PDA

View Full Version : And the hits keep coming.



Uncle Bill
04-24-2010, 03:15 PM
With the Democrats in full-bore power, at least through 2010, they are continuing their push to force all the garbage they can down the peoples throats. Here's one of the latest 'enlightenments' from the Democrat leadership....that just confirms how crooked they continue to be while promoting their messiah's programs. Is there no end to the thuggery you all are willing to put up with?

UB


Obama “Consumer Protection Czar” Linked to Goldman Sachs Mortgage Scandal

http://news.newsmax.com/images/20704/CFPA_200.jpg
Harry Reid has threatened to start forcing the Democratic financial overhaul bill through the Senate early next week. The bill would create yet another new bureaucracy, the “Consumer Financial Protection Agency” with the power to impose new government regulation on millions of financial transactions. President Obama’s rumored pick to run the CFPA is a Treasury official with a disturbing history of ties to shady lending, bank bailouts, and massive donations from subprime mortgage billionaires.

Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric Stein is the former senior vice president of an activist and lobbying group called the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). While Stein was running CRL in 2007, he received a $15 million donation from hedge fund manager John Paulson. Paulson is notorious due to his central role in the SEC’s case charging Goldman Sachs in a complex mortgage fraud scheme. In 2007, at the same time that Paulson was betting billions against the US housing market, his $15 million donation to CRL enabled the group to hire more lobbyists to push its radical agenda. Paulson took home $3.7 billion that year, even while hundreds of thousands of American homeowners lost their houses to foreclosure.

John Paulson isn’t the only subprime magnate Eric Stein shares a special relationship with. CRL also received at least $15 million from Herb and Marion Sandler. The Sandlers pioneered so-called “Pick-a-Pay” mortgages, and made $2.4 billion when they sold their subprime lending business to Wachovia in 2007. Wachovia ended up losing billions of dollars on the sale, and the SEC and Justice Department have been investigating allegations that the Sandlers’ company made fraudulent claims to investors. Time Magazine featured them in a story titled “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis.”

During his tenure at CRL, Stein advocated for increased lending to borrowers with bad credit histories, and his “Self-Help” organization sold those mortgages on the secondary loan market. A primary purchaser of CRL-linked loans was Stein’s previous employer, Fannie Mae, which has received at least $76 billion in taxpayer bailout funds.

Eric Stein has shown a disturbing willingness to do business with people who have devastated the nation’s economy. Putting him in charge of the CFPA would give him tremendous power and control over a $400 million bureaucracy.

BonMallari
04-24-2010, 04:49 PM
Reid is going to try and pass every bit of legislation he can because he is wayyyy behind here in the Silver State, they (Dems) know they will lose some seats ,and all that strategy will do is show the country that this administration has no intent of reaching across the aisle as a show of bipartisanship...The American voting public will regurgitate all the crap legislation being shoved down their throats by a referendum at the polls this Nov

M&K's Retrievers
04-24-2010, 06:16 PM
Man, I sure hope your right.

YardleyLabs
04-24-2010, 06:43 PM
Reid is going to try and pass every bit of legislation he can because he is wayyyy behind here in the Silver State, they (Dems) know they will lose some seats ,and all that strategy will do is show the country that this administration has no intent of reaching across the aisle as a show of bipartisanship...The American voting public will regurgitate all the crap legislation being shoved down their throats by a referendum at the polls this Nov
There is absolutely no reason to reach across the aisle unless the other guy is reaching just as far.

Buzz
04-24-2010, 07:20 PM
,and all that strategy will do is show the country that this administration has no intent of reaching across the aisle as a show of bipartisanship...


That is exactly why the Republicans have become the party of NO. That is their strategy, pure and simple. Obama won talking about changing things in Washington and about bipartisanship. You know, playing off the theme of his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention. No Red America or Blue American, but a United States of America.

Aside from those of extreme ideology, the country really longs for that. The republicans decided that they would deny him of that campaign promise come hell or high water and then blame him and the Democrats for it. Seems to be working out for them.

Uncle Bill
04-24-2010, 08:16 PM
“Mathematics allows for no hypocrisy and no vagueness.” - Stendhal


Spoken by a Democrat that is certain 2+2 = 5. Or, at least expecting his messiah and their Reid/Pelosi led constituants to prove it any vote now.

UB

Cody Covey
04-24-2010, 08:33 PM
an amazing post Bruce. First off in case you hadn't noticed the polls the majority did not want this health care bill. Secondly they had huge majorities but still couldn't get anything done. Not because of republicans but because they can't even agree with each other about what they want. I doubt many outside of the democratic party saw what the democrats did as pandering to a minority.

dnf777
04-24-2010, 08:38 PM
That is exactly why the Republicans have become the party of NO. That is their strategy, pure and simple. Obama won talking about changing things in Washington and about bipartisanship. You know, playing off the theme of his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention. No Red America or Blue American, but a United States of America.

Aside from those of extreme ideology, the country really longs for that. The republicans decided that they would deny him of that campaign promise come hell or high water and then blame him and the Democrats for it. Seems to be working out for them.


Its nice to know there's folks out there who see this for what it is. Thanks for sharing your thoughts....

Buzz
04-25-2010, 09:05 AM
“Mathematics allows for no hypocrisy and no vagueness.” - Stendhal


Spoken by a Democrat that is certain 2+2 = 5. Or, at least expecting his messiah and their Reid/Pelosi led constituants to prove it any vote now.

UB

Nothing gives me a better laugh than having my mathematical abilities called into question. :rolleyes:

Franco
04-25-2010, 09:42 AM
I am delighted that the Republicans are attempting to stop all the bad legislation coming from the Democrats! I would expect them to be the party of "no" and slow down the onslought of the destruction of American wealth and influence by the socialist in power.

Now, if only the GOP could find a leader. Someone that could bring the right and middle together and get us back on track.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 10:36 AM
an amazing post Bruce. First off in case you hadn't noticed the polls the majority did not want this health care bill. Secondly they had huge majorities but still couldn't get anything done. Not because of republicans but because they can't even agree with each other about what they want. I doubt many outside of the democratic party saw what the democrats did as pandering to a minority.

It is correct that the majority didn't want this bill. And the reason for that was because it had been watered down to the point of rendering useless or even worse. Now, ask yourself why it was watered down. Yep, because of the fowl play by republicans and conservative democrats. I'm afraid Washington will not change in my lifetime. It is entrenched with corporate interests that trump national interests every time. And that is true with BOTH of our political parties. Hopefully, our children do a better job at democracy than we have.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 10:38 AM
I am delighted that the Republicans are attempting to stop all the bad legislation coming from the Democrats! I would expect them to be the party of "no" and slow down the onslought of the destruction of American wealth and influence by the socialist in power.

Now, if only the GOP could find a leader. Someone that could bring the right and middle together and get us back on track.

Oh yeah baby. The country was certainly thriving after the last round of GOP rulers wasn't it?

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 10:39 AM
Reid is going to try and pass every bit of legislation he can because he is wayyyy behind here in the Silver State, they (Dems) know they will lose some seats ,and all that strategy will do is show the country that this administration has no intent of reaching across the aisle as a show of bipartisanship...The American voting public will regurgitate all the crap legislation being shoved down their throats by a referendum at the polls this Nov

Sometimes you need to crush your enemy, not shake his hand... Unfortunately for America, the democrats never figured that out!

dback
04-25-2010, 11:09 AM
Sometimes you need to crush your enemy, not shake his hand... Unfortunately for America, the democrats never figured that out!

Sooooo.....there we have it......enemy identified and strategy in place.

Dave....Jeff....ya see why we might just have a liiiiittle problem with some of your crowd??????

At least the genius is more forthcoming with his intentions.

BonMallari
04-25-2010, 11:26 AM
Sometimes you need to crush your enemy, not shake his hand... Unfortunately for America, the democrats never figured that out!

I am not quite sure who you consider the enemy ? but I hope you dont mean Dems vs Rep , we may differ on political opinions but they are NOT my enemy...my enemies are countries out to destroy us..or my ex :p

Buzz
04-25-2010, 11:44 AM
I am not quite sure who you consider the enemy ? but I hope you dont mean Dems vs Rep , we may differ on political opinions but they are NOT my enemy...my enemies are countries out to destroy us..or my ex :p

A friend of mine was out training the other day. The conversation veered into politics. One of the participants stated that anyone who supported Obama was his mortal enemy, and that it may be necessary to take up arms to put a stop to them. Another otherwise intelligent and educated woman is convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ, and that right thinking Americans had better be stocking up on arms and ammo to protect themselves. And yes, these two people are dedicated viewers of Glenn Beck.

BonMallari
04-25-2010, 11:52 AM
the last THREE administrations have done more to drive the polarity in this country,and unfortunately the only time in the last 17 yrs that we have been galvanized as a country is on 9/11...very sad state of affairs, the stuff that creates civil wars

dnf777
04-25-2010, 12:21 PM
I am not quite sure who you consider the enemy ? but I hope you dont mean Dems vs Rep , we may differ on political opinions but they are NOT my enemy...my enemies are countries out to destroy us..or my ex :p

ROTFLMAO......(not laughing AT you, but laughing WITH you!)

Franco
04-25-2010, 12:33 PM
Oh yeah baby. The country was certainly thriving after the last round of GOP rulers wasn't it?



No sh.., Sherlock!

And, the current administration is doing all they can to make it much worse.

M&K's Retrievers
04-25-2010, 12:58 PM
I can't think of a time when obama, Reid or Pelosi reached across the aisle unless it was to shove something up someone's arse or to line their pockets.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 03:00 PM
I am not quite sure who you consider the enemy ? but I hope you dont mean Dems vs Rep , we may differ on political opinions but they are NOT my enemy...my enemies are countries out to destroy us..or my ex :p

Political enemies exist, like it or not. We call it gridlock. We call it politics as usual. What's your problem for naming it? You think it isn't a battle? It is a game of war with it's own set of rules. There are winners, and losers. Some play for keeps, others play for fun and loose. You gonna try and say the Right hasn't declared Obama an enemy? How about Clinton a decade ago? Sorry, it's time for the moderates of this country to wake up to the fact that they have enemies, and those enemies are stomping their values into the mud every day.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 03:08 PM
I can't think of a time when obama, Reid or Pelosi reached across the aisle unless it was to shove something up someone's arse or to line their pockets.

"President Obama threw out his shoulder on Sunday at the 19th Street Baptist Church while reaching across the aisle to shake hands with Senate Republican Olympia Snowe, who was also in attendance. Just one day after Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package, the ill-fated gesture was intended to be an act of post-partisan solidarity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanham/obama-dislocates-shoulder_b_167103.html

mjh345
04-25-2010, 05:17 PM
A friend of mine was out training the other day. The conversation veered into politics. One of the participants stated that anyone who supported Obama was his mortal enemy, and that it may be necessary to take up arms to put a stop to them. Another otherwise intelligent and educated woman is convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ, and that right thinking Americans had better be stocking up on arms and ammo to protect themselves. And yes, these two people are dedicated viewers of Glenn Beck.

Is the term "intelligent and educated Glenn Beck viewer" an oxymoron?

duk4me
04-25-2010, 05:24 PM
Is the term "intelligent and educated Glenn Beck viewer" an oxymoron?

Close drop the oxy

BonMallari
04-25-2010, 05:49 PM
Political enemies exist, like it or not. We call it gridlock. We call it politics as usual. What's your problem for naming it? You think it isn't a battle? It is a game of war with it's own set of rules. There are winners, and losers. Some play for keeps, others play for fun and loose. You gonna try and say the Right hasn't declared Obama an enemy? How about Clinton a decade ago? Sorry, it's time for the moderates of this country to wake up to the fact that they have enemies, and those enemies are stomping their values into the mud every day.

who is the enemy of the moderate ? the far right or the far left...or is it anyone who doesnt share in your way of thinking...:confused:

Buzz
04-25-2010, 06:01 PM
Close drop the oxy


That's what Rush did...;-)

YardleyLabs
04-25-2010, 06:06 PM
who is the enemy of the moderate ? the far right or the far left...or is it anyone who doesnt share in your way of thinking...:confused:
Both. In the eyes of extremists, anyone in the middle is guilty of being a muddy thinker, a member of the "sheeple", and possibly even a "fellow traveler" deserving no respect. Fortunately for all of us, a two party system puts moderates in the driver's seat, able to determine the outcome of any election. Unfortunately, it also makes liars of politicians who say one thing to their base to get nominated and something completely different to get elected.

huntinman
04-25-2010, 06:31 PM
So which is it??????

The party of "stay the course", 1,000 points of light.........
The party of "Mission accomplished"
The party of "NO, NO, NO"

The people said they wanted change on specific issues in the last election, the Repubs seem hell bent on twisting everything because November is all they are concerned with...................

Now we have the party of "The war is lost", "Our soldiers are killing women and children in the dead of night", Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd (2 of the main reasons for the mortgage problems, "Cold Cash" William Jefferson, Chicago thugs and the ever popular "Yes we can" zombie chant. Some hope and change.

Cody Covey
04-25-2010, 08:28 PM
I've always been confused by the declaration that repubs are the party of no. If the repubs were in charge and putting all kinds of things you completely disagree with in place would you hope that your congressman would just vote with the majority because you obviously wouldn't want to be the party of no right? Or would you want someone to stand up for what they believe and vote accordingly.

YardleyLabs
04-25-2010, 08:38 PM
I've always been confused by the declaration that repubs are the party of no. If the repubs were in charge and putting all kinds of things you completely disagree with in place would you hope that your congressman would just vote with the majority because you obviously wouldn't want to be the party of no right? Or would you want someone to stand up for what they believe and vote accordingly.

You mean like those Senators and Congressmen voting for health care reform?:rolleyes:

Legislation is written through compromise, often between people who agree on the specific wording for completely different reasons.

Cody Covey
04-25-2010, 09:04 PM
Maybe I'm an extremist but i don't believe you should compromise on what you believe is right.

Uncle Bill
04-25-2010, 09:08 PM
"President Obama threw out his shoulder on Sunday at the 19th Street Baptist Church while reaching across the aisle to shake hands with Senate Republican Olympia Snowe, who was also in attendance. Just one day after Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package, the ill-fated gesture was intended to be an act of post-partisan solidarity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanham/obama-dislocates-shoulder_b_167103.html


My my, the Dipitydog speaks. As you put down the conservatives but promote the likes of Arriana, you needn't tell me what you have been huffing-by-the-ton, you are all too obvious.

If you didn't know it, getting a RINO like Olmypia Snowe in your camp is a joke. He didn't need to reach far. I'm thinking he may have tripped over her, since she was probably underfoot. How did he injure his shoulder ????

UB

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 09:15 PM
I've always been confused by the declaration that repubs are the party of no. If the repubs were in charge and putting all kinds of things you completely disagree with in place would you hope that your congressman would just vote with the majority because you obviously wouldn't want to be the party of no right? Or would you want someone to stand up for what they believe and vote accordingly.

I would want somebody to stand up for what it right. Unfortunately, when the Republicans were in charge and calling the shots, the Democrats never could must the balls to stand up and say no.

depittydawg
04-25-2010, 09:36 PM
who is the enemy of the moderate ? the far right or the far left...or is it anyone who doesnt share in your way of thinking...:confused:

I would say the political enemy of the moderate is the extremist. It can come from both right and left. In my lifetime in my country, it has come primarily from the Right.The assassins of JFK, MLK, and RFK were all extremists. As was Timothy McVea and a handful of abortion clinic bombers. I'd place them all in the right wing camp of extremists. On the other hand, in the 70's left wing extremists were running around blowing stuff up. Weatherman, Patty Hearst and the Simbianese Liberation Army or some such band of kooks. Osama Bin Ladin is also a right wing extremist from his home country of Saudi Arabia.

Obama and Clinton both tried to govern from the center. Clinton's legacy is on par with Reagan and Pappy Bush, who also governed from the Center, and who all rank probably in the middle of the pack for US presidents. I'd put them just right of center, and just left of center.
The Cheney / Bush Jr administration was hard right. Probably as extremist as any US president in history. Hence, the disastrous legacy he left. Obama, must be governing from the center, because he's PO'd the extremists, both left and right. My .02. As in all things, moderation in government is probably best.
I think it might have been Mark Twain who once said, Congress can get mighty ugly, but it still beats the alternative.

Hew
04-25-2010, 11:36 PM
I would say the political enemy of the moderate is the extremist. It can come from both right and left. In my lifetime in my country, it has come primarily from the Right.The assassins of JFK, MLK, and RFK were all extremists. As was Timothy McVea and a handful of abortion clinic bombers. I'd place them all in the right wing camp of extremists. Yes, who can forget that famous rightwing communist, Lee Harvey Oswald. Good grief, dude. :rolleyes: On the other hand, in the 70's left wing extremists were running around blowing stuff up. Weatherman, Patty Hearst and the Simbianese Liberation Army or some such band of kooks. Osama Bin Ladin is also a right wing extremist from his home country of Saudi Arabia. OSB a right winger, eh? Interesting. It was hard to tell during the '04 and '06 elections whether the Democrats were writing down bin Laden talking points or if bin Laden was stealing the Democrat's talking points. Kerry, bin Laden, Reid...same crap spewed; just coming out of different pieholes.

Obama and Clinton both tried to govern from the center. Clinton's legacy is on par with Reagan and Pappy Bush, who also governed from the Center, and who all rank probably in the middle of the pack for US presidents. I'd put them just right of center, and just left of center.
The Cheney / Bush Jr administration was hard right. Probably as extremist as any US president in history. LMAO. Aside from foreign policy related issues (because the Democrats in Congress voted along with him every step of the way), please give me two or three examples of what you believe to be Bush's most extremist positions. Hence, the disastrous legacy he left. Obama, must be governing from the center, because he's PO'd the extremists, both left and right. My .02. As in all things, moderation in government is probably best.
I think it might have been Mark Twain who once said, Congress can get mighty ugly, but it still beats the alternative.
....................

Hew
04-25-2010, 11:42 PM
Your missive is understandable, people should stand up for their convictions.

Jeff's (Yardley Labs) response to your statement is spot on....... our form of government incorporates good faith compromise by its very structure........and after the legislative compromises a vote is taken to make a decision on the subject at hand, and people vote their convictions at that point.

For me the party of "NO" notion comes from declarations made such as "health care reform will be Obama's waterloo" or words to that effect by republicans before a bill was even submitted for consideration. This leads me to believe that there is a breach of "good faith" and the motivation is really to effectively overturn the prior presidential election.

I think this political posturing and breach of good faith is in large part fostered by the massive amount of media now involved that manufacture news by hyping opposing viewpoints and unfortunately the elected officials being politicians have found it more attractive and/or easy to participate in the "politics of personal destruction" than practice the lost art of statesmanship
You could have saved a lot of typing in your explanation to eildydar if you just typed your simplified version of the truth:

When no Democrats in Congress voted with Bush it was because Bush was a partisan extremist.

When no Republicans in Congress vote with Obama it's because they're obstructionists.

See how simple that would have been?

Buzz
04-25-2010, 11:54 PM
You could have saved a lot of typing in your explanation to eildydar if you just typed your simplified version of the truth:

When no Democrats in Congress voted with Bush it was because Bush was a partisan extremist.

When no Republicans in Congress vote with Obama it's because they're obstructionists.

See how simple that would have been?

You are putting words in Bruce's mouth.

I think it could have more accurately been shortened by saying:

Democrats are gutless spineless wonders.

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 07:01 AM
You could have saved a lot of typing in your explanation to eildydar if you just typed your simplified version of the truth:

When no Democrats in Congress voted with Bush it was because Bush was a partisan extremist.

When no Republicans in Congress vote with Obama it's because they're obstructionists.

See how simple that would have been?
The fact is that Democrats routinely supported legislation proposed by Bush, including supporting the adoption of misguided tax cuts in 2001 and confirmation of two of the most right wing extremist justices nominated to the Supreme Court in our history. Ultimately, Democrats held up 10 judicial appointments out of hundreds submitted by the administration, and were attacked for having done so. The record of Democrats supporting Bush is dramatically different from the record of Republicans supporting Obama. By every measure, this is the most partisanly divided Congress in history (at least according to the Congressional Record), and it is not because the current administration is any more extreme than the last one.

Uncle Bill
04-26-2010, 11:36 AM
The fact is that Democrats routinely supported legislation proposed by Bush, including supporting the adoption of misguided tax cuts in 2001 and confirmation of two of the most right wing extremist justices nominated to the Supreme Court in our history. Ultimately, Democrats held up 10 judicial appointments out of hundreds submitted by the administration, and were attacked for having done so. The record of Democrats supporting Bush is dramatically different from the record of Republicans supporting Obama. By every measure, this is the most partisanly divided Congress in history (at least according to the Congressional Record), and it is not because the current administration is any more extreme than the last one.



And it has NOTHING to do with the obvious slide towards socialism, and the developement of an oligarchy by Obama and his henchmen.:rolleyes: What a batch of fools you continue to be.


http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm (http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm)

UB

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 11:51 AM
And it has NOTHING to do with the obvious slide towards socialism, and the developement of an oligarchy by Obama and his henchmen.:rolleyes: What a batch of fools you continue to be.


http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm (http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm)

UB
As distinct from the slide toward fascism and the recreation of an oligarchy of wealth under Bush? Over the last 20+ years, the most distinct trend in America has been an continuously increasing concentration of wealth and income with a very small percentage of the population while the bottom 50% have been left behind. How is that evidence of a slide toward socialism? Tax rates for the wealthy have declined continuously over the last 30+ years. Even if every tax increase discussed by the current administration is implemented, taxes on the wealthy will be lower than they were at the end of the Reagan administration. How is that evidence of a slide toward socialism? Name calling may be fun, but facts speak louder.

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 02:29 PM
Clearly, a racial bigot is comfortable in the absence of challenge to his racist ideas. Not being powerful, individually, the bigot may consider his presence neutral. What happens if this 'neutral' environment is a business or a church? Could it be that the bigot is also surrounded by like-minded individuals? Could it be that people are unwittingly tolerant of his racist ideas? Questions such as these are very relevant to issues like institutional racism and affirmative action. The bigot's acknowledged racism and 'forgiven' powerlessness becomes a source of conflict when an institution's credibility is called into question. Just as a neighborhood loses security when that 'nice quiet tenant' is shown to be an axe murderer, the society around bigots lose credibility. The acceptance of a bigot, especially the conscious acceptance, puts a 'price' on racism. "It's okay for Marge Schott to be a bigot because she runs a good baseball team." Or "It's ok for Darryl Gates to be a bigot because he runs the police department". Unfortunately this easily translates into justifications which include and 'excusable minority' of bigots. "It's ok for some police officers in Philadelphia to be bigots, because on the whole most officers are not". Or "it's okay for that fraternity to be bigots because they need a home too." Or "It's okay for black people to be bigots because most white people are." The race man is intolerant of bigotry.

Racial prejudice affects us all. We all know the stereotypes and we all keep them alive. That they have not changed much over the years demonstrates the staying power of racist ideas despite the fact that 99% of Americans will deny being ideological racists. But what effect does personal prejudice have? The race man is more properly concerned not with the fact of individual's personal prejudices but the degree to which it is distinct from or supported by racist ideas. An individual whose personal prejudice parallels a racial prejudice is not necessarily problematic, but does this individual extend the thinking? If I am white and my sister was beat up by a black person, I may come to fear blacks. But should I now believe them to be intellectually inferior and lazy as well? Should I seek to exemplify or debunk prejudices be they positive or negative?

Susie
We don't have a lot of etiquette on the POTUS forum, but I think it makes some sense to introduce yourself and maybe even talk about your dogs some before launching into lectures on racism.

Buzz
04-26-2010, 02:31 PM
We don't have a lot of etiquette on the POTUS forum, but I think it makes some sense to introduce yourself and maybe even talk about your dogs some before launching into lectures on racism.

And maybe read more than a comment or two so you understand where the poster is coming from.

dback
04-26-2010, 02:33 PM
We don't have a lot of etiquette on the POTUS forum, but I think it makes some sense to introduce yourself and maybe even talk about your dogs some before launching into lectures on racism.

A tip of the hat to ya Yardley

M&K's Retrievers
04-26-2010, 02:39 PM
We don't have a lot of etiquette on the POTUS forum, but I think it makes some sense to introduce yourself and maybe even talk about your dogs some before launching into lectures on racism.

Damn, Jeff! We agree on something else. I think this is the second time this month.:D:D

menmon
04-26-2010, 03:28 PM
And it has NOTHING to do with the obvious slide towards socialism, and the developement of an oligarchy by Obama and his henchmen.:rolleyes: What a batch of fools you continue to be.


http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm (http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm)

UB

Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me! I'm not the fool, because I learned the first time. You are the one that is not admitting you hoodwink!

Hew
04-26-2010, 04:50 PM
The fact is that Democrats routinely supported legislation proposed by Bush, including supporting the adoption of misguided tax cuts in 2001...
That's interesting. A little more than a year ago, when it suited your argument, you attempted to portray Bush as ramming the 2001 tax cuts through Congress without Democrat support because he was just so crazy partisan: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=392084&highlight=zell#post392084 Now, when it suits your argument, you're claiming that the Democrats supported the 2001 tax cuts (you know, being the bipartisans they are, and all). I guess you can take any side in an argument just as long as you know which side the Democrats are on first. The only way you could be more nakedly partisan is if you're standing in the shower with an "I heart Hope and Change" tat on your arse. ;-)

YardleyLabs
04-26-2010, 05:27 PM
That's interesting. A little more than a year ago, when it suited your argument, you attempted to portray Bush as ramming the 2001 tax cuts through Congress without Democrat support because he was just so crazy partisan: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=392084&highlight=zell#post392084 Now, when it suits your argument, you're claiming that the Democrats supported the 2001 tax cuts (you know, being the bipartisans they are, and all). I guess you can take any side in an argument just as long as you know which side the Democrats are on first. The only way you could be more nakedly partisan is if you're standing in the shower with an "I heart Hope and Change" tat on your arse. ;-)
13 Democrats voted with Republicans in the House and 12 Democrats voted with Republicans in the Senate. Without those votes the bill would not have passed in either chamber. The remainder of Democrats voted no. No Republicans voted no although a few abstained.

depittydawg
04-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Ok Hew, where did you get that avatar? That thing is awesome!

JDogger
04-26-2010, 08:20 PM
Ok Hew, where did you get that avatar? That thing is awesome!


It was the result of weirding everyone out with his last one.

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/batboy.jpg

There has been speculation that the current one is a self-representation, but that may only be half true. I doubt that hew is a smoker anymore, but I suspect he still dips a little bit. ;)

JD

Hew
04-27-2010, 01:18 AM
Wow, a blast from the past. I'd forgotten all about Batboy. He was awesome. I also had Chakka the Monkey Boy from Land of the Lost for awhile until Smokin' Baby fell in my lap one day. I don't even remember where Smokin' Baby came from, DD. Serendipity I reckon.

road kill
05-10-2010, 12:48 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. I work for the government monitoring web sites and other communication relative to threats to our national security or national leaders. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.


Probably the biggest pile of BS ever posted here!

Oh, and by the way, want some....come get some!!:D



rk

depittydawg
05-10-2010, 12:51 PM
Any American who does not question their racial prejudices is likely to be unduly influenced by some racist ideas. The unreflective citizen will not be aware of the content or degree of their racism. Their prejudices will not necessarily lead them into conflict, therefore they may never really understand the true extent of their proclivities towards racist ideas or resistance to them. By default, since this nation is and has been a bastion of white supremacy(1), that makes the unreflective citizen most likely a bigot or even an extrinsic racist. Despite the fact that it is reasonable to give the unreflective citizen the benefit of the doubt, all Americans are conscious of race. Thus the unreflective citizen is either willfully ignorant, morally lazy or under the age of 7. At the very least, and except for the last case, such a weak citizen person constitutes a latent threat to the vitality of moral democracy.

A bigot is aware of their prejudices and defends them. The bigot is not necessarily crazy, nor illogical, nor does the bigot necessarily expect anyone to think as they do. The bigot has opinions and defends their opinions as their own. As such, when you approach or confront the bigot they are likely to respond, "I am not racist". They might be attempting to say "I am not a Racist", meaning that they don't try to convince others - that they are not ideologues. That fact does not change the content of their opinions, which are racist. If you are a racial bigot, it is because you have internalized and accepted racist ideas. A bigot in this sense is quite obviously racist. That doesn't necessarily make them dangerous as a person, but certainly destructive as a citizen. It is not the personality of the bigot with which the race man should concern himself, rather his attachment to foul ideas. Often, bigots are simply enamored of holding strongly to controversial ideas without much regard to the logical consequences of such ideas.
And seldom, but still too often, the Bigot or Racist takes action based on his beliefs. These actions are usually harmful to others either directly or indirectly.
They often defend their ideas on the matter of race by denying that they have any power to effect change or hurt anyone.

Susie

A brilliant piece. Only one addendum.

road kill
05-10-2010, 12:53 PM
Clearly, a racial bigot is comfortable in the absence of challenge to his racist ideas. Not being powerful, individually, the bigot may consider his presence neutral. What happens if this 'neutral' environment is a business or a church? Could it be that the bigot is also surrounded by like-minded individuals? Could it be that people are unwittingly tolerant of his racist ideas? Questions such as these are very relevant to issues like institutional racism and affirmative action. The bigot's acknowledged racism and 'forgiven' powerlessness becomes a source of conflict when an institution's credibility is called into question. Just as a neighborhood loses security when that 'nice quiet tenant' is shown to be an axe murderer, the society around bigots lose credibility. The acceptance of a bigot, especially the conscious acceptance, puts a 'price' on racism. "It's okay for Marge Schott to be a bigot because she runs a good baseball team." Or "It's ok for Darryl Gates to be a bigot because he runs the police department". Unfortunately this easily translates into justifications which include and 'excusable minority' of bigots. "It's ok for some police officers in Philadelphia to be bigots, because on the whole most officers are not". Or "it's okay for that fraternity to be bigots because they need a home too." Or "It's okay for black people to be bigots because most white people are." The race man is intolerant of bigotry.

Racial prejudice affects us all. We all know the stereotypes and we all keep them alive. That they have not changed much over the years demonstrates the staying power of racist ideas despite the fact that 99% of Americans will deny being ideological racists. But what effect does personal prejudice have? The race man is more properly concerned not with the fact of individual's personal prejudices but the degree to which it is distinct from or supported by racist ideas. An individual whose personal prejudice parallels a racial prejudice is not necessarily problematic, but does this individual extend the thinking? If I am white and my sister was beat up by a black person, I may come to fear blacks. But should I now believe them to be intellectually inferior and lazy as well? Should I seek to exemplify or debunk prejudices be they positive or negative?

Susie

By definition, who amongst us does NOT have some level of bigotry??

"Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

example: your opinion towards the Tea Party.

BTW: all of us here know of or actually know each other.
WHO ARE YOU??



rk

mjh345
05-10-2010, 01:13 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. I work for the government monitoring web sites and other communication relative to threats to our national security or national leaders. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

BRILLIANT!!
SusieQ if you get some time off from monitoring my emails etc. you are welcome to come North and train with me. It will be strictly a day of training for field trials even though some time I think my mutts are a threats to our National Security

The politics of fear is alive & well on POTUS forum

depittydawg
05-10-2010, 01:19 PM
By definition, who amongst us does NOT have some level of bigotry??

"Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

example: your opinion towards the Tea Party.

BTW: all of us here know of or actually know each other.
WHO ARE YOU??



rk

On a serious note, I'm pretty sure everyone has become racially charged at some point. Think about it. Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, Middle Eastern races, and of course Whites if you're any of the above; if a member of one of those groups didn't ruffle your feathers at some point to the brink of generalizations and stereotypes, I'm afraid you might be emotionally dead.

Julie R.
05-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. I work for the government monitoring web sites and other communication relative to threats to our national security or national leaders. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

So your research plus the talent of your dogs has led you to the conclusion that everyone who posts here is racist--how prescient of you. And how comforting to know during these tough, belt-tightening times, that this administration pays people to monitor dog sites to be sure they don't miss anyone who disagrees with the current President or his cronies. Nor the opportunity to label any such disagreement racism.

By the way none of my dogs have ever earned a single all age point. They're just trashy yard dogs that lounge around the farm under the sagging porch and include an untitled rescue, a couple of JHs and a youngster who's passed one of three hunt tests, no titles, and a lucky break where she eked out a green ribbon in a minor stake at a FT. So I guess we qualify as one of your watch list bigoted accomplishers of squat. If we aren't, maybe we should be; not only do I kill defenseless animals but my old gas hog truck that I couldn't bear to trade in for some stimulus cash even sports a pro-gun bumper sticker that says "From my cold, dead hands." Even worse: sometimes I read the Bible (although not as much as I thump on it).

That said, how about you introduce yourself and tell us a little about all those wonder dogs you own? And if I may, a correction (you know how us bigots like to do): dogs have quite a lot to do with why this forum was created.

Retriever folks everywhere usually end up talking about politics occasionally, some more than others, so Chris created a place where those so inclined could talk to their heart's content. With all your field trial experience surely you've participated in some political smack talk as you waited to hear results or callbacks?

For those of us that may not run all age stakes, most of us hunt and enjoy our retrievers and think it's somewhat important to keep up with political trends that might affect our use of guns, game and land for our sport and/or our very right to own and breed dogs. In other words, dogs do have plenty to do with the creation of POTUS. And though we often disagree, occasionally agree to disagree, I'll give props to Yardley (Jeff) for putting this so well. I wouldn't have been as tactful:


We don't have a lot of etiquette on the POTUS forum, but I think it makes some sense to introduce yourself and maybe even talk about your dogs some before launching into lectures on racism.

david gibson
05-10-2010, 01:50 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. I work for the government monitoring web sites and other communication relative to threats to our national security or national leaders. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

my research shows you are a phony and cut and pasted your racism-accusational essay and then signed your name to it. (although i am reasonably certain your name is not susie) certainly we are all guilty of cutting and pasting a passage or two, but to post such an indepth essay in its entirety, - regardless of its validity - and claim all of its content and expression as your own is disingenuous at best. plagerism for certain.

common decency calls for citing the original author.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/define/bigots.html

unless your name is Michael David Cobb Bowen and you are an early middle aged bald black man.

and deppitydawg and marc healy fell all over themselves calling you "brilliant". being your fist post would catch most peoples eye and have them question the authenticity, but some people get so giddy they cant see the obvious, just like when they all fell head over heels for the Obama Koolaid. no surprise.

LOL!!!!

mjh345
05-10-2010, 01:52 PM
SusieQ is from Hope Ark.
I'm sure her last name is Clinton.

depittydawg
05-10-2010, 01:54 PM
my research shows you are a phony and cut and pasted your racism-accusational essay and then signed your name to it.

common decency calls for citing the original author.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/define/bigots.html

unless your name is Michael David Cobb Bowen and you are an early middle aged bald black man.

and deppitydawg and marc healy fell all over themselves calling you "brilliant"

LOL!!!!

I don't care who wrote it. It was brilliant. And still is.

road kill
05-10-2010, 02:02 PM
I don't care who wrote it. It was brilliant. And still is.
Maybe.....but I am on the Presidents council to peruse Dog Forums and nab "Plagerists!!":cool:

BUSTED!!!!



rk

david gibson
05-10-2010, 02:15 PM
i read back through the thread and didnt see any references to racism or bigotry, it was all dem vs rep, then suddenly the suzie q post pops up. maybe it is brilliant, but its totally irrelevant. oh yeah, i forgot, everyone that opposes Pbo is a racist.

may as well post the constitution and claim it as mine.

JDogger
05-10-2010, 02:23 PM
We had a SusieQ troll here back a couple of years ago. I think she posted some pics of herself and than vanished.

Seems we got one again...JD

depittydawg
05-10-2010, 02:28 PM
i read back through the thread and didnt see any references to racism or bigotry, it was all dem vs rep, then suddenly the suzie q post pops up. maybe it is brilliant, but its totally irrelevant. oh yeah, i forgot, everyone that opposes Pbo is a racist.

may as well post the constitution and claim it as mine.

So what is Pbo?

Franco
05-10-2010, 02:28 PM
, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points.



So What! I have a dog laying at my feet with 17 AA points, no big deal. My other Lab has picked up over 3,000 wild birds while hunting over her lifetime. That is something to brag about. Besides, I did 100% of her training.

I know a lot of folks that have spent tens-of-thousands with thier trainers chasing FT points and ribbons. And, you are going to brag about that?

david gibson
05-10-2010, 02:36 PM
pbo = president barack obama

i read some of michael david cobb bowens stuff, he is actually a pretty interesting fellow. founder of the conservative brotherhood, an organization of black conservatives. i feel like watching an episode of "Cosby" now.

huxtable regards

mjh345
05-10-2010, 02:38 PM
my research shows you are a phony and cut and pasted your racism-accusational essay and then signed your name to it. (although i am reasonably certain your name is not susie) certainly we are all guilty of cutting and pasting a passage or two, but to post such an indepth essay in its entirety, - regardless of its validity - and claim all of its content and expression as your own is disingenuous at best. plagerism for certain.

common decency calls for citing the original author.

http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/define/bigots.html

unless your name is Michael David Cobb Bowen and you are an early middle aged bald black man.

and deppitydawg and marc healy fell all over themselves calling you "brilliant". being your fist post would catch most peoples eye and have them question the authenticity, but some people get so giddy they cant see the obvious, just like when they all fell head over heels for the Obama Koolaid. no surprise.

LOL!!!!

Hey Sparky you may want to check the context & which post it was that I called "brilliant".

Obviously a chum post and you took the bait; hook, line, and sinker

The Eagle has landed..... {and pooped on your head in the process!!}

david gibson
05-10-2010, 02:48 PM
Hey Sparky you may want to check the context & which post it was that I called "brilliant".

Obviously a chum post and you took the bait; hook, line, and sinker

The Eagle has landed..... {and pooped on your head in the process!!}

dude give it a rest, you were trolled and still have a hook in your mouth, no amount of shaking your head back and forth in denial will remove it.

but seriously, i knew you couldnt resist stalking me some more. you are the only person i have ever considered ignoring due to your obsession with following me around this forum and attacking me personally every chance you get. i think i'll look for that ignore button now - not because we generally disagree, but because your obsession truly creeps me out.

Julie R.
05-10-2010, 02:53 PM
We had a SusieQ troll here back a couple of years ago. I think she posted some pics of herself and than vanished.

Seems we got one again...JD

I thought of that Susie Q also; that troll got busted and banned, for awhile anyway. "She" turned out to be a he getting his jollies by setting out some bait for certain female posters. That troll was more amusing than evil and lacked the name calling and innuendos this one posted. However if in fact this Administration does have computer rooms full of trolls looking for bigots on various dog websites (which wouldn't surprise me), I'm sure Susie Q will not earn any bonus points among its ilk for those posts.

david gibson
05-10-2010, 05:35 PM
The only person bragging is you (see stats above). I was asked by Yardley to introduce myself, I went as far as I can go.

couldnt find anything else to plagiarize?

dback
05-10-2010, 07:22 PM
I'm thinkin maybe we shouldn't feed this troll.

Franco
05-10-2010, 08:28 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. I work for the government monitoring web sites and other communication relative to threats to our national security or national leaders. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

Just calling a Spade, a Spade. You made the slam of the people on this forum!

Marvin S
05-10-2010, 09:37 PM
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

So Prove it! Names would work as I have the only signigicant database showing one's accomplishments with FT dogs. Maybe you've judged, a number will do.

Many on here make no claim to have the time or inclination to play FT's. But a significant number play HT or something like it & by their postings one can quickly deduce their skill level at dogs :o. It's nothing to belittle.

As for yourself, your answer is breathlessly awaited. Those who post smack are expected to back it up :o.

david gibson
05-10-2010, 10:32 PM
suzie q is a troll and a bad one at that, plagiarizing like that was insipidly stupid; however, he/she at least picked a pretty good writer to mimic. been reading more from this guy and am quite impressed. a middle aged black conservative with his head on straight. so SQ you are a bonehead but thanks for the into to mr Bowen.... ;-)

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 04:12 PM
Here is another thread SusieQ commented on and there is not any origional posts and no page numbers missing. SusieQ is quoted a number of times in this thread.

Marvin SQuote:
Originally Posted by Susie Q http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=613252#post613252)
Dogs don't have anything to do with this forum, even though my dogs have accumulated a fair amount of all-age points. My research shows that most of the people on this forum have never accomplished squat with dogs.

So Prove it! Names would work as I have the only signigicant database showing one's accomplishments with FT dogs. Maybe you've judged, a number will do.

Many on here make no claim to have the time or inclination to play FT's. But a significant number play HT or something like it & by their postings one can quickly deduce their skill level at dogs :eek:. It's nothing to belittle.

As for yourself, your answer is breathlessly awaited. Those who post smack are expected to back it up :eek:.

BrianW
02-06-2011, 11:33 AM
Roger, WHAT is your point in dragging up all these old threads regarding SusieQ? :confused:
If the administrator can go through and reset old "alias" id'd threads/posts to their "proper" handle, is there something that makes you believe that they couldn't delete all posts from a certain user as well?
Send your "conspiracy concerns" or whatever it is that's bothering you to Chris, please?!?

huntinman
02-06-2011, 12:08 PM
Maybe Roger is...was Susie Q???

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 12:17 PM
Roger, WHAT is your point in dragging up all these old threads regarding SusieQ? :confused:
If the administrator can go through and reset old "alias" id'd threads/posts to their "proper" handle, is there something that makes you believe that they couldn't delete all posts from a certain user as well?
Send your "conspiracy concerns" or whatever it is that's bothering you to Chris, please?!?

Because of the "alias" thread I was curious to see if I did a search on SusieQ whose name would come up. When I did the search, I found others here responding to quotes from SusieQ but could not find any of her origional posts and I thought that was odd. If the administrators here could delete her posts, couldn't they also delete the threads where her "quotes" also showed up?

ducknwork
02-06-2011, 12:19 PM
Maybe Roger is...was Susie Q???


It would not surprise me if he moonlighted as a female.:eek:



I guess I better get ready for the lawsuit threats now...:rolleyes:

M&K's Retrievers
02-06-2011, 12:25 PM
Because of the "alias" thread I was curious to see if I did a search on SusieQ whose name would come up. When I did the search, I found others here responding to quotes from SusieQ but could not find any of her origional posts and I thought that was odd. If the administrators here could delete her posts, couldn't they also delete the threads where her "quotes" also showed up?

It's obvious that no one cares but you so why don't you just drop it?

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 12:33 PM
It would not surprise me if he moonlighted as a female.:eek:



I guess I better get ready for the lawsuit threats now...:rolleyes:

Stick it up your ass jackoff

huntinman
02-06-2011, 01:39 PM
M & K, sounds like we struck a nerve with RP. :rolleyes: A little defensive about your feminine side Roger? or is it Susie Q?

Chris Atkinson
02-06-2011, 03:10 PM
Because of the "alias" thread I was curious to see if I did a search on SusieQ whose name would come up. When I did the search, I found others here responding to quotes from SusieQ but could not find any of her origional posts and I thought that was odd. If the administrators here could delete her posts, couldn't they also delete the threads where her "quotes" also showed up?

Roger,

The SusieQ issue has long-ago been remedied. That user deleted their own posts, just as I'd suggest you do with the personally attacking, uncalled for language that you used.

Ironically, I came to check out this thread because it was reported that folks were picking on you. It appears you are right there in the gutter throwing mud too.

The fact is that if I wanted to spend my time manually plowing through anything where someone quoted someone's since-deleted stuff, I could. I'm not sure what the value is. It seems there's only one person that cares.

I don't get why this thread was brought back up. It is costing me weekend time when I should be getting wings, nachos, and a cinnamon-mulling spice, potpourri conconction boling on the woodstove. I need to prep for the big game.

Guys, treat each other as you'd like to be treated. This thread is locked.

Please don't mess with SusieQ quoted passages. It is outdated history.

SusieQ had absolutely nothing to do with the alias account posting from last week.

Chris

OH yeah...thread locked.

If you don't like getting bumped around in the mosh pit, don't dance.

Be civil or be banned, please.

Thanks, Chris

Chris Atkinson
02-06-2011, 03:43 PM
M & K, sounds like we struck a nerve with RP. :rolleyes: A little defensive about your feminine side Roger? or is it Susie Q?

SusieQ was not Roger...it was an alias. It is over and done with.

Please move on.

Bill, you have your own things that you did not like folks picking on....(regarding your friends, their dogs, etc..) Please use the golden rule.

Chris Atkinson
02-06-2011, 03:44 PM
Stick it

Totally inappropriate Roger... Edit that post please and use the resource right or go the way of Gibson.

Thanks, Chris

Chris Atkinson
02-06-2011, 03:45 PM
It would not surprise me if he moonlighted as a female.:eek:



I guess I better get ready for the lawsuit threats now...:rolleyes:

This is a hot button that's uncalled for...

Please be cool.

Chris