Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.

I'm a little confused by the sudden turn this thread has taken but that is a pretty well built jeep.

Simply trying to point out what "Fundamental Transformation" actually means.

Both Malibu's are cars, have motors and run on gasoline, same with the Cherokees......yet they have undergone a fundamental transformation of design.

Those who want to "Fundamentally Transform the United States of America" have the same purpose, to make our nation something that we will not recognize as the USA that our Founding Fathers designed.

One may argue that the 2010 Malibu is a better automobile than the 1967, so the transformation was a good thing......or that Richard's trail rig is a much more capable rig than the original Cherokee platform.

One may also have the same arguement regarding our Country. As with any modified design, one must be willing to live with compromises and make sacrifices.

What Freedoms and Liberties are you willing toss into the scrap bin?
 
Unfortunately, in Obama's "Fundamental Transformation" of America it would be a better comparison to show a Corvette as the "before" and an electric moped as the "after".
 
Those who want to "Fundamentally Transform the United States of America" have the same purpose, to make our nation something that we will not recognize as the USA that our Founding Fathers designed.

The Founding Fathers would not have recognized the country less than 100 years after it was founded. Every war that the US has been involved in has dramatically changed the country. After the Revolution the US Army was disbanded (so was the Continental Navy). Before the beginning of the next century there was a standing Army and Navy. World War II really saw the end of state militias as the National Guard became easier to federalize.

End of Slavery, the sufferage movement, public education, the failed prohibition experiment, income tax, repeal of poll tax...How many more examples?



What Freedoms and Liberties are you willing toss into the scrap bin?

What power do you have to stop the onslaught against the loss of Freedom? The Ballot Box?

There will not be a wholesale turnover of either house of congress this mid-term election, it actually remains to be seen if there is even a shift of power across the aisle. I stated before, the majority of the people currently seated in Congress will be re-elected. A thread I started here (and has since been moved to the garbage can for getting out of hand) asked a simple question: Who is on board for a voters revolt? Do not vote for incumbent! and a good portion if not a good majority of the respondents liked their representative or senator. It was someone they could not vote for due to residency that they did not like.

Does this mean I am happy about the ongoing attacks on Freedoms? No. Yet this is still the very best country in the world to live in.
 
I have been voting against all my representatives ever since I could vote.

Mostly because I live in a blue state and wander around the red-libertarian corner of the political compass.
 
About that red-blue state stuff--all around the world the "REDS" are just that--socialists, communists, liberals, etc., and "BLUES" are conservatives.

Now, how did it get changed here in the U.S.? By the Lamestream Media. Was it deliberate, well, you decide whose side they are on and draw what conclusions you will from that.
 
Tom, I agree with you.Anyone who votes based on party affiliation lazy and ignorant and not worthy of the right to vote, unfortunately our Congress has not yet found a way to effectively regulate stupidity..........hmmmm, now there is a solution? Complacency have gotten us where we are today as a country, politically and financially. My sole purpose in these threads is to wake people up, make them aware that they are not alone (75-80% of Americans think our Congress/President is taking us in the wrong direction), in spite of what the government controlled press tells you. When they say "we're passing XXXX Bill because the American people want it" and the actual stats of Americans who want Socialism is below 20%, then it's perfectly clear that they are losing the fight to "Fundamentally Transform the USA".Look at Missouri's vote this week......over 70% of their citizen voted AGAINST the Healthcare Bill. (note to Avery...matches poll data)People are waking up and realizing that this corrupt, bloated goverment needs a reset, not towards Socialism but a realignment with Constitutional Principles and Values. This isn't an Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter.........Blue, Red, Republican, Democrat thing........it's an American Citizen thing, which will take education, constant effort and vigilance.
 
Tom, I agree with you.Anyone who votes based on party affiliation lazy and ignorant and not worthy of the right to vote, unfortunately our Congress has not yet found a way to effectively regulate stupidity..........hmmmm, now there is a solution? Complacency have gotten us where we are today as a country, politically and financially. My sole purpose in these threads is to wake people up, make them aware that they are not alone (75-80% of Americans think our Congress/President is taking us in the wrong direction), in spite of what the government controlled press tells you. When they say "we're passing XXXX Bill because the American people want it" and the actual stats of Americans who want Socialism is well below 20%, then it's perfectly clear that they are losing the fight to "Fundamentally Transform the USA"Look at Missouri's vote this week......over 70% of their citizen voted AGAINST the Healthcare Bill. (note to Avery...matches poll data)People are waking up and realizing that this corrupt, bloated government needs a reset, not towards Socialism but a realignment with Constitutional Principles and Values. This isn't an Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter.........Blue, Red, Republican, Democrat thing........it's an American voter thing, which will take education, constant effort and vigilance.
 
Last edited:
Remember, Remember, the Tuesday after the first Monday of November...

somehow that just doesn't have the right ring to it.
 
Freddie Mac says it needs another ($1.8 billion) from taxpayers.

The rescue of the two companies is turning out to be one of the most expensive aftereffects of the financial meltdown.

In May 2010, Fannie Mae asked for an additional $8.4 billion in federal aid after reporting a first-quarter loss of more than $13 billion.

The request for aid in May 2010 brings Fannie Mae's total to $83.6 billion.

The total bill for the companies so far is $145.9 billion and counting.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the final bill could reach $389 billion.


Fannie Mae was created during the Depression to make sure that sufficient funds were available to mortgage lenders, then rechartered by Congress in 1968 as a publicly traded company. Fannie Mae, like Freddie Mac, which was created by Congress in 1970, buys mortgages from lending institutions and then either holds them in investment portfolios or resells them as mortgage-backed securities to investors.

In February 2008, federal regulators announced that they were easing some restrictions on lending by Fannie and Freddie. Then on March 19, the federal government announced that it was easing those restrictions in an effort to calm the turmoil afflicting the mortgage markets. Officials said the change could allow the two companies to invest $200 billion more in mortgages.
But on July 13, even as top officials continued to insist that the companies had adequate cash to weather the current financial storm, the Bush administration asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would empower officials to inject billions of federal dollars into the companies through investments and loans.

And the government did just that in early September, when the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., announced the takeover over of Fannie and Freddie after advisers poring over the companies’ books concluded that Freddie’s accounting methods had overstated its capital cushion. The move to place the companies into a conservatorship also grew out of concern among foreign investors that the companies’ debt might not be repaid.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/fannie_mae/index.html?scp=2&sq=freddie&st=cse

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled," said Kaiser Soze in the film The Usual Suspects, "was convincing the world he didn't exist." In a similar way, big business and big government prosper from the perception that they are rivals instead of partners (in plunder). The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business.

If this sounds like an attack on big business, it is not intended to be. It is an attack on certain practices of big business. When business plays by the crooked rules of politics, average citizens get ripped off. The blame lies with those who wrote the rules."
 
Last edited:
did anyone else notice the 70% return on investment for the bailouts?
 
I'll look for it but I was just as pissed as the next guy about the bail out (and the banks fee hikes) but this blew me away, might be off a little :flipoff: but the money outperformed any fund in the history.

doug

EDIT....lol forgot the decimal point, meant to say 7.0% but it was actually 8.5%
 
I thought for some reason that you meant the government got back 70% of what they put in. Was going to say "hey, not bad compared to some investments I've seen".

a couple percent... ah well. Shit happens.
 
Maxine and Barney were in the "Freddie and Fannie are fine" crowd when tighter oversight and regulation was called for, way before the housing market collapsed.

Guess they were just trying to cover their assets........

“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-panel-with-helping-bank-tied-to-husband.html

Frank should be sharing a cell with Madoff, along with Chris Dodd and Franklin Raines.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sen-dodd-calls-fannie-freddie-fundamentally-strong

BTW, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama topped the list of lobby dollars paid in 2008 by Freddie/Fannie.
 
Interesting developement on Jim Wallis, who Obama has selected as this "spiritual advisor". Seems oxymoronic to me, but you decide for yourself.........

Jim Wallis has admitted that Sojourners has received funding in the past from liberal billionaire George Soros' Open Society Institute.

Last month, Marvin Olasky asked Wallis to admit his affiliations on the left when reported on the money from Soros in World magazine.
George Soros, one of the leading billionaire leftists—he has financed groups promoting abortion, atheism, same-sex marriage, and gargantuan government—bankrolled Sojourners with a $200,000 grant in 2004.

A year later, here's how Jim rebutted a criticism of "religious progressives" for being allied with Soros and MoveOn.org: "I know of no connections to those liberal funds and groups that are as direct as the Religious Right's ties to right-wing funders."
Since then Sojourners has received at least two more grants from Soros organizations. Sojourners revenues have more than tripled—from $1,601,171 in 2001-2002 to $5,283,650 in 2008-2009—as secular leftists have learned to use the religious left to elect Obama and others.
In a Patheos interview, Wallis suggested that Olasky was lying.
“It’s not hyperbole or overstatement to say that Glenn Beck lies for a living. I’m sad to see Marvin Olasky doing the same thing. No, we don’t receive money from Soros. Given the financial crisis of nonprofits, maybe Marvin should call Soros and ask him to send us money.
“So, no, we don’t receive money from George Soros. Our books are totally open, always have been. Our money comes from Christians who support us and who read Sojourners. That’s where it comes from. In fact, we’ve had funding blocked, this year and last, by liberal foundations who didn’t like our stance on abortion. Other liberal groups were happy to point out to them that our stance wasn’t kosher on abortion, so our funding was blocked.
“So tell Marvin he should check his facts, and not imitate Glenn Beck.”
Jay Richards of National Review and Olasky responded to Wallis. Here's Olasky again:
Want to see for yourself what someone apparently did not want you to see? Click here to download the PDF, go to page 225, and you’ll see the grant to Sojourners.
You can also see the 2006 grant by downloading the 990-PF for that year and going to page 125. And by the way, look at page 114 of the 990-PF for 2007: another $100,000 grant to Sojourners “to support the Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform campaign.”
Wallis released a statement through a spokesperson to Patheos.
"I should have declined to comment until I was able to review the blog post in question and consulted with our staff on the details of our funding over the past several years. Instead, I answered in the spirit of the accusation and did not recall the details of our funding over the decade in question. The spirit of the accusation was that Sojourners is beholden to funders on the political left, which is false. The allegation concerned three grants received over 10 years from the Open Society Institute that made up the tiniest fraction of Sojourners' funding during that decade -- so small that I hadn't remembered them."

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2010/08/wallis_admits_t.html



Ya Jim, I have the same problem.......I have so many organizations donating $7 Million dollars to me, some occasionally slip my mind.

So I ask you this: If your chosen spiritual advisor is a blatent liar, Communist sympathizer and self-proclaimed Marxist....and an evangelical Christian Reverend, what does the President of the United States really believe in?
 
Here’s how the Socialists roll, and predictably. This is right out of their playbook.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Note what connects these issues.

In every one,liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
 
Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available.

But here's the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive.

A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/epa-reviewing-request-ban-led-bullets

Can't get rid of the guns? Make the ammo outrageously expensive.
 
Back
Top