to contribute to their debt relief are the takers in our
> > > society, of which we need less, not more
> >
> > > On Mar 5, 10:11 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > >  .
> >
> > > > LET'S DESTROY THE GOOSE THAT LAYED THE GOLDEN EGG.  AND WE'LL
> SEE
> > > > WHAT'S LEFT.
> >
> > > > The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get
> > > worse
> > > > every time Congress meets.
> > > > Will Rogers<
> > >http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/willrogers386904.html>
> >
> > > > [image: The Sage From South Central] [image: Larry Elder]
> >
> > > > In the waning, pre-TARP<
> > >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=90741#>
> > > > days
> > > > of the Bush administration, the national deficit stood at about $500
> > > > billion. A panicked Bush and Congress then voted for the $700 billion
> > > > Troubled Asset Relief Program to "bail out" the banks. Obama signed a
> > > $789
> > > > billion economic "stimulus" package, and Treasury Secretary Timothy
> > > Geithner
> > > > announced a $2.5 trillion "rescue plan" for the financial system.
> Even
> > > > CNBC's Jim Cramer, a former Obama supporter, called the
> administration's
> > > > approach the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president."
> >
> > > > Obama, as part of his $3.6 billion
> > > > budget,
> > > > intends to spend – strike that – "invest" on things such as creating
> > > "green
> > > > jobs," combating the effects of "climate change," health care and
> > > enabling "
> > > > homeowners "
> to
> > > remain
> > > > in their unaffordable homes. How does the president intend to pay for
> all
> > > > these things? He wants to tax "the rich" – those earning $250,000 or
> > > more.
> > > > He also promises to close "tax loopholes" taken advantage of by the
> > > wealthy.
> > > > What to do when this European-style redistribution of wealth fails to
> > > > achieve its desired objectives?
> >
> > > >  The U.S. government already controls nearly 50 percent of health
> care
> > > > spending. The Obama administration, through regulation and mandates,
> > > intends
> > > > for government to control the rest. What happens when – as in
> > > > Canada,
> > > > France and elsewhere – this fails to achieve its stated goal of
> > > > accessibility, affordability and accountability?
> >
> > > > The 20 banks that received the most of the original TARP money
> actually
> > > > reduced, not increased, their lending. And some used the money to buy
> > > other
> > > > institutions. So how does the administration explain the failure of
> the
> > > > "bailout" money to "unfreeze" lending?
> >
> > > > The government now holds equity positions in several institutions,
> > > > including, but not limited to, the giant insurer AIG. Since taking
> these
> > > > positions, the government's market value has dropped, placing the
> > > taxpayers
> > > > deeper and deeper in the hole. General
> > > > Motors,
> > > > one of the Small Three, received – so far – some $13.4 billion in
> federal
> > > > loans . But
> its
> > > losses
> > > > continue, and GM now says it needs an additional $16.6 billion.
> >
> > > > The president promised to eliminate pork, earmarks and/or special
> > > projects
> > > > designed to please constituents. The $789 billion spending spree plan
> he
> > > > recently signed is larded with pork-barrel projects. How does he
> square
> > > this
> > > > legislation with his promise to end pork spending?
> >
> > > >  Republicans deserve harsh criticism for failing to rein in
> non-defense,
> > > > non-homeland security spending when they controlled the presidency
> and
> > > both
> > > > houses of Congress. Republicans helped gut the Freedom to Farm Act
> > > (designed
> > > > to wean farmers from subsidies); OK'd pork-riddled energy and highway
> > > bills;
> > > > expanded the federal government's role in education through, among
> other

Re: Thursday, September 30, 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending


In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among
minorities and
low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
requirements
---
making considerations for minorities is just plainolwrong

if you wanna contribute your own money for their food, housing and
healthcare, you're free to do so
you're also free to fund Israel, Africa, Georgia and anyone else - but
do it with your own money - not our tax dollars

I never realized that you're a bleeding heart liberal.

On Mar 5, 10:45 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Note Franklin Raines' comments:
>
> ==
>
> 
>
>  Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending By STEVEN A. HOLMES 
> Published:
> Thursday, September 30, 
> 1999http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
>
> In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and
> low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
> requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
>
> The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
> markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
> those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
> generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
> officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
>
> Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
> under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage
> loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock
> holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
>
> In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
> pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
> borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not
> good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from
> finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from
> three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
>
> ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
> 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
> Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too
> many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has
> required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage
> rates in the so-called subprime market.''
>
> Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
> study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to
> black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan
> market.
>
> In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is
> taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
> during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may
> run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue
> similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
>
> ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift
> industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at
> the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have
> to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift
> industry.''
>
> Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a
> mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a
> conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate
> that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or
> her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium
> is dropped.
>
> Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not
> lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks
> make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans
> that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to
> people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
>
> Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all
> potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the
> move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income
> home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
>
> Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic
> boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants
> jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's
> Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of
> African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent
>

Re: Thursday, September 30, 1999: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

PlainOl';

Well, maybe you should run the "Bleeding Heart Liberal" tag past those over
in Euwetopia, as I am detested in that den of Moonbats!  This week, I am on
Rebel's, Justice's and Lil' Moonbat Mikey's "target to attack" because I
chose to call them out for cheering Paul Harvey's death, which I find
despicable, and unforgivable.   It has forever changed the way that I
perceive these three individuals.

I have been railing for months, that it was not the Republicans that caused
the financial meltdown in this Nation, but was in fact the Democrat Party
which has been infiltrated by socialists and their cause.  I thought this
article, dated from September, 1999, was very poignant, and on the
mark.  Former CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, as well as another CEO of
Fannie Mae, Jim Johnson, both worked on President Obama's presidential
campaign as advisors.

If the Republicans can be blamed for anything, it was that they did not
scream loud enough at the travesty that these socialists were inflicting
upon us collectively!!

Plainol',  I sincerely hope that you will take three or four minutes of
time, to watch this short video, from 2004, which shows Congressman Barney
Frank, (D. Mass)  Congresswoman Maxine Waters, (D. Cal.); Congressman Lacey
Clay, (D. Mo.); Congressman Arthur Davis (D. Ala), Congressman Gregory
Meeks, (D. N.Y.) as well as other Democrats vehemently denying that there
were any problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in 2004.  That Senator
Obama's presidential campaign economic advisor, and former Fannie Mae CEO
Franklin Raines was doing, "An outstanding job"; and that the regulators
were the ones that were creating the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:57 AM, plainolamerican
wrote:

>
> In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among
> minorities and
> low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
> requirements
> ---
> making considerations for minorities is just plainolwrong
>
> if you wanna contribute your own money for their food, housing and
> healthcare, you're free to do so
> you're also free to fund Israel, Africa, Georgia and anyone else - but
> do it with your own money - not our tax dollars
>
> I never realized that you're a bleeding heart liberal.
>
> On Mar 5, 10:45 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > Note Franklin Raines' comments:
> >
> > ==
> >
> >  .>
> >
> >  Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending By STEVEN A. HOLMES
> Published:
> > Thursday, September 30, 1999
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
>  >
> > In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities
> and
> > low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit
> > requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
> >
> > The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15
> > markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage
> > those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is
> > generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae
> > officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
> >
> > Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been
> > under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand
> mortgage
> > loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock
> > holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
> >
> > In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been
> > pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime
> > borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are
> not
> > good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from
> > finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from
> > three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
> >
> > ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the
> > 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines,
> > Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too
> > many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting
> has
> > required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage
> > rates in the so-called subprime market.''
> >
> > Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one
> > study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went
> to
> > black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan
> > market.
> >
> > In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is
> > taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties
> > during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation
> m

Typical totalitarian republicans

2009-03-05 Thread Fritz da Cat

GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/3/gop-to-michael-steele-quiet-about-rush-limbaugh-or-youre-fired.html

(excerpt)

Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee
Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops
to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising
money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican
advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told
Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the
party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and
moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.

"What is amazing is that Steele was elected because of his
communications skills, and it is those skills that are damaging the
Republican Party. Before people begin to completely judge him as
worthless, Steele needs to focus and knuckle down on building a strong
foundation at RNC so we can begin rebuilding our majority," says a top
GOP strategist who has worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.
"If his implosion continues, RNC members are likely to call a special
session to dump him for an effective chairman. There is not much
patience for failure."

Others want Steele to re-evaluate his role in the party. Of concern:
For no reason, he is dividing the GOP between conservatives who like
Limbaugh and moderates who don't and jeopardizing future fundraising
efforts, his key responsibility. "The general sentiment of the
conference is that Steele needs to step back and get a handle on his
role in the party," says an influential congressional aide. Namely,
advisers want him to stay out of the media and focus instead on hiring
his staff and revamping the RNC. "He needs to hire staff for the RNC,
get the operations up and running, start raising money, and understand
that his role is to win elections," says a senior party adviser.
Officials are concerned that Steele either doesn't understand his
responsibilities or has an inflated vision of his role. "At this
point, it is as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the job
description. An RNC chairman who attacks Republicans and insults
conservative icons is about as counterproductive as any Democrat could
hope for," says the adviser.
--
Buh Bye GOP.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

More Goodies From Cuba

VENEZUELA Cuban influence in Venezuela spreading The 40,000 Cubans now
working in Venezuela have a hand in all kinds of sectors -- including
security for President Hugo Chávez. BY CASTO OCANDO El Nuevo Herald
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-stories/story/933464.html


Cuban influence in Venezuela is growing beyond politics in a broad range of
areas, from agriculture and commerce to energy and education -- and even
presidential security.

Some 40,000 Cubans are now working in Venezuela, and the island has received
millions of dollars in petroleum subsidies that sway between 90,000 and
130,000 barrels a day, according to some estimates.

Héctor Navarro, Venezuela's minister of education, revealed last month that
a group of Cuban experts are giving his government lessons in public
education.

''Cubans are advising on how to measure the educational impact in
mathematics and language arts,'' Navarro told the Caracas daily El
Universal. ``It is about creating [ways to gauge] the competency that our
students must handle.''

Until now, the most notable Cuban activity had centered on the *Barrio
Adentro* program, which places Cuban healthcare, education and social
service workers in low-income neighborhoods throughout Venezuela.

Cuban influence has quietly broadened to include less visible sectors,
though critically more strategic and political in scope.

Sources within the Venezuelan military say Cuban military experts control
several security circles that protect President Hugo Chávez and have
penetrated strategic areas of the armed forces and the central government,
including the situation room in Miraflores, Venezuela's presidential palace.

The Venezuelan government recently announced a program that will supervise
police forces throughout the country, and Cuban advisors will play a
critical role.

Bilateral projects include geology and mining, with a short-term goal of
using Cuban technical assistance to exploit mining reserves.

Dozens of projects are under way to ''identify, quantify and explore gold,
diamonds, nickel, salt and calcium deposits,'' said Avilo Lavarca, president
of the Venezuelan National Institute of Geology and Mining.

Sixty Cuban experts are participating in 11 programs to explore and exploit
mineral deposits, including nickel. Cuba is the world's sixth leading
producer of nickel, and Venezuela holds sizeable reserves and is developing
a processing plant plan.

The Cuban influence reaches nearly every sector of economic activity and
daily life. At a recent news conference, Ramiro Valdes, Cuban Minister of
Information Technology and Communications, detailed a plan to ''liberate''
technology that will allow Cuba to broaden Internet access through a fiber
optic line from Venezuela.

The 1,500 kilometer connection could be in operation by 2010, Valdes said.
The network would be capable of transmitting 160 gigabytes per second, 1,000
times faster than the island's current satellite connection, he said.

Even lions, giraffes and hippopotamuses at the Caricuao Zoo in Caracas are
being acquired through the Havana Zoo.

During the recent referendum in which the indefinite reelection of Chávez
was approved, Cuban television preempted regularly scheduled programs for
live coverage of Chávez's victory speech.

Experts say Chávez's victory brings stability to the relationship. It
''dissipates doubts about the political durability of Cuba's most important
ally, and will postpone the date that the island will be forced to live
without the shipments of Venezuelan petroleum subsidies,'' wrote Dan
Erikson, a Cuba expert from the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue.

Three days after the referendum, Cuban authorities began working on a plan
to export thousands of farm workers to Venezuela to seek to develop the
fertile plains of the Orinoco river basin, site of the largest oil reserves.

The plan generated an immediate and negative reaction in Venezuela. ''There
are enough men and women [here], with enough capacity to increase the
nation's agricultural production,'' said Gustavo Moreno, president of the
Venezuelan Federation of Agricultural Producers.

Beyond agriculture, the two nations have created more than 30 joint ventures
and more than 300 projects that include millions of dollars in investments
since Chávez came to power in 1999.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans

As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy is
going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the likes
of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock puppets
are attacking Limbaugh??

LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!

Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did we
see posted, that proclaimed that Rush was the "Boogeyman"??
===

Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist:

"So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."

*Former Congressman and now Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel, (Socialist, Il.) June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference of the
Democratic Leadership. *

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Fritz da Cat wrote:

>
> GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired
>
>
> http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/3/gop-to-michael-steele-quiet-about-rush-limbaugh-or-youre-fired.html
>
> (excerpt)
>
> Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee
> Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops
> to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising
> money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican
> advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told
> Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the
> party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and
> moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.
>
> "What is amazing is that Steele was elected because of his
> communications skills, and it is those skills that are damaging the
> Republican Party. Before people begin to completely judge him as
> worthless, Steele needs to focus and knuckle down on building a strong
> foundation at RNC so we can begin rebuilding our majority," says a top
> GOP strategist who has worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.
> "If his implosion continues, RNC members are likely to call a special
> session to dump him for an effective chairman. There is not much
> patience for failure."
>
> Others want Steele to re-evaluate his role in the party. Of concern:
> For no reason, he is dividing the GOP between conservatives who like
> Limbaugh and moderates who don't and jeopardizing future fundraising
> efforts, his key responsibility. "The general sentiment of the
> conference is that Steele needs to step back and get a handle on his
> role in the party," says an influential congressional aide. Namely,
> advisers want him to stay out of the media and focus instead on hiring
> his staff and revamping the RNC. "He needs to hire staff for the RNC,
> get the operations up and running, start raising money, and understand
> that his role is to win elections," says a senior party adviser.
> Officials are concerned that Steele either doesn't understand his
> responsibilities or has an inflated vision of his role. "At this
> point, it is as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the job
> description. An RNC chairman who attacks Republicans and insults
> conservative icons is about as counterproductive as any Democrat could
> hope for," says the adviser.
>
> --
> Buh Bye GOP.
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: does anyone else find it funny the dems are now comparing nobama to Reagan?

Read your article PlainOl'..I stand by my original post.   Reagan knew
nothing, although he took responsibility, and no hostages were ever traded
for arms.  Where is the lie you are referencing?

If anything, Ronald Reagan stood up to the plate and took responsibility for
the screw-up.  More importantly, the American people voted overwhelmingly
for Reagan, knowing that his policy on the Sandanistas and contras was to
eliminate them.  This was Reagan's policy, which he executed, with the
American public's blessing.




On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM, plainolamerican
wrote:

>
> First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.
> --
> yes, Reagan and his fellow criminals did trade arms for hostages
> It began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein
> Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically
> influential group of Iranians; the U.S. would then resupply Israel and
> receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do
> everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages,
> who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah. The
> plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in
> which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange
> for the release of the American hostages.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair
>
>  There was
> some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.
> Second, the
> record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
> transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages";
> that is a
> misnomer.
> ---
> wrong again
> on March 4, 1987, Reagan admitted in a televised
> national address, "A few months ago, I told the American people I did
> not trade arms for hostages.  My heart and my best intentions still
> tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is
> not."
>
>
> With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware
> of
> any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than
> there is
> an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and
> producers
> who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do
> not
> hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
> ---
> official or not - it happened and it's well documented
>
>
> On Mar 5, 8:38 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > Good Morning PlainOl'!!
> >
> > First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.  There was
> > some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.  Second,
> the
> > record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
> > transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages"; that
> is a
> > misnomer.
> >
> > With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware of
> > any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than there
> is
> > an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and producers
> > who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do not
> > hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
> >
> > This is a shame, because there should have been a black list back in the
> > day.   Obviously, Joe McCarthy was correct, and these individuals had
> > infiltrated not only Hollywood, but also upper levels of our government.
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, plainolamerican
> > wrote:
> >
> > should I continue?
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Keith Responds:
> >
> > Please do, as you have yet to cite or reference any "lie" that Ronald
> Reagan
> > was caught up in.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 4, 5:51 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > What is it that you believe Reagan lied about?
> >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > comparing nobama to Reagan
> > > > > ---
> > > > > both lied without remorse
> >
> > > > > On Mar 4, 4:32 pm, Ohio mark  wrote:
> > > > > > these fools have never had one good thing to say about President
> > > > > > Reagan, yet in their desperate attempts to make nobama appear
> > > > > > presidential, they are now comparing the two.  what a joke.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans

2009-03-05 Thread Fritz da Cat


We're not socialists, not that you understand what a socialist really
is. The GOP is dying.

On Mar 5, 9:44 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy is
> going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the likes
> of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock puppets
> are attacking Limbaugh??
>
> LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!
>
> Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
> bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did we
> see posted, that proclaimed that Rush was the "Boogeyman"??
> ===
>
> Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist:
>
> "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
> are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
> out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
>
> *Former Congressman and now Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
> Emanuel, (Socialist, Il.) June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference of the
> Democratic Leadership. *
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Fritz da Cat 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired
>
> >http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/3/gop-to-micha...
>
> > (excerpt)
>
> > Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee
> > Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops
> > to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising
> > money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican
> > advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told
> > Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the
> > party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and
> > moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.
>
> > "What is amazing is that Steele was elected because of his
> > communications skills, and it is those skills that are damaging the
> > Republican Party. Before people begin to completely judge him as
> > worthless, Steele needs to focus and knuckle down on building a strong
> > foundation at RNC so we can begin rebuilding our majority," says a top
> > GOP strategist who has worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.
> > "If his implosion continues, RNC members are likely to call a special
> > session to dump him for an effective chairman. There is not much
> > patience for failure."
>
> > Others want Steele to re-evaluate his role in the party. Of concern:
> > For no reason, he is dividing the GOP between conservatives who like
> > Limbaugh and moderates who don't and jeopardizing future fundraising
> > efforts, his key responsibility. "The general sentiment of the
> > conference is that Steele needs to step back and get a handle on his
> > role in the party," says an influential congressional aide. Namely,
> > advisers want him to stay out of the media and focus instead on hiring
> > his staff and revamping the RNC. "He needs to hire staff for the RNC,
> > get the operations up and running, start raising money, and understand
> > that his role is to win elections," says a senior party adviser.
> > Officials are concerned that Steele either doesn't understand his
> > responsibilities or has an inflated vision of his role. "At this
> > point, it is as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the job
> > description. An RNC chairman who attacks Republicans and insults
> > conservative icons is about as counterproductive as any Democrat could
> > hope for," says the adviser.
>
> > --
> > Buh Bye GOP.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Workers Of The World Unite - In Prayer!

2009-03-05 Thread RW


Workers Of The World Unite - In Prayer!
What has caused the current recession is the oppression of the working
class. Millions of jobs have been outsourced overseas. Millions of
illegal aliens have been allowed into the US to replace American
workers. Many companies have gone to temporary services to hire for
them so they don't have to provide benefits. Many companies have used
anti-union tactics and used other methods to deny workers a living
wage. Minimum wages haven't been raised in years. And this is a world
wide situation. Workers have so little spendable income left it's
starting to meltdown the world economy. And what does the Bible say
about it? James chapter 5 says that workers of the last days will be
crying unto God, the Lord of Sabaoth, about being defrauded of their
wages and God will hear their prayers. God will soon punish the
selfish rich. They have heaped gold and silver for the last days, but
the Bible says "weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon
you." James 5;1. I think God is going to throw all these selfish rich
people into hell at the time of the rapture, which could be very soon!
See http://www.squidoo.com/tithes-and-offerings
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans

Yes, you are advocating socialism, just yesterday you advocated a
nationalization of our banking system.

I fully understand the political, economic and social concepts of socialism,
I encourage you to try and grasp those concepts Fritzie!  Here, by
definition, is the concept of socialisim:

 "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or
"associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating
collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property;
in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between
capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of
goods and pay according to work done."

The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled:
"Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan
& Co. 1913).  Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar.

"Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods.  A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional
between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution
of goods and pay according to work done"

 The truth is, that the Democratic Party now openly advocates socialism,
which by its very definition, is some middle ground and transition to
communism.   Although the Democrats used to try and evade the moniker, and
distance themselves from being classified as socialists, they do so no more.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, (D. Cal.)  this past summer, parroted the
Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the nationalization
of the oil companies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ

As I just quoted, White House Chief of Staff  Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said just
recently:

"So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html

Congressman  Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference
of the Democratic Leadership said:

"Should the people of the United States own refineries?  Maybe so.  Frankly,
I think that's a good idea.  Then we could control the amount of refined
product much more capably that gets out on the market...

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats.html

Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they call
for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democratic
Party openly advocates the federal government's  involvement in each and
every facet of our lives.   Period.  What part of this can any member of
this group, with a straight face, argue is NOT socialism?

By example, here in President Obama's own words, he openly advocates a
redistribution of wealth:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html

Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":

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

There is no question that President  Obama is calling for the very tenets of
socialism, which is the forerunner of communism, and a economic and
political system that has failed miserably throughout recorded
history.   President
Obama's,  and many Democrats' belief,  is that "Socialism, Communism,
Marxism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism were all wonderful political, social and
economic systems, we just haven't had the right folks try and implement them
yet!"

On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Fritz da Cat wrote:

>
> We're not socialists, not that you understand what a socialist really
> is. The GOP is dying.
>
> On Mar 5, 9:44 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy
> is
> > going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the
> likes
> > of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock
> puppets
> > are attacking Limbaugh??
> >
> > LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!
> >
> > Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
> > bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did
> we
> > see posted, that proclaimed that Rush was the "Boogeyman"??
> > ===
> >
> > Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist:
> >
> > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican
> colleagues
> > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving th

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans


Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist
---
imagine that

On Mar 5, 11:44 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy is
> going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the likes
> of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock puppets
> are attacking Limbaugh??
>
> LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!
>
> Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
> bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did we
> see posted, that proclaimed that Rush was the "Boogeyman"??
> ===
>
> Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist:
>
> "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
> are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
> out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
>
> *Former Congressman and now Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
> Emanuel, (Socialist, Il.) June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference of the
> Democratic Leadership. *
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Fritz da Cat 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired
>
> >http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/3/gop-to-micha...
>
> > (excerpt)
>
> > Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee
> > Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops
> > to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising
> > money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican
> > advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told
> > Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the
> > party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and
> > moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.
>
> > "What is amazing is that Steele was elected because of his
> > communications skills, and it is those skills that are damaging the
> > Republican Party. Before people begin to completely judge him as
> > worthless, Steele needs to focus and knuckle down on building a strong
> > foundation at RNC so we can begin rebuilding our majority," says a top
> > GOP strategist who has worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.
> > "If his implosion continues, RNC members are likely to call a special
> > session to dump him for an effective chairman. There is not much
> > patience for failure."
>
> > Others want Steele to re-evaluate his role in the party. Of concern:
> > For no reason, he is dividing the GOP between conservatives who like
> > Limbaugh and moderates who don't and jeopardizing future fundraising
> > efforts, his key responsibility. "The general sentiment of the
> > conference is that Steele needs to step back and get a handle on his
> > role in the party," says an influential congressional aide. Namely,
> > advisers want him to stay out of the media and focus instead on hiring
> > his staff and revamping the RNC. "He needs to hire staff for the RNC,
> > get the operations up and running, start raising money, and understand
> > that his role is to win elections," says a senior party adviser.
> > Officials are concerned that Steele either doesn't understand his
> > responsibilities or has an inflated vision of his role. "At this
> > point, it is as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the job
> > description. An RNC chairman who attacks Republicans and insults
> > conservative icons is about as counterproductive as any Democrat could
> > hope for," says the adviser.
>
> > ------
> > Buh Bye GOP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans


We're not socialists
---
hogwash
anytime you want to use US tax dollars for a special interest group,
then yes, you are a socialist

On Mar 5, 11:52 am, Fritz da Cat  wrote:
> We're not socialists, not that you understand what a socialist really
> is. The GOP is dying.
>
> On Mar 5, 9:44 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy is
> > going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the likes
> > of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock puppets
> > are attacking Limbaugh??
>
> > LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!
>
> > Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
> > bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did we
> > see posted, that proclaimed that Rush was the "Boogeyman"??
> > ===
>
> > Rahm Emanuel:  Admitted and Professed Socialist:
>
> > "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
> > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
> > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
>
> > *Former Congressman and now Obama Administration Chief of Staff Rahm
> > Emanuel, (Socialist, Il.) June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference of the
> > Democratic Leadership. *
>
> >http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Fritz da Cat 
> > wrote:
>
> > > GOP to Michael Steele: Quiet About Rush Limbaugh or You're Fired
>
> > >http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/3/gop-to-micha...
>
> > > (excerpt)
>
> > > Apology to Rush Limbaugh aside, new Republican National Committee
> > > Chairman Michael Steele is coming under fire from his own GOP troops
> > > to shut up and focus on his job of organizing the party and raising
> > > money, not fighting with his own political kind. Several Republican
> > > advisers to Congress and the previous Bush administration told
> > > Whispers that they are worried that the war of words is fracturing the
> > > party when it should be healing the division between conservatives and
> > > moderates in the wake of the 2008 election.
>
> > > "What is amazing is that Steele was elected because of his
> > > communications skills, and it is those skills that are damaging the
> > > Republican Party. Before people begin to completely judge him as
> > > worthless, Steele needs to focus and knuckle down on building a strong
> > > foundation at RNC so we can begin rebuilding our majority," says a top
> > > GOP strategist who has worked for House and Senate Republican leaders.
> > > "If his implosion continues, RNC members are likely to call a special
> > > session to dump him for an effective chairman. There is not much
> > > patience for failure."
>
> > > Others want Steele to re-evaluate his role in the party. Of concern:
> > > For no reason, he is dividing the GOP between conservatives who like
> > > Limbaugh and moderates who don't and jeopardizing future fundraising
> > > efforts, his key responsibility. "The general sentiment of the
> > > conference is that Steele needs to step back and get a handle on his
> > > role in the party," says an influential congressional aide. Namely,
> > > advisers want him to stay out of the media and focus instead on hiring
> > > his staff and revamping the RNC. "He needs to hire staff for the RNC,
> > > get the operations up and running, start raising money, and understand
> > > that his role is to win elections," says a senior party adviser.
> > > Officials are concerned that Steele either doesn't understand his
> > > responsibilities or has an inflated vision of his role. "At this
> > > point, it is as if he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the job
> > > description. An RNC chairman who attacks Republicans and insults
> > > conservative icons is about as counterproductive as any Democrat could
> > > hope for," says the adviser.
>
> > > ------
> > > Buh Bye GOP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: Typical totalitarian republicans


Yes, you are advocating socialism, just yesterday you advocated a
nationalization of our banking system.
---
spot on

On Mar 5, 12:01 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Yes, you are advocating socialism, just yesterday you advocated a
> nationalization of our banking system.
>
> I fully understand the political, economic and social concepts of socialism,
> I encourage you to try and grasp those concepts Fritzie!  Here, by
> definition, is the concept of socialisim:
>
>  "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or
> "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating
> collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
> production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private property;
> in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage between
> capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution of
> goods and pay according to work done."
>
> The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled:
> "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" (McMillan
> & Co. 1913).  Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar.
>
> "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or
> governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and
> distribution of goods.  A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional
> between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution
> of goods and pay according to work done"
>
>  The truth is, that the Democratic Party now openly advocates socialism,
> which by its very definition, is some middle ground and transition to
> communism.   Although the Democrats used to try and evade the moniker, and
> distance themselves from being classified as socialists, they do so no more.
> Congresswoman Maxine Waters, (D. Cal.)  this past summer, parroted the
> Venezuelan socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, calling for the nationalization
> of the oil companies:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUaY3LhJ-IQ
>
> As I just quoted, White House Chief of Staff  Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) said just
> recently:
>
> "So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues
> are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of
> refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned
> publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of
> the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put
> out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea."
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> Congressman  Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) on June 18, 2008 in a Press Conference
> of the Democratic Leadership said:
>
> "Should the people of the United States own refineries?  Maybe so.  Frankly,
> I think that's a good idea.  Then we could control the amount of refined
> product much more capably that gets out on the market...
>
>  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/why_do_we_call_them_democrats
>
> Democrats openly call for redistribution of wealth in our Nation, they call
> for socialized medicine, socialized energy, and in general, the Democratic
> Party openly advocates the federal government's  involvement in each and
> every facet of our lives.   Period.  What part of this can any member of
> this group, with a straight face, argue is NOT socialism?
>
> By example, here in President Obama's own words, he openly advocates a
> redistribution of wealth:
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
>
> Of course, Vice President Biden believes that a socialist, "redistribution
> of wealth" plan, is the "patriotic thing to do":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
>
> There is no question that President  Obama is calling for the very tenets of
> socialism, which is the forerunner of communism, and a economic and
> political system that has failed miserably throughout recorded
> history.   President
> Obama's,  and many Democrats' belief,  is that "Socialism, Communism,
> Marxism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism were all wonderful political, social and
> economic systems, we just haven't had the right folks try and implement them
> yet!"
>
> 
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Fritz da Cat 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > We're not socialists, not that you understand what a socialist really
> > is. The GOP is dying.
>
> > On Mar 5, 9:44 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > As I said yesterday, it is my belief that this little (stupid) strategy
> > is
> > > going to backfire on the socialists.   Americans are hurting, and the
> > likes
> > > of Rahm Emanuel, Paul Begalia, James Carville and other Obama sock
> > puppets
> > > are attacking Limbaugh??
>
> > > LOL!! If the economy were not so grave, this would be hysterical!
>
> > > Note how the socialists and the uninformed immediately jumped on the
> > > bandwagon however.How many posts, just to this group yesterday, did

Re: More Goodies From Cuba


because Venezuelains couldn't oust corruption they turned to socialism
understandable but still plainolwrong

On Mar 5, 11:32 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> VENEZUELA Cuban influence in Venezuela spreading The 40,000 Cubans now
> working in Venezuela have a hand in all kinds of sectors -- including
> security for President Hugo Chávez. BY CASTO OCANDO El Nuevo 
> Heraldhttp://www.miamiherald.com/news/top-stories/story/933464.html
>
> Cuban influence in Venezuela is growing beyond politics in a broad range of
> areas, from agriculture and commerce to energy and education -- and even
> presidential security.
>
> Some 40,000 Cubans are now working in Venezuela, and the island has received
> millions of dollars in petroleum subsidies that sway between 90,000 and
> 130,000 barrels a day, according to some estimates.
>
> Héctor Navarro, Venezuela's minister of education, revealed last month that
> a group of Cuban experts are giving his government lessons in public
> education.
>
> ''Cubans are advising on how to measure the educational impact in
> mathematics and language arts,'' Navarro told the Caracas daily El
> Universal. ``It is about creating [ways to gauge] the competency that our
> students must handle.''
>
> Until now, the most notable Cuban activity had centered on the *Barrio
> Adentro* program, which places Cuban healthcare, education and social
> service workers in low-income neighborhoods throughout Venezuela.
>
> Cuban influence has quietly broadened to include less visible sectors,
> though critically more strategic and political in scope.
>
> Sources within the Venezuelan military say Cuban military experts control
> several security circles that protect President Hugo Chávez and have
> penetrated strategic areas of the armed forces and the central government,
> including the situation room in Miraflores, Venezuela's presidential palace.
>
> The Venezuelan government recently announced a program that will supervise
> police forces throughout the country, and Cuban advisors will play a
> critical role.
>
> Bilateral projects include geology and mining, with a short-term goal of
> using Cuban technical assistance to exploit mining reserves.
>
> Dozens of projects are under way to ''identify, quantify and explore gold,
> diamonds, nickel, salt and calcium deposits,'' said Avilo Lavarca, president
> of the Venezuelan National Institute of Geology and Mining.
>
> Sixty Cuban experts are participating in 11 programs to explore and exploit
> mineral deposits, including nickel. Cuba is the world's sixth leading
> producer of nickel, and Venezuela holds sizeable reserves and is developing
> a processing plant plan.
>
> The Cuban influence reaches nearly every sector of economic activity and
> daily life. At a recent news conference, Ramiro Valdes, Cuban Minister of
> Information Technology and Communications, detailed a plan to ''liberate''
> technology that will allow Cuba to broaden Internet access through a fiber
> optic line from Venezuela.
>
> The 1,500 kilometer connection could be in operation by 2010, Valdes said.
> The network would be capable of transmitting 160 gigabytes per second, 1,000
> times faster than the island's current satellite connection, he said.
>
> Even lions, giraffes and hippopotamuses at the Caricuao Zoo in Caracas are
> being acquired through the Havana Zoo.
>
> During the recent referendum in which the indefinite reelection of Chávez
> was approved, Cuban television preempted regularly scheduled programs for
> live coverage of Chávez's victory speech.
>
> Experts say Chávez's victory brings stability to the relationship. It
> ''dissipates doubts about the political durability of Cuba's most important
> ally, and will postpone the date that the island will be forced to live
> without the shipments of Venezuelan petroleum subsidies,'' wrote Dan
> Erikson, a Cuba expert from the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue.
>
> Three days after the referendum, Cuban authorities began working on a plan
> to export thousands of farm workers to Venezuela to seek to develop the
> fertile plains of the Orinoco river basin, site of the largest oil reserves.
>
> The plan generated an immediate and negative reaction in Venezuela. ''There
> are enough men and women [here], with enough capacity to increase the
> nation's agricultural production,'' said Gustavo Moreno, president of the
> Venezuelan Federation of Agricultural Producers.
>
> Beyond agriculture, the two nations have created more than 30 joint ventures
> and more than 300 projects that include millions of dollars in investments
> since Chávez came to power in 1999.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~

Re: Workers Of The World Unite - In Prayer!


ah, a socialist at his finest!

On Mar 5, 11:59 am, RW  wrote:
> Workers Of The World Unite - In Prayer!
> What has caused the current recession is the oppression of the working
> class. Millions of jobs have been outsourced overseas. Millions of
> illegal aliens have been allowed into the US to replace American
> workers. Many companies have gone to temporary services to hire for
> them so they don't have to provide benefits. Many companies have used
> anti-union tactics and used other methods to deny workers a living
> wage. Minimum wages haven't been raised in years. And this is a world
> wide situation. Workers have so little spendable income left it's
> starting to meltdown the world economy. And what does the Bible say
> about it? James chapter 5 says that workers of the last days will be
> crying unto God, the Lord of Sabaoth, about being defrauded of their
> wages and God will hear their prayers. God will soon punish the
> selfish rich. They have heaped gold and silver for the last days, but
> the Bible says "weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon
> you." James 5;1. I think God is going to throw all these selfish rich
> people into hell at the time of the rapture, which could be very soon!
> Seehttp://www.squidoo.com/tithes-and-offerings
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: does anyone else find it funny the dems are now comparing nobama to Reagan?


Reagan knew
nothing,
---
nothing Ronald "I Can't Recall" Reagan could remember

 although he took responsibility, and no hostages were ever traded
for arms
--
hogwash!
the deal went through
Isreali weapons were transfered and the procedes went to arm the
Contras
how soon some forget
how old are you?

On Mar 5, 11:51 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Read your article PlainOl'..I stand by my original post.   Reagan knew
> nothing, although he took responsibility, and no hostages were ever traded
> for arms.  Where is the lie you are referencing?
>
> If anything, Ronald Reagan stood up to the plate and took responsibility for
> the screw-up.  More importantly, the American people voted overwhelmingly
> for Reagan, knowing that his policy on the Sandanistas and contras was to
> eliminate them.  This was Reagan's policy, which he executed, with the
> American public's blessing.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM, plainolamerican
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.
> > --
> > yes, Reagan and his fellow criminals did trade arms for hostages
> > It began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein
> > Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically
> > influential group of Iranians; the U.S. would then resupply Israel and
> > receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do
> > everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages,
> > who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah. The
> > plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in
> > which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange
> > for the release of the American hostages.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair
>
> >  There was
> > some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.
> > Second, the
> > record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
> > transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages";
> > that is a
> > misnomer.
> > ---
> > wrong again
> > on March 4, 1987, Reagan admitted in a televised
> > national address, "A few months ago, I told the American people I did
> > not trade arms for hostages.  My heart and my best intentions still
> > tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is
> > not."
>
> > With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware
> > of
> > any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than
> > there is
> > an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and
> > producers
> > who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do
> > not
> > hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
> > ---
> > official or not - it happened and it's well documented
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:38 am, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > Good Morning PlainOl'!!
>
> > > First, the United States never did trade hostages for weapons.  There was
> > > some discussion, there was some attempt, but it never happened.  Second,
> > the
> > > record is clear that Reagan was not aware of what was purportedly
> > > transpiring.  So, Reagan did not lie about "weapons for hostages"; that
> > is a
> > > misnomer.
>
> > > With regard to a Hollywood blacklist back in the 1950s,   I am unaware of
> > > any "official" Hollywood blacklist back in that era, no more than there
> > is
> > > an official  Hollywood blacklist today,  for certain actors and producers
> > > who hold traditional conservative American values and tenets, and do not
> > > hold socialist or outright communist beliefs.
>
> > > This is a shame, because there should have been a black list back in the
> > > day.   Obviously, Joe McCarthy was correct, and these individuals had
> > > infiltrated not only Hollywood, but also upper levels of our government.
>
> > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, plainolamerican
> > > wrote:
>
> > > should I continue?
>
> > > ==
>
> > > Keith Responds:
>
> > > Please do, as you have yet to cite or reference any "lie" that Ronald
> > Reagan
> > > was caught up in.
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 5:51 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > > > > What is it that you believe Reagan lied about?
>
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:34 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > comparing nobama to Reagan
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > both lied without remorse
>
> > > > > > On Mar 4, 4:32 pm, Ohio mark  wrote:
> > > > > > > these fools have never had one good thing to say about President
> > > > > > > Reagan, yet in their desperate attempts to make nobama appear
> > > > > > > presidential, they are now comparing the two.  what a joke.- Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit

Re: Obama's "More Tolerant, Kinder, Gentler, More Enlightened" Health Care