Is this the change we're supposed to believe in?

[blackascoal]

Have a glass of mead, my woolly haired chum. I have not seen a person from your lands. Do tell me of your travels!

I come from the cradle of human existence. Thus, all people, even the short-stubby ones like you are descendant from my lands.

Take my hand brother Baggins .. let me lead you away from the shire .. and into the real world .. where everything and everyone doesn't look like you.

 

[Damocles]

I come from the cradle of human existence. Thus, all people, even the short-stubby ones like you are descendant from my lands.

Take my hand brother Baggins .. let me lead you away from the shire .. and into the real world .. where everything and everyone doesn't look like you.

Which means that all are equally distant in time and evolution from the same ancestors and this is nothing to be proud of at all. We all came from the cradle of human existence. This is like saying you have a mother. We all do.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, as long as they continue the same programs it really is only a cosmetic change. Changing lipstick colors on the same pig, so to speak.

I can call it like I see it without regard of worrying about your suggestion that I should call it something else. I can point out inconsistencies, I can point out how the ideas mesh with what the "despised" implemented. Yes, I can do all of that, even though you keep insisting it is "change". Only one of us is standing in reality, the other one is still riding the unicorn of change into the world of rainbows and expecting it to poop butterflies.

The position of the Obama administration has been to take control of private institutions by force if they didn't need or want the "hand out" that you stated they were begging for. Not just Rs will dislike this.

I didn't suggest you did support Obama without reservation, I suggest that most of the people with Ds after their name will support party without reservation regardless of similarity of action with the person they despised and their insistence that only Rs do such. However, I continued, we'll begin to know that some piece of logic is seeping in when they start claiming they "never voted for Obama" like you already do. I then stated that I suspected that such a future will exist.

I haven't really followed the thread, but I love that you say that in a thread about documents revealing what the Bush Administration did back in October of 2008 and despite the fact that the Obama Administration has avoided the "nationalization" route at all costs.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I come from the cradle of human existence. Thus, all people, even the short-stubby ones like you are descendant from my lands.

Take my hand brother Baggins .. let me lead you away from the shire .. and into the real world .. where everything and everyone doesn't look like you.

Are we going on a journey? Oh how I do love journeys, stories, and drinking.

 

[Damocles]

I haven't really followed the thread, but I love that you say that in a thread about documents revealing what the Bush Administration did back in October of 2008 and despite the fact that the Obama Administration has avoided the "nationalization" route at all costs.

Right, because directing them from a position of power seems to be enough.

You can "love" whatever you want, but pretending that this is going to be accepted by most is, IMO, simply incorrect. It may be that most people really do want the government to control private institutions through acquisitions, but I don't believe that they do. It wasn't Bush that refused to take some of the cash back, eh?

And yes, that was why I pointed out it was a continuation of the same policy rather than "change", thanks for pointing out that you don't actually educate yourself before spouting off, it shortens the regular pattern where I point out the straw men rather than you pointing them out right from the beginning.

And thank you for proving my point about the defense of the action as well, you have been very helpful to my argument in this thread.

 

[blackascoal]

Again, as long as they continue the same programs it really is only a cosmetic change. Changing lipstick colors on the same pig, so to speak.

I can call it like I see it without regard of worrying about your suggestion that I should call it something else. I can point out inconsistencies, I can point out how the ideas mesh with what the "despised" implemented. Yes, I can do all of that, even though you keep insisting it is "change". Only one of us is standing in reality, the other one is still riding the unicorn of change into the world of rainbows and expecting it to poop butterflies.

The position of the Obama administration has been to take control of private institutions by force if they didn't need or want the "hand out" that you stated they were begging for. Not just Rs will dislike this.

I didn't suggest you did support Obama without reservation, I suggest that most of the people with Ds after their name will support party without reservation regardless of similarity of action with the person they despised and their insistence that only Rs do such. However, I continued, we'll begin to know that some piece of logic is seeping in when they start claiming they "never voted for Obama" like you already do. I then stated that I suspected that such a future will exist.

I did not vote for nor did I support George Bush, but I agreed with many of his policies on Africa. In fact, In my opinion, Bush was the best US president on African policy. Point being, just because I didn't support a politician does not mean that I have to exist in a constant state of opposition to his/her every move.

Additionally, the knowledge that some banks were "forced" to take TARP money is already known. No outrage .. nor will there be any serious outrage over what poor bank CEO's may have been forced to do. If the economy recovers, Americans will be happy, Obama gets re-elected.

As has already been previously stated, an administration that responds to demands to disclose is in fact one of the changes Americans were looking for.

What I find funny, ironic, and telling is all the republicans who are NOW upset about disclosure when they had no such concern when there was an "R" behind the name. To claim "partisanship" now is laughable.

Democrats do the exact same thing and play the exact same game of political gotcha'.

I don't give a damn about the "D" or the "R". I'm only interested in the policy.

 

[Damocles]

I did not vote for nor did I support George Bush, but I agreed with many of his policies on Africa. In fact, In my opinion, Bush was the best US president on African policy. Point being, just because I didn't support a politician does not mean that I have to exist in a constant state of opposition to his/her every move.

Additionally, the knowledge that some banks were "forced" to take TARP money is already known. No outrage .. nor will there be any serious outrage over what poor bank CEO's may have been forced to do. If the economy recovers, Americans will be happy, Obama gets re-elected.

As has already been previously stated, an administration that responds to demands to disclose is in fact one of the changes Americans were looking for.

What I find funny, ironic, and telling is all the republicans who are NOW upset about disclosure when they had no such concern when there was an "R" behind the name. To claim "partisanship" now is laughable.

Democrats do the exact same thing and play the exact same game of political gotcha'.

I don't give a damn about the "D" or the "R". I'm only interested in the policy.

Please, the majority of Rs were against the TARP bailout. Especially on this site, even one D was against it, uscitizen....

If you did indeed "know" that some were forced to take the money under duress, and that such duress continued after the new Administration took over (continuing the same programs thus my remarks about "change"), then why did you state they were "begging" for it. They weren't.

This was just another government program where Bush and Obama agreed wholeheartedly.

Pretending that the past didn't exist won't get you anywhere on this site.

And again you are taking personally a prediction that has nothing to do with you, other than I mention that you already say what I predict those with the Ds who will be defending his every action will say. And I mentioned you in the prediction because I was quoting your post and using those words as to show what I believe we will hear in the future from the group I was talking about.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right, because directing them from a position of power seems to be enough.

You can "love" whatever you want, but pretending that this is going to be accepted by most is, IMO, simply incorrect. It may be that most people really do want the government to control private institutions through acquisitions, but I don't believe that they do. It wasn't Bush that refused to take some of the cash back, eh?

And yes, that was why I pointed out it was a continuation of the same policy rather than "change", thanks for pointing out that you don't actually educate yourself before spouting off, it shortens the regular pattern where I point out the straw men rather than you pointing them out right from the beginning.

And thank you for proving my point about the defense of the action as well, you have been very helpful to my argument in this thread.

I'm not defending anything. I'm just laughing at you.

 

[blackascoal]

Please, the majority of Rs were against the TARP bailout. Especially on this site, even one D was against it, uscitizen.... This was just another government program where Bush and Obama agreed wholeheartedly.

Pretending that the past didn't exist won't get you anywhere on this site.

And again you are taking personally a prediction that has nothing to do with you, other than I mention that you already say what I predict those with the Ds who will be defending his every action wills say.

I was against the TARP when Bush proposed it and when Obama professed it. But being against TARP wasn't my point about republicans as we went through 8 years of the Bush Administration refusing to disclose to the American people and Bush "signing statements" that he got to sign with his fingers crossed .. with nary a peep from republicans about disclosure. In fact, many defended the Bush Administratikon not disclosing information uch as the Cheney energy hearings. I'm betting some of those here now howling about Obama not disclosing were among those who defended the Bush Administrations secrecy.

The only place I'm trying to go on this site is stating and defending my position. I don't have any problems going there. Never have.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not defending anything. I'm just laughing at you.

Right, because actually reading and thinking are actions that are too difficult for you to display. Again, I do thank you for helping out my argument. The only thing you didn't do, and probably won't because you know it will be pointed out, is claim you "didn't vote for Obama". But I suspect there will be many who claim that in the future.

 

[Damocles]

I was against the TARP when Bush proposed it and when Obama professed it. But being against TARP wasn't my point about republicans as we went through 8 years of the Bush Administration refusing to disclose to the American people and Bush "signing statements" that he got to sign with his fingers crossed .. with nary a peep from republicans about disclosure. In fact, many defended the Bush Administratikon not disclosing information uch as the Cheney energy hearings. I'm betting some of those here now howling about Obama not disclosing were among those who defended the Bush Administrations secrecy.

The only place I'm trying to go on this site is stating and defending my position. I don't have any problems going there. Never have.

So, we agree on TARP. You probably for very different reasons than I, that's usually the way of it. I find people that refuse to disclose how decisions were made, such as energy hearings, annoying and don't bother to defend it as I don't support it.

Pointing out that they elected him to do exactly what Bush did with a "D" after his name and that it counts as "change" solely because of the letter following the name is becoming sillier by the second. Again I point out it is simply dressing the same pig with different lipstick.

 

[Bonestorm]

Right, because actually reading and thinking are actions that are too difficult for you to display. Again, I do thank you for helping out my argument. The only thing you didn't do, and probably won't because you know it will be pointed out, is claim you "didn't vote for Obama". But I suspect there will be many who claim that in the future.

No, I voted for Obama. Gladly I might add. I think his plan for dealing with the banks sucks ass but because he refuses to nationalize.

 

[apple0154]

The original plan to bail out the banks was to ensure there was sufficient money to loan. The banks, however, took the money and never loaned it out. They applied it to their current loses meaning there was still a shortage of credit available to small businesses, private home owners, etc. The bottom line being the government ended up covering the investor's losses and to hell with the economy.

Now Obama knows the score. He can't trust the banks. Obama wants the money to be loaned out and used to boost the economy so he's putting the screws to the banks, in a matter of speaking. (Think thumb screws....OUCH)

If there's no co-operation then nationalization is around the corner because no competent President is going to sit and watch the citizens suffer while the gazillionaires rake in the bucks thinking they own the military.

Yes, serious sh!t, my friends. Because without the US military many of the gazillionaires have no way of protecting their investments worldwide.

Sort of like playing a game of chicken. Two cars headed towards each other......well, I'm sure you all know.

My money is on Obama because he doesn't look like the kind of guy that will chicken out. This is classic hard ball, folks.

Stay tuned.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

There will be no nationalization. This administration doesn't even have the nuts to do clawbacks on executive bonuses.

 

[blackascoal]

So, we agree on TARP. You probably for very different reasons than I, that's usually the way of it. I find people that refuse to disclose how decisions were made, such as energy hearings, annoying and don't bother to defend it as I don't support it.

Pointing out that they elected him to do exactly what Bush did with a "D" after his name and that it counts as "change" solely because of the letter following the name is becoming sillier by the second. Again I point out it is simply dressing the same pig with different lipstick.

We do agree on Tarp.

The point I'm trying to make to you is that Obama is not doing the same things that did nor in the same way. That is no small difference.

Obama is much smoother and he's the Zen Master of Nuance. He lets the American people in on what he's doing .. something the Bush Administration did not. He gives the appearance of listening to Americans .. something Bush did not.

I'm not defending him nor any of his policies I disagree with, just stating the difference.

Take his position on useless war for instance. It's the same position Bush had. But because Obama is a centrist, he responds to criticism and the loss of political advantage .. thus he's less dangerous than Bush.