OT: Obama photo causes huge stir

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:54:43 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Bill "time to hunker down" S.

I have this vision of Sorni in ten years as a mentally very old man,
still hunkered down, two or three friends. Listening to talk radio.
Ragging on the US leades the way nuts in the 70s were still talking
about that commie FDR. His own family embarrassed to be seen with
him.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:57:47 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <1uB3k.12110$co7.10416@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> What is the issue here? Looks like a normal guy out riding a bike.
>
>Isn't that an oxymoron in America?

LOL.

Tom Kunich

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
news:fp7v4451qj9rrgk04p6o1g7eduvdtiu9to@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> record number of consecutive quarters of
>>economic growth
>
> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.

There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case you
missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case you missed
it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that spending.

>>record high home ownership (esp. among minorities),
>
> And record personal bankrupcies and homeforeclosures.

What was the alternative John?

>> low inflation,
>
> True that.

That must have hurt to agree with.

>> low unemployment (below the averages of the 60s,
>>70s, 80s and 90s),
>
> Due to job seekers giving up.

Then you DO have a reference for that statement?

Bill Sornson

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> news:fp7v4451qj9rrgk04p6o1g7eduvdtiu9to@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> record number of consecutive quarters of
>>> economic growth
>>
>> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
>
> There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case
> you missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case
> you missed it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that
> spending.

To be fair, the Repubs also spent like crazy. However, when the GNP and
other indices were showing strong growth/performance, the media completely
and totally ignored it. Now that a perfectly normal (and inevitable)
slowdown cycle has arrived, it's 24/7 DOOM & GLOOM. Given the documented
bias of both the mainstream media and most of cable news and blogosphere,
it's hardly surprising.

>>> record high home ownership (esp. among minorities),
>>
>> And record personal bankrupcies and homeforeclosures.
>
> What was the alternative John?
>
>>> low inflation,
>>
>> True that.
>
> That must have hurt to agree with.
>
>>> low unemployment (below the averages of the 60s,
>>> 70s, 80s and 90s),
>>
>> Due to job seekers giving up.
>
> Then you DO have a reference for that statement?

MSNBC! LOL

Tom Kunich

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:484fe39b$0$12940$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
>> news:fp7v4451qj9rrgk04p6o1g7eduvdtiu9to@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> record number of consecutive quarters of
>>>> economic growth
>>>
>>> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
>>
>> There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case
>> you missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case
>> you missed it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that
>> spending.
>
> To be fair, the Repubs also spent like crazy. However, when the GNP and
> other indices were showing strong growth/performance, the media completely
> and totally ignored it. Now that a perfectly normal (and inevitable)
> slowdown cycle has arrived, it's 24/7 DOOM & GLOOM. Given the documented
> bias of both the mainstream media and most of cable news and blogosphere,
> it's hardly surprising.

I'm most certainly NOT defending the disgraceful actions of the Republicans
and their spending sprees which made teenage girls look conservative. But
nevertheless there would be no spending without Democrat controlled
Congressional approval and they more than signed up in that corner.

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 10, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> [Obama is
> the most-gifted speaker we've seen in quite some time, and, in DC, style
> *does* matter and *does* get things done. Substance is debated endlessly.
> But gifted speakers can motivate people and draw them together.

Well, I'd feel a lot better about him if he were running for Poet
Laureate instead of President.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

On Jun 10, 9:54 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> Have you heard him speak without a teleprompter? 57 states, breathalyzers
> for asthmatic kids, long stuttering streaks, etc. And that's not counting
> his flip-flops, incorrect and flat-out made-up comments. No wonder he
> avoids press conferences like the plague.

Wait - did you switch the subject to George W. Bush?

BTW, I watch very little TV, but I try to never miss David Letterman's
"Great Moments in Presidential Speeches." It 'stars" George W. Bush,
with actual footage of bumbling, inarticulate, nonsensical speech.
It's invariably hilarious.

And it's wonderful that there is so much of that material available!

- Frank Krygowski

Mike Jacoubowsky

> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
|
| There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case you
| missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case you
missed
| it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that spending.

Perhaps you've missed the news the last few years? We could have bought a
country fair & square (as we used to back in the day... it wouldn't exactly
be a banana republic though... maybe dates & figs?) for a whole lot less
money than we've spent trying to mold it. That wasn't a democrat or
republican thing even. That was just one rogue guy with the wrong advisors
who really should have listened to his Dad.

At least Johnson had the "Great Society" which he'd hoped, incorrectly, to
be his legacy. The present administration will be blamed for inflation,
devaluation of the dollar, and an ongoing pacification that's already gone
on far longer than anticipated by even the scariest scenarios at the time.

| >> low unemployment (below the averages of the 60s,
| >>70s, 80s and 90s),
| >
| > Due to job seekers giving up.
|
| Then you DO have a reference for that statement?

Everybody plays with statistics. That's why you want to avoid something more
tangible when you're in office. Makes it a lot easier to manipulate things
and get away with it.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:3vednSMUBb1VSdLVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote in message
| news:fp7v4451qj9rrgk04p6o1g7eduvdtiu9to@4ax.com...
| > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
| > wrote:
| >
| >> record number of consecutive quarters of
| >>economic growth
| >
| > Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
|
| There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case you
| missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case you
missed
| it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that spending.
|
| >>record high home ownership (esp. among minorities),
| >
| > And record personal bankrupcies and homeforeclosures.
|
| What was the alternative John?
|
| >> low inflation,
| >
| > True that.
|
| That must have hurt to agree with.
|
| >> low unemployment (below the averages of the 60s,
| >>70s, 80s and 90s),
| >
| > Due to job seekers giving up.
|
| Then you DO have a reference for that statement?
|

Ron Ruff

On Jun 10, 11:04*pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Ron Ruff" <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > And being foreclosed on at record rates!... not exactly "ownership" in
> > any sense... and personal debt is far higher than ever in history.
>
> So your position is that it is bad to own your own home?

My position is that the period of "high ownership" was due to insane
and unregulated lending policy. The banks were not responsible for the
money they lent, so they didn't care if the borrower could pay it
back. I can remember the days when you needed to put down 20%, and
your payments could not exceed 30% of your gross... and yes they
actually checked. Loose lending practices lead to speculative price
increases, fraud, and eventually a bursting of the bubble... which we
have not felt the worst of yet. This benefits on one except those who
manipulated this system to make (steal) huge profits. The same thing
has happened in the credit card industry. We can pretend that the
economy is good so long as we can have an ever increasing debt that we
can use to finance purchases... but eventually we need to pay these
debts off. A similar thing occurs with the federal debt, but since
they print the money it merely results in a devaluation, and is less
obvious.

> > The low unemployment rates are due to the fact that there are no more
> > unions and after your 6 months of unemployment benefits you are
> > officially no longer unemployed.
>
> Wrong. You don't disappear from the roles until over a year. We actually
> have had a long period of very low unemployment.

"Benefits can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most States."
http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta...uifactsheet.asp

Anyway, the fact remains that number of people in the low-wage no-
benefit workforce has expanded, because you have to take whatever you
can get... and usually compete with illegal immigrants as well.

Mike Jacoubowsky

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56dcf3df-194f-44b1-9b20-8a5408e2b4e3@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 10, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
| wrote:
| > [Obama is
| > the most-gifted speaker we've seen in quite some time, and, in DC, style
| > *does* matter and *does* get things done. Substance is debated
endlessly.
| > But gifted speakers can motivate people and draw them together.
|
| Well, I'd feel a lot better about him if he were running for Poet
| Laureate instead of President.
|
| - Frank Krygowski

We have a system of government that's designed to minimize the amount of
damage that any one person can do. That system has been taxed and tested
mightily over the last few years, but I don't think it's failed us yet, nor
do I think it will fail us with a Poet Laureate at the helm. We swing from
left to right to left to right within certain boundaries. We will survive.
The question is, will our standard of living adapt to the new world order in
a peaceful manner, or will people want to go to great lengths to protect
what they have? The decline of the dollar is, to me, a frightening thing
that may be such an obvious leading indicator of bad things ahead that it
will, in retrospect, show that we've buried our heads in the sand rather
than try to deal with it in a substantive manner.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:57:01 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>That was just one rogue guy with the wrong advisors
>who really should have listened to his Dad.

All the congresspeople who rolled over to the lies in the first couple
of years bear a little responsiblity. The Republicans and other
people who are to this day trying to cover up the lies bear a lot of
responsiblity as well.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 11, 8:01*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
>
> news:484fe39b$0$12940$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fp7v4451qj9rrgk04p6o1g7eduvdtiu9to@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> record number of consecutive quarters of
> >>>> economic growth
>
> >>> Record slump in growth of real income for most Americans.
>
> >> There most certainly is something in what you say - however, in case
> >> you missed it - that slump is caused by deficit spending. Now in case
> >> you missed it - there's a Democrat congress approving all that
> >> spending.
>
> > To be fair, the Repubs also spent like crazy. *However, when the GNP and
> > other indices were showing strong growth/performance, the media completely
> > and totally ignored it. *Now that a perfectly normal (and inevitable)
> > slowdown cycle has arrived, it's 24/7 DOOM & GLOOM. *Given the documented
> > bias of both the mainstream media and most of cable news and blogosphere,
> > it's hardly surprising.
>
> I'm most certainly NOT defending the disgraceful actions of the Republicans
> and their spending sprees which made teenage girls look conservative. But
> nevertheless there would be no spending without Democrat controlled
> Congressional approval and they more than signed up in that corner.- Hide quoted text -

Although both parties went to the trough in overriding the veto of the
farm bill. Neither party is immune from being bought by special
interests -- or even local interests. In Oregon, the farm bill means
that payments will continue to depressed logging counties, and salmon
fisherment will get disaster relief. I like to see these people make
it economically, but really, at some point people have to pack up and
leave an area or an industry. And I see no reason for paying money to
farmers who are making record profits. --- Jay Beattie.

Tom Kunich

"Ron Ruff" <rruffrruff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f54daf10-229d-4a40-a4dc-09c5d227212c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 10, 11:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Ron Ruff" <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > And being foreclosed on at record rates!... not exactly "ownership" in
> > > any sense... and personal debt is far higher than ever in history.
> >
> > So your position is that it is bad to own your own home?
>
> My position is that the period of "high ownership" was due to insane
> and unregulated lending policy.

Then by all means supply some sort of documentation to back that up. I did
see some excesses but the homes in this area in which I've talked to
representatives didn't show "insane and unregulated lending policy" as the
reasons they were foreclosed on. In many cases people had gotten so fed up
with California politics they moved back east from whence they came in the
first place.

> The banks were not responsible for the money they lent, so
> they didn't care if the borrower could pay it back.

Look, if you've NEVER worked with lending institutions I suggest that you
simply don't repeat ignorant rants you've gotten from others who don't
understand what happened either.

> I can remember the days when you needed to put down 20%, and
> your payments could not exceed 30% of your gross.

By all means explain how that could possibly work in an area where a home
costs $600,000 for THE AVERAGE HOME.

> > > The low unemployment rates are due to the fact that there are no more
> > > unions and after your 6 months of unemployment benefits you are
> > > officially no longer unemployed.
> >
> > Wrong. You don't disappear from the roles until over a year. We actually
> > have had a long period of very low unemployment.
>
> "Benefits can be paid for a maximum of 26 weeks in most States."
> http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta...uifactsheet.asp

Why are you referencing that? That is NOT information pertaining to when you
are dropped from the unemployment rolls. That is merely the time that you
can NORMALLY draw unemployment. And in case you missed it - that is likely
to be extended very soon.

Tom Kunich

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:hBS3k.3427$L_.1776@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> Perhaps you've missed the news the last few years? We could have bought a
> country fair & square (as we used to back in the day... it wouldn't
> exactly
> be a banana republic though... maybe dates & figs?) for a whole lot less
> money than we've spent trying to mold it. That wasn't a democrat or
> republican thing even. That was just one rogue guy with the wrong advisors
> who really should have listened to his Dad.

I suggest that you're entirely incorrect in the main point - that we
shouldn't be in Iraq. I think that within 20 years Bush will be hailed for
his actions in overview while not in detail. Placing a working democracy in
the middle of all of those strongman ruled countries will be seen as a
turning point in the middle east.

> At least Johnson had the "Great Society" which he'd hoped, incorrectly, to
> be his legacy. The present administration will be blamed for inflation,
> devaluation of the dollar, and an ongoing pacification that's already gone
> on far longer than anticipated by even the scariest scenarios at the time.

> | > Due to job seekers giving up.
> |
> | Then you DO have a reference for that statement?
>
> Everybody plays with statistics. That's why you want to avoid something
> more
> tangible when you're in office. Makes it a lot easier to manipulate things
> and get away with it.

The leftists simply lie about the employment rates which have been almost
unbelievably good. Note: if you want to see them even better, watch what
happens in the Midwest if coal-to-fuel programs get going.