The Respectfully Republican Conversation

moodyk13 · November 2008

By

Neal Boortz

November 24, 2008 8:50 AM Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0)

Daniel and Adam spotted this beauty on an Georgia Alabama road yesterday. Daniel says "dear GOD if you are going to go hunting, please have a hunting appropriate vehicle."

Anonymous · November 2008

LOL Moody!

Anonymous · November 2008

For republican entertainment ONLY. Too bad we didn't win, but I still love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2MKG2hFWao

LuAnnH · November 2008

Shirley, I only commented that Bush backed it because someone blamed it on the dems in the congress that gave the bailout today. I guess I shouldn't hang out in politics because I hate when people say oh it was their fault it happened when it was something decided on amonst everyone. I just like to be to darn fair, guess thats my problem.....LOL Anyway, there are going to continue to be bailouts for bailouts until something gets under control! I just wish some of these bailouts would hit us simple middle class to poor citizens!!!!

moodyk13 · November 2008

So totally off subject but......oh well, you know me....LOL

So I am watching fox news channel and Greta is interviewing that guy from Aruba who did "something" with natalie halloway. now he is saying on tv that he sold her for $10,000 to some stranger!!!!

Paulette531 · November 2008

Sold her for $10,000...I bet this kid is a sociopath and once they nail him his parental protection will come out bit gime from sources who were too afraid to talk before.

Ivylane · November 2008

Moody and Paulette: Do they now think that Natalie Holloway is alive? God, her poor family. I can't even imagine how they deal with this.

Anonymous · November 2008

I didn't get to watch it because I was cleaning until 5 AM this morning and it's everyone's fault but mine. And now my "backspace" key is sticking cuz I spilled coke and it dripple on the keyboard. I'm going to tell my husband that I don't know why it's sticking...would that be a lie?

Isn't he on Greta again tonight..part 2? I heard he sold her while I was CLEANING, but didn't know how for how much. That idiot is a liar. He killed her! I also heard he said he and his parents are not getting along. I think that's a lie to. His dad probably helped him.

I hope the cops look more into this since they couldn't seem to find the answsers (cover-up), and Greta's still hounding away. Whatever happened to Dr. Phil? He was supposed to help find Natalie.

Hey, I'm fixing my "backspace" by using it. DH should be happy although he doesn't know I spilled coke on it. I cleaned it up..really I did...but using it works better!

Shirley

Anonymous · November 2008

LuAnn, I'm not upset with you. Why are you upset? Or sound upset?

I know with the first bailout the dems wanted the repubs to go along with it because they didn't want to take the "blame" for it. Don't you remember when not enough repubs voted for it the first time? And of course some dems didn't either. But the dems (Nancy) was relying on the repubs to talk repubs into voting in favor of it. The repubs should have voted for it the first time..the second time there was pork added. Of course ALL of them were worried they wouldn't be voted back in because their constituents let them know.

Yeah, it'd be nice for us who need it and don't fly in private jets and drink $500 a bottle wine and don't go to extravagant places for massages....etc.! Yell Heck, who goes ANYWHERE. We stay home. I want $100,000 from the government! That'd help a lot. I'm so sick of Washington and financial institutions, and auto makers, and governors, and...who else has their hands out?

Anonymous · November 2008

I am really getting freaked! Here ya go, LuAnn

Obama, Democrats plan $500B economic package
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press
November 25, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congressional Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama are laying the groundwork for quick enactment in January of a giant, two-year economic rescue package that will total about a half-trillion dollars.

His economic team in place, Obama has tasked his aides with assembling an ambitious measure to not only swiftly pump money into the battered economy, but also create 2.5 million new jobs, send a tax cut to the poor and middle class, and make massive government investments in energy-saving and other technologies designed to pay for themselves in the long run.

Some senior Democratic lawmakers put the cost of the package as high as $700 billion, a figure Obama's team calls premature and several Democratic aides said was unlikely. One top Democratic congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity because talks on the economic rescue measure are ongoing, said it will probably cost between $400 billion and $500 billion over two years.

The president-elect has already acknowledged that its price tag will be far higher than the $175 billion economic aid plan he advocated while he was campaigning for the White House.

"We have to make sure that the stimulus is significant enough that it really gives a jolt to the economy, that it is putting people back to work, that it is making investments, that it is restoring some confidence in the business community that, in fact, their products and services are going to have customers," Obama said Monday as he announced his economic team.

Declining repeatedly to estimate the cost of the plan, Obama said, "It's going to be costly."

Indeed, many economists now agree that in order to jump-start the anemic economy, Obama needs to put in place a rescue costing at least $300 billion to $400 billion, or 2 percent of the size of the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

It needs to be "very big, because it's a very serious situation," said Alice M. Rivlin, a Brookings Institution economist and former top budget official who has been advising Democratic leaders on the size and scope of the forthcoming package. "We do need to stimulate the economy and to keep this snowballing recession from getting worse."

Democratic congressional leaders have been pressing for months for another "stimulus" plan to follow the $168 billion package of tax rebates enacted in February. In a statement Monday praising Obama's economic team, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans should agree to a second economic aid plan before year's end, to "provide a down payment on new job-creating infrastructure investments, help states avoid deep cuts to health care and other essential services, and provide nutrition assistance to struggling families."

But there's little chance that Bush and the Democratic Congress will reach a breakthrough on such a measure. Instead, Obama's team and Democratic leaders are hard at work on Plan B: The new Congress that convenes in early January will move swiftly on an aid package, readying it for Obama's signature as one of his first acts after being inaugurated.

The measure is likely to a beefed-up version of a $61 billion stimulus plan the House passed in September, which included $37 billion in spending on public works projects such as road-building and water and sewage projects; about $15 billion in aid to cash-strapped states to guard against cuts to health care for the poor; a $3 billion boost in food stamp aid; and a $7 billion jobless benefits extension for unemployed workers whose payments would otherwise run out.

Those elements are likely to grow, given that economic conditions have worsened since that legislation was drafted, said people familiar with the emerging plan.

Obama has also embraced calls for a "green jobs" program that invests as much as $100 billion in projects to slash harmful emissions. This could include projects such as retrofitting buildings to make them more energy-efficient, upgrading the electrical grid and improving mass transit.

"It turns out that putting money into green technologies ... has a very large positive employment effect relative to tax cuts," said Robert Pollin, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst economist who has written extensively on what he calls the "green recovery."

"It's very efficient in terms of creating jobs for a given amount of spending, and it has the added benefit that the short-term effects are compatible with long-term needs in the economy," Pollin said.

Democrats also plan to include tax cuts for low- and middle-class workers, along the lines of what Obama proposed on the campaign trail. One likely component is Obama's proposal to send tax credits of $500 to individuals and $1,000 to couples, including payments for people who make too little to owe any taxes. Those credits are estimated to cost about $115 billion in their first two years, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Obama's aides have said the early-January recovery plan will not include a tax increase for those earning $250,000 or more annually, something the president-elect has vowed to put in place to, in his words Monday, "restore some balance to our tax code." But economists caution that the measure, which will add substantially to the already soaring deficit, will have to contain some significant trade-offs to avoid making things worse.

"If you're going to do something that is big and long-run, like a major infrastructure effort that lasts into the future, then you need to offset it some way -- either with tax increases or other kinds of spending cuts," Rivlin said.

Anonymous · November 2008

I believe we should listen to this wise man.

'Jolting' The Economy
By Thomas Sowell
November 25, 2008

Barack Obama says that we have to "jolt" the economy. That certainly makes sense, if you take the media's account of the economy seriously-- but should the media be taken seriously?

Amid all the political and media hysteria, national output has declined by less than one-half of one percent. In fact, it may not have declined even that much-- or at all-- when the statistics are revised later, as they very often are.

We are not talking about the Great Depression, when output dropped by one-third and unemployment soared to 25 percent.

What we are talking about is a golden political opportunity for politicians to use the current financial crisis to fundamentally change an economy that has been successful for more than two centuries, so that politicians can henceforth micro-manage all sorts of businesses and play Robin Hood, taking from those who are not likely to vote for them and transferring part of their earnings to those who will vote for them.

For that, the politicians need lots of hype, and that is being generously supplied by the media.

Whatever the merits of trying to shore up some financial institutions, in order to prevent a major disruption of the credit flows that keep the whole economy going, what has in fact been done has been to create a huge pot of money-- hundreds of billions of dollars-- that politicians can use to give out goodies hither and yon, to whomever they please for whatever reason they please.

No doubt we could all use a few billion dollars every now and then. But the question of who actually gets it will be strictly in the hands of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is one of the few parts of the legacy of the Bush administration that the Democrats are not likely to criticize.

Much as we may deplore partisanship in Washington, bipartisan disasters are often twice as bad as partisan disasters-- and this is a bipartisan disaster in the making.

Too many people who argue that there is a beneficial role for the government to play in the economy glide swiftly from that to the conclusion that the government will in fact confine itself to playing such a role.

In the light of history, this is a faith which passeth all understanding. Even in the case of the Great Depression of the 1930s, increasing numbers of economists and historians who have looked back at that era have concluded that, on net balance, government intervention prolonged the Great Depression.

Many of those who have, over the years, praised the fact that this was the first time that the federal government took responsibility for trying to get the country out of a depression do not ask what seems like the logical follow-up question: Did this depression therefore end faster than other depressions where the government stood by and did nothing?

The Great Depression of the 1930s was in fact the longest-lasting of all our depressions.

Government policy in the 1930s was another bipartisan disaster. Despite a myth that Herbert Hoover was a "do nothing" president, he was the first President of the United States to step in to try to put the economy back on track.

With the passing years, it has increasingly been recognized that what FDR did was largely a further extension of what Hoover had done. Where Hoover made things worse, FDR made them much worse.

Herbert Hoover did what Barack Obama is proposing to do. Hoover raised taxes on high-income people and put restrictions on international trade, in order to try to save American jobs. It didn't work then and it is not likely to work now.

Perhaps the most disastrous of all the counterproductive policies of the federal government was the National Industrial Recovery Act under FDR, which set out to do exactly what the politicians today want to do-- micro-manage businesses.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared that Act unconstitutional, sparing the country an even bigger disaster.

Today, it is unlikely that the courts will let anything as old-fashioned as the Constitution stand in the way of "change." In short, the economy today has some serious problems but things are not desperate, though they can be made desperate by politicians.

------------------------

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University

shokk · November 2008

Gracie girl you ole left leaning tree hugging social loving use to smoke weed university lounge lizard how are you doing sweetheart?.............Can't wait to try your latest recipe..........looks great..........your right wing God fearing gover't dis truster women should have no choice conservative friend.......ha........Shokk

Anonymous · November 2008

I'm posting this OT subject because we hear about our politicians cheating and excusing it...it's their private lives. Also, just for general info. I don't know if I buy this answer of "why men cheat." Women have emotional needs to, but they don't always go out and cheat. Well, maybe they do! It's an interesting conception.

Why Men Cheat

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/why-men-cheat

Ivylane · November 2008

Good article, but I don't think I buy it. If the argument is that they are not "feeling connected" I guess what I am wondering is instead of trying to establish a "new connection" with someone else, FIX the connection you already have. I still say sex (or lack of it) is more likely. An emotional "attachment" may happen later, I don't know....jmho

Anonymous · November 2008

Dorothy and the Wizards of Washington lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLI5uj7KQc

moodyk13 · November 2008

Joran van der Sloot tells Greta that he "sold" Natalee Holloway, only to claim afterward that he made up the entire story. Of course the whole time I was watching it I got the feeling he was "toying" with her. He had this smirk on his face like it was a joke and he was proud they were falling for it. He even at one point, got up and walked out, but she got him to come back. That too seemed like he planned it.

Paulette is right he is the classic sociopath. I'm not sure who is worse, him, scott peterson, or oj simpson. I think he killed her. I think he did it on purpose. I think that was his plan when he went out that night. and i think daddy helped him cover it up.

you can watch video here: http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

I do think that part 2 comes on tonight if I dont forget to watch it.

moodyk13 · November 2008

Ok-back to politics:

CBS News reports:

Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics

"Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control"

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Voted to end $300 million worth of tax breaks for businesses. (2004)
Voted against making permanent the repeal of the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. (2000)
Voted against restrictions on public funding of abortion. (2000)

Successfully sponsored the Health Care Justice Act, a study of ways to implement a universal health care system statewide. (2004)

Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)
Unsuccessfully sponsored measure to expunge some criminal records and create an employment grant program for ex-criminals. (2002)
Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)
Voted against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang. (2001)
Successfully sponsored move to shield Illinois workers from federal rules that threatened overtime pay for some employees.
Successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform called the Gift Ban Act. (1998)
Voted against giving tax credits to parents who send their children to private school. (1999)

moodyk13 · November 2008

By Neal Boortz November 25, 2008 8:39 AM Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0)

My God! The unions are actually going to pull this one off! Their unionization-by-intimidation bill is actually going to pass! Now just ask yourself .. what would you do if you were an employer and you felt that the Democrats were on the verge of passing the union's "card check" bill. Well .. I'll tell you what I would do. I would be looking at any automation that I could find that would reduce my workforce. I would then go with all of the offshore options I could find that would allow me to get rid of more employees. Then I would go to staffing agencies for the rest of my workforce. The people working in my place of business would not be working for me. They would be working for a staffing agency. If they want to unionize something, they can unionize the staffing agency. If the Democrats bring us "card check" along with an expansion of the Family Leave Act my guess is that there are a lot of employers out there who will do everything they can to get rid of employees.

Unions played a big part in destroying the big three automakers. Now they can play a similar role with your business. Aren't you workers glad you voted for Obama? You might have voted yourself right slap out of a job.

moodyk13 · November 2008

By Neal Boortz November 25, 2008 8:32 AM

On the campaign trail, we quickly spotted two Barack Obamas: one with a teleprompter and one without. One man with an excellent ability to deliver one helluva speech and one man that hmmms his way through a jumble of thoughts that lead to nowhere.

So now we have the next step: staged press conferences. The president-elect has already had several press conferences and he will have another one today. But it seems that when it comes time for him to take questions from reporters, Obama already had a "game plan" of who exactly he was going to call on. Does that mean he is taking staged questions and has prepared answers? Well .........

November 24, 2008
Categories: White House

Obama team had 'game plan' for presser

"When Barack Obama began taking questions during today's economic press conference, reporters quickly realized that raising one's hand wouldn't lead to getting called on. That's because news outlets were selected beforehand.

President-elect Obama, according to an aide, went in with "a game plan" of who to call on, time-permitting. Today, he took questions from reporters with three wire services and three major papers.

Only the Associated Press and Reuters have asked questions at both post-election briefings, the first of which was held on Nov. 7. Otherwise, it's been a mixed bag. For instance, the NY Times got an opportunity during the first, but the not the second. The opposite can be said for the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.

In a step toward White House protocol, the AP has had the first question on both occasions. But the Obama team isn't exactly following White House protocol since no television reporters asked questions today."

moodyk13 · November 2008

Well BO also ran his whole campaign on one word "change". yet he is hiring up everyone from the clinton administration. not sure how that is "change" but then again he wasnt too specific.....he could have meant "change back"......

yet i am wondering if he is using the old adage "keep your friends closer but your enemies closer"..........

Anonymous · November 2008

I bet MO will make sure that the interns are going to be chubby brunettes ... oh never mind, that's what got the last one in trouble.

moodyk13 · November 2008

Oh this is very funny. They went up into Harlem and asked black people who they were voting for. When they (of course) said "Obama" they were asked "is it because Obama is 'pro-life' or because he wants the troops to stay in Iraq until the job is done." People said "BOTH"!!!!!! THEN they were asked if they minded Sarah Palin being vp and they said "NO NOT AT ALL".

And THEY call US DUMB?????????????????? watch it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCipmnYCKB0&feature=related

Anonymous · November 2008

That's the interview I was watching!!!

Was it 20/20? It was at nighttime I remember that, and not Jay Leno or Letterman. I remember there was a segment on 20/20 about how EVERYONE should NOT vote! Really, the people who don't know about the issues should stay home or not vote on that issue.

Truly, I went to vote and there were one or two things I was not informed on, one was for assembly or something like that and one of the propositions ... my attitude was, "do no harm" and I didn't vote on those. I only voted on the stuff I knew about. I had looked up most of the propostions and read about them, made a cheat sheet but there was one tricky one and I couldn't decipher which was really going to be better.

LuAnnH · November 2008

These are the days I shouldn't read this thread. Shirley, didn't mean to sound mad or rude...I was responding to an older post by the time my post showed up everything was lost and you would have to look for what I was referring to so I'll just bite my tongue on those things from now on.

I really enjoying reading and posting here most days but today you all are so into the name game and the dems did this and the dems did that. People that get into power to make these decisions must be elected. The reasons dems are in control right now is because repubs were for so long and our country went to hell in a handbasket. When GWB took office our country was not in a deficit, we actually had surplus cash. By the end of his eight years we hit the highest defieicit ever so whose fault is that? I am sure you all will make a spin that somehow the dems did it. Clinton lied about sex and its a major ordeal, Bush lies to send our troops to war and young men killed before their time. Where is the outrage in that lie. Oh yeah, it wasn't sex so it isn't as big of a deal! I really get irritated when you go to name calling and the world would be perfect if run by repubs. In my book Clinton didn't get anyone killed, just had sex with a girl and she made a ton of money off it. Bush sends men to war and they are not being given the mental care they need to get back into society from what they saw in that war and the suicide rate among soliders is at 50,000 per year. That is higher than the deaths from bc. So how is that the dems fault? I am sure someone will find a way to do tha.

ibcspouse · November 2008

LuAnnH

Most of the time I let "bad quote of fact" go by. But where to hell do you get suicide rate at 50,000 a year. The number of suicides by soldiers in 2007 was 89. . By the way, the rate per 100000, is less that the rate in the general population. That is amazing since many of the young men and women had behavior problems prior to enlistment. The Army helped them to grow up.

Doctors have the highest rate, more than 1 a day.

LuAnnH · November 2008

I read it in an article not too long ago, I was stunned because it exceeds the death rate of bc. The military flat out does not transistion it's soliders properly to deal with civilian life no matter what. Before my husband retired he found out the stats showed the average life of a retiree is 5 years and no background behind that number. Sure enough my husband was dead within 5 years of retirement and I am starting to understnad those hidden number better now.

ibcspouse · November 2008

The world's oddest facts, There are millions of veterans out there, many retiree's, that are my age or older. I am a 100% service connected disabled veteran, I deal with Vet orginazations all the time. Never, Never have a five year shelf life been mentioned. I don't want to argue with you, I can't, without seeming to be mean, and I don't want to be. Your son is in Iraq, you lost you Husband who served, and you sacrificed while he was in the military. All I ask is if you want to blame bush for everything, at least have one fact that is real.

Anonymous · November 2008

As of the end of August, there were 62 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers and Guard and Reserve troops called to active duty, officials said. Another 31 deaths appear to be suicides but are still being investigated.

If all are confirmed, that means that the number for 2008 could eclipse the 115 of last year - and the rate per 100,000 could surpass that of the civilian population, Col. Eddie Stephens, deputy director of human resources policy, said at a Pentagon news conference.

"Army leaders are fully aware that repeated deployments have led to increased distress and anxiety for both soldiers and their families," Army Secretary Pete Geren said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/04/national/w121921D45.DTL

LuAnnH · November 2008

ibcspouse, I cannot quote where the five year life span because it was something brought up in a common discussion when my husband was alive and in the military. As for the suicide rate among these young boys, I'll try to find research on it. I don't blame it all on bush, although I do blame him for that huge lie that sent us to war. It is just that so many here want to blame everything on the dems and I think there is enough blame to go around for all that one group can't possibly be responsible for all the problems of the US.

Anonymous · November 2008

LuAnn, I don't think Republicans here want to blame EVERYTHING on Dems ... some Republicans don't like Bush. I agree, there is enough blame. I think though, that you will find that here there is not so much hate and venom being spewed against dems...if you look at the other thread, they called Sarah Palin, "the vagina" ... ewww that's just gross to refer to someone like that. Someone else claims that we aren't really people. Others want others to come over and stir it up.

So as much as you see people who don't like Obama and socialism, there is not HATRED of him. I think that Pelosi and some other way left Dems fire up and irk Democrats more than Obama.