Speak Out: The Hypocrisy Act of 2010

Replies (30)

• Maybe they learned how to do that from all of Bushie's unfunded "projects".

  -- Posted by riregrist on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 2:01 PM

• Good Lord, Theo, what person's point (opinion) is not prejudiced to some degree or the other. Yours, especiallly.

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 2:23 PM

• I would rather comment on the REAL bill instead of Hennessey's biased rhetoric trumped up to boost his ego. Surely Blogbud, you could find a better source to believe.

  -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 1:57 PM

  There is a link to the bill on that site.

  -- Posted by mynameismud on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 2:27 PM

• "I would rather comment on the REAL bill ..." This might be a good thread to do that. Theorist, I haven't read it, so would be interested in your comments on it, really!

  Did Pelosi actually say this, though? "... any bill that we take will have to meet the test: Does this reduce the deficit?"

  How large today is Pops' and my debt toward paying off the deficit? And how can we convince our government to stop adding to that debt?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 3:31 PM

• Fire 'em!

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 3:35 PM

• He also learned that from Bush.

  -- Posted by riregrist on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM

• Why would the smartest man in the world (Obama) need to learn anything from the dumbest man in the world (Bush)?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 3:45 PM

• "Why would the smartest man in the world (Obama) need to learn anything from the dumbest man in the world (Bush)?" Can't stop laughing ... that was just too clever, DTower!

  But I'm not sure what Spaniard's comment on that means. Bush wasn't in charge of Dumb? Sorry, I must be a little slow today.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, May 28, 2010, at 7:32 PM

• Well, There he goes again

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 12:01 AM

• Is Leo Carrillo who I think he is? Nah, couldn't be.

  Mom, forget about what Ike meant. He doesn't know either.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 9:10 AM

• Well, that was a rather ... um ... interesting conversation, voyager:

  "Maybe they learned how to do that from all of Bushie's unfunded "projects"."

  "Similar to Barry Hussein's Chinese funded projects?"

  "He also learned that from Bush."

  "Why would the smartest man in the world (Obama) need to learn anything from the dumbest man in the world (Bush)?"

  "Bush wasn't in charge."

  I thought someone was deliberately trying to confuse us! ~laughing~ I rather doubt, though, that Obama has learned or even considered much from anyone in the past ... he probably relies mainly on his hand-picked, though not necessarily experienced or competent, people ... which probably is true of any president.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM

• Did I read somewhere that many of those 'new' jobs are anticipated to be temporary? Might just be my imagination working overtime, though.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 7:02 PM

• Good question, Rick ... I can't remember seeing anything about that. I did read (and commented long ago) that the federal government hires approximately 10,000 employees a month.

  And no, I'm not going to look it up ... it was published sometime during the health care debating.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 7:07 PM

• He also learned that from Bush.

  -- Posted by riregrist

  Bush wasn't in charge.

  -- Posted by Spaniard

  soooooo... both of you are saying that Obama is same as Bush? That instead of CHANGE, Obama is just doing the same ole thing Bush did?

  -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 7:19 PM

• Theorist, Did each of the 5 departments cited have to hire more people to produce this information you provide?

  There is probably a government office hiring folks right now to make some more numbers.

  What we need is an America jobs monitoring corps to get us out of this job shortage and document the number of jobs created by the creation of the new office of job creation.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, May 29, 2010, at 8:02 PM

• But wait ... in the section of the health care bill regarding employers having to provide health insurance if they have more than ... think it was 50? ... 'full-time employees' ... is the explanation that full-time is 30 hours a week.

  Anyway ... if some new jobs are created in order to make the numbers look good ... and if even some of them are temporary ... Hmmm ... does that boil down to eventually ending up with pretty much the same problem that we attempted to 'fix?'

  Sort of sounds like during the Depression ... with the government 'creating' jobs, most of which were actually temporary and many (like the CCC 'jobs') of them not actually necessary. I view that sort of thing as an artificial solution to a problem of unemployment ... and a solution which the taxpayers will of course bear the burden of.

  Old J., perhaps what we need is to reduce the federal government's employee field by about half. But then ... unemployment figures would go up again, and the politicians in office certainly don't want that.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 1:54 AM

• Government could do best for employment by getting out of the way of it.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 8:25 AM

• Theorist, you describe the current batch of Democrats so well. They have controlled Congress since 2006 and every step they have taken has been a misstep and counter-productive.

  The Republicans have been the party of "No way will this work."

  November will see things change or America goes the same way as Ancient Rome.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 8:26 AM

• Voyager, that must be why the republicans refused to support raising the liability limit on oil companies. They would rather force the federal government into a tax increase to pay for clean up instead hurting their masters. All that the average citizen will remember is that their taxes increased not the reason behind it. The current stance of NO to everything that the republicans have engaged in is helping to destroy this country. They are just as responsible as anyone else.

  -- Posted by riregrist on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 8:40 AM

• voyager:

  A person with a supposedly IQ of 172, and all others that claim to be experts in anything political should realize that the change in control of congress occured in 2007 not in 2006. Not being picky, just thought you could add some valuable knowledge to that wonderful mind of yours.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 9:24 AM

• Howdy, don't be such a blockhead. The vote occurred in 2006. The winners took office in 2007.

  The 172 was a test score, not an IQ. Its been explained sufficiently several times. Either you missed reading it, didn't read it, or did not possess the mental acuity to understand it. Those who harp on it only exhibit their ignorance.

  So what is your problem?

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 10:41 AM

• Voyager;

  Well quit saying the Dems have been in control since 2006. It's a lie, plain and simple. I can see you on "Jeopardy" now: The Dems took control of congress. Voyager answers "What is 2006"? Alex Trebek rsponds to Voyager: "WRONG". You will not be in the final round.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 11:31 AM

• Howdy, chew on a technicality. Does not excuse the horrible mess the Democrats have and are making.

  Stop obfuscating. Hasn't got a dam thing to do with Jeopardy.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 11:39 AM

• Workingdude, that was not a very kind or gracious remark. What was your IQ test score? Mine was 172 but time and age have taken a toll, sorry to say.

  -- Posted by voyager on Thu, Mar 11, 2010, at 1:22 PM

  Here's Voyager's actual post. He's is clearly attempting to prove his I.Q. was higher than workingdude's. He can try to call it whatever he wants, but when it's all boiled down, he thinks he's smarter than Einstein.

  -- Posted by riregrist on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 11:56 AM

• Riregrist, did you not observe the qualifying word "test" which you have so conveniently ignored. I did not say IQ score, but IQ TEST score. The is a big difference. For those with the intelligence to understand, I earlier re-explained. It is unnecessary to do so again. The is no further reason trying to discuss anything with you. For my part, issue closed.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 4:35 PM

• How many factories visited by Obama are now idle?

  Which president made a speach at a factory with a backdrop of boxes stamped "made in China"

  I thought all Bush's friends were oilmen.

  Don't they hire census workers ever ten years, or is this just new to Obama?

  What was outstanding about Obama's speach at Thorngate? Was he standing outside?

  How would fighting in the streets create jobs? More fireman and police jobs?

  Remember the old saying, "The pen is mightier than the sword" And vote early and often too.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 5:12 PM

• "Unemployment is very real and bad. Something has to be done and yet, some people fight every effort to recover." Read that these unemployment figures do not include those whose benefits have expired, so it actually is worse than it seems.

  You're right though, Theorist. But what that 'something' is doesn't seem to have been discovered yet. For certain, I have no suggestions (surprise!) for a solution.

  Some financial gurus have concluded that government interference ('help') was the main reason that the Great Depression lasted several years longer than it would have otherwise ... along the lines of what Old J. & James posted. I'm wondering if some of our government intrusion into many aspects of private business hasn't been much of the cause of our current situation? Hesitate to suspect that the new health care bill will affect unemployment, but ... guess it's quite possible.

  Apparently, though ... the only solid, protected employment, with possibly the best benefits, in America is with the federal government. If our government were a private business/enterprise, it would have had to reduce the work force, and/or file for bankruptcy by now ... Wouldn't it?

  Perhaps a partial solution might be for government to look at successful thriving private businesses and see what they do?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, May 30, 2010, at 7:22 PM

• Leo ... one thing in your post ... " The only new jobs that ... created are temp CENSUS worker jobs and a few more in the federal government." More than a 'few' ... new departments, new positions under this administration ... the federal government is adding employees at an amazing rate ... at a time when it should be reducing (in my opinion).

  BTW ... we do seem to have had more expense for the census this year, and it wasn't due to having so many more citizens to count ... the various mailings to remind us the census was coming, workers going door-to-door beforehand to verify obvious street and house numbers, AND afterward to those whose forms didn't get sent in, AND the advertisements and commercials. What did the Super Bowl one cost us?

  OH! That reminded me ... Pops bought tomatoes last week ... the label read, "Hothouse Tomatoes, Produced in Mexico." Uh ... we don't have hothouses in America, so we have to import them? Am I the only one that finds it strange?

  Is this just a small example of how we have moved our way out of the world market ... and a small example of why so many of our citizens are unemployed? Because we're importing so many things that we should or could be producing ourselves?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jun 2, 2010, at 6:06 PM

• Ike, I didn't "trot it out". Some of your liberal cohorts felt it necessary to do so.

  What anonymous blog do you refer to? Everything I've ever written on the SEMissourian has been signed with my one and only original screen name. Unlike you, I have not found it necessary or have had to change names.

  Notice of late you have improved your delivery by ceasing to recklessly call people "liars".

  -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 2, 2010, at 9:12 PM

• There you go again, Ike, calling people a Liar. Will you never learn. Your mindless robots kept repeating the matter and ignoring any explanations. It was meant to slam. Of course, you would not recognize the fact.

  -- Posted by voyager on Wed, Jun 2, 2010, at 10:09 PM