Paulson Threatened Martial Law To Get Bailout!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    So sez Republican Senator Inhofe on radio program. Here's the audio at the link.

    That explains Chuck Schumer's gulp response!

    Democrats, if your party doesn't investigate the Bush adminstration from top to bottom once they take control, your party will have done a great disservice to our nation. If you've got the guts to go get em', I'll stand with you all the way!
  2. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    He also said the markets would crash if there was no bailout. ??????
  3. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    republicans control congress? Remember when the democrats took over congress? All they did was try to investigate the republicans which is one reason they let a thriving economy crash and burn.

    your post makes it sound like you have forgotten that the democrats already control congress.

    the only thing changing is the presidency. Your congress is still controlled by a bunch of liberal wackos. My governor is still a liberal democrat and rated one of the worst in the country. you may want to revisit who you have had in charge before you try to serve up those who were not.
  4. soberups

    soberups Pees in the brown Koolaid

    The economy wasnt thriving.

    The federal deficit was skyrocketing, and the economy was riding a bubble of inflated expectations.

    We went to war in 2003, and our President got behind his podium and told us all to borrow money and spend it. He told us our taxes should be cut. He told us all to go to the mall, take our kids to Disney World, dont worry, be happy.

    He had an opportunity at that point to rally the nation behind the war effort and to ask each American to sacrifice today so that our grandchildren wouldnt be saddled with the bill.

    Instead, he presided over the buildup of the largest federal deficit in history.

    Only an idiot cuts taxes during a war that costs $50 billion per month to wage.
  5. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    The title of this thread is EXTREMELY misleading. Paulson was simply inaccurate in describing what would happen in an economic meltdown - you would have widespread civil unrest as a result of people jumping out of windows onto Wall Street, failed husbands unable to buy their materialistic wife a new Lexus with a red bow for X-mas, Ex-CEO's buying their loved ones jewelry at K-mart instead of Mayers. And instead of Company's award getaways at exotic Resorts and Spas, VIP employees will have to settle for a rented hall at the local Kawanis Club.....then followed by demands of martial law to restore order.
  6. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Economy was growing at a 4.5 percent clip .remember? If the economy continues to grow at that clip then the deficit is actually minimimized. Bush had one of the lowest unemployment rates ever. Stock market was setting new highs. You can't really dispute it because just about everyone would willingly trade todays economy for what we had two years ago.
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2008
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    No offense Tie but you are only looking at the superfical effects of the economy and not looking at the underlying specifics, therefore in your mind the underlying causes were not present because in your view the economy was good. This view also would seem to suggest the contention of blaming the democrats for the housing bubble as bogus before election 2006' because 2 years ago everything was perfect and the democrats did not hold majority control of Congress. It also proves a problem in McCain's claim of sounding the alarm back in 2005' which admittedly he did. His party ignored him just as it had Ron Paul back in 2002' and even in the 1990's. Seems McCain like Paul was the victim of that "loud ally cat on a fence" thinking. :wink2:

    If it's all happened since Jan. of 07' and democrat control of Congress, then how can Clinton be at fault in any of the cause (he is) how can Carter (again he is) but then you can't discount all republican actions either and this also contradicts your earlier very correct statements in other threads that the cause is across the board. Also you would have to hold some blame to republicans post 2006' because in the Senate was not filibuster proof nor did we hear the Bush adminstration use the veto pen to kill the democrat action which it would have done since they lacked a veto proof supermajority. Bush also could have used executive orders and adminstrative orders to his various dept. heads to start heading this off but instead he choose to ignore. Had he done the right thing, he would not have had a cakewalk on his war policy which he had and then would have had to prove his contentions. In effect he bought democrat silence on his foreign policy via domestic economic abuses and he's done this from day one!

    Bush and democrats used each other like a couple of dirty whores seeing who could get more for turning tricks!

    On a bit of comedy note, your contention of all things great 2 years ago or I should say you suggesting as such in your above explaination IMO sounds like someone who visited a brothel 2 years ago to the day and has now learned such visit gave them HIV. They now contend that they would exchange all of this to go back 1 year, 364 days ago when everything was all good. Truth is, the underlying action had already infected the victim and it's just a matter of going forward before the truth manifests itself. You just want a time when you didn't know what was coming rather than not having the problem there at all. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

    Same will hold true at some point of all this massive debt creation and pumping of fiat money into the economy and the resulting tidalwave of inflation. It is one sure way to raise the GDP and slim the debt to GDP ratio and keep the fiction going. Who cares if the fixed income senoirs face a real troubling future in this scenario, you voted for the winning team right? But then to understand this historical truism of banking and fiat money creation, you'd have to read and learn some history. It ain't come down your circles of information so it's just not true!

    Then again, you could always blow it off as another loud ally cat on the fence making noise!

  8. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  10. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

  11. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Doctor to Patient: After extensive testing, we've found maligment cancer in the brain. This cancer is treatable with advanced laser surgery and extensive chemo and radiation treatment. Your surgery and re-coup will require several weeks and then begins the intensive post surgery therapies I spoke of earlier. Should take somewhere around a year to 18 months and then we'll know where we're going.

    Patient to Doctor: All those test results, surgeries and therapies are just to confusing. Pure mumbo jumbo to me and makes no sense. Just give me a couple of asprin for this headache and I'll call ya if I need ya!

    One year later:

    May friends, we are gathered today to remember................

    So much for the importance of looking at the details!
  12. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    You left out the part where the patient's family blames the company who made aspirin for his death. It's the last thing he did, so it must be why he died, right?
  13. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Your analogy I think has perhaps gone to an extreme. I gave you five or six line items to diagnose your brain malignancy with. If a doctor had that much proof his diagnosis would be easily done. Heck his receptionist could diagnose the brain tumor at that point.

    Your not willing to accept this easily attainable diagnosis that your brain has a malignancy so you instead asking me diagnos your hangnails, and when the proof again points at a brain tumor you then ask for a rectal. And when that does not work you ask for a foot x-ray. You do so because you are pretty smug and believe yourself smarter then the family doctor who uses good sound logic to make his diagnosis. You instead crave a doctor who speaks in complicated medical double talk that takes you around the barn a hundred times and in the end leaves you more confused then when you started.

    Me I can carefully use a little common sense and logic. I know congress sat on their thumb the past year and I don't have to smell their thumb nor have a scraping from it sent to the lab to figure it out.

    Perhaps you could put down the evasive mumbo jumbo I'm superior to the rest of the world answers for a minute and address one simple point.

    why did congress refuse to address the rising fuel cost crisis and adjourn despite an intense lobbying effort by the american public to get them to do something. Why would they willfully ignore the american public and walk away from doing anything to address the issue if this liberal led congress was not trying to worsen conditions in this country to help Obama get elected?
  14. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member


    Congress (democrats) did what they did purely for political advantage, that's no secret. They do this stuff all the time with legislation and the only reason you noticed it with oil because you were watching. Republicans did the same thing in the 90's when after Clinton and the Welfare to Work thing (truth is this was a bi-partisan deal with republican congress and some democrats too) gained Clinton popular approval and this seemed to be shifting to Gore who was the likely nominee in just a few short years. Republicans saw the handwriting and even shifted and adopted the slogan "Compassionate Conservative" in order to match move for move with Gore and da boyz.

    Clinton and Gore then acting on Gore's idea of re-inventing gov't which BTW has lots of privatization overtones (didn't say I agree or disagree, just that those ideas were out there) decided to make Social Security an issue towards some form of privatization. Instead of getting down to business and doing something about it, republicans feared a positive outcome on this issue and being this was in the 2nd Clinton term, Gore could dramatically benefit for a positive outcome and the democrats maintain control of the White House. Republicans needed something to knock the luster off the Clinton/Gore shiney paintjob and so far Clinton had evaded checkmate via Whitewater, Travelgate and the like. Thus Monica Lewinsky came to the forefront.

    No arguement Clinton lied and he for sure violated his oath as an officer of the court and he suffered the consequences for it too. Did it rise to the level of impeachment? In principle, yes but this wasn't done out of principle, it was done for political advantage for the republicans. Truth is, you could make a strong case to impeach nearly if not ever President of the 20th century and our current one for various violations of the oath to uphold the Constitution but we as a nation have also made our own principled decision to no longer consider those disgressions, grievious enough to enact the political death penalty if you will. Democrats were right in 86'/87' to go after Reagan for Iran/Contra but the reason had nothing to do with the Constitution. Reagan was popular, Bush 1 seemed assured to ride those coattails and democrats needed to scratch up that paintjob to help their cause in 88'.

    It's all about getting the party elected or into power if you will. I mean it's got so brazen now that Chris Matthews recently admitted on Morning Joe (MSNBC) that it's his job (Chris) going forward to make Obama's Presidency successful. Now that comes as no real shock quite frankly but what Chris doesn't admit is that he wants to ride Obama's coattails in 2010' when he runs for the Pennsylvania Senate seat up for grabs. Not only does he have a political vested interest but he has a personal one as well.

    As for linking the comments of Sen. Inhofe in the first place, this had nothing to do with suggesting Republicans control Congress. Where you came of with that in light of the audio link makes me wonder if you even listened to it. Schumer's comment after the announcemnt of the economic crisis and the behind closed door meeting Congressional and Senate leaders had with the Bush adminstration that something was said that made Schumer as he said, "gulp." Making Schumer "gulp" is not an easy task by any stretch but it begs the question what would do such a thing. Inhofe in a radio interview IMO offered the explaination and also why for the first time that an US Army brigade was assigned internal domestic duty. If martial law was in fact in play, you'd need some measure of force to back it up. A brigade seems rather small to me for such measures (so it could be nothing to do with nothing)but regardless one has to wonder just what is/was/will be up and the timing of it all. Schumer may have only gulped as martial law might have postponed elections and his political dreams of power get skuttled. :happy-very:

    Truth is Tie, I consider both political parties the absolute bottom of the sewage pond. They violate the law of the land at will and think nothing of it but then point the boney finger of contempt at the otherside atthe first hint they might be doing the same. They take honest, descent hardworking Americans and manipulate them every which way to Sunday just for political advantage. Well meaning folks who voted for Obama on the belief that things in Washington would change are starting to awaken from the utopian Land of Oz into realizing Obama is turning more and more into the wicked witch. I wonder what some of those Union democrats are thinking now looking at Obama's economic team and not seeing one labor voice among them?

    I never raised the issue of democrats in Congress playing games because quite honestly, I assumed that was a given for everyone.

    As for my "being superior" to you or anyone else, it has been you who have made those allegations and have continued to do so. You made a post and another poster had a moment of comic relief with it and I thought it cleaver and funny and shared back the laugh. Now instead of yuk, yuking back, you get in a twist and here come the attacks.


    The goal of this is to create the attack MO where I respond back in attack fashion and thus the argue shifts to your advantage where we no longer discuss facts and issues but trade insults. Not interested.

    Tie, why don't you make your life better and do this. In a single mouse click, you can vanguish me from all existence. It will be as if I fell off into some blackhole, crushed under the gravity of your truth and erased from all time. Hit the ignore button Tie, you know it's the right thing to do. Why continue to listen to me scurry and make noise outside your box when you can once and for swat me dead!

    You boldly declared after I lied :devil: that I knew who Susan was (sorry but kicking your box I just could not resist that day no mater how hard I tired and for all of 2 extremely long seconds I tired real hard :happy-very:) that you would ignore me from then on. Proof?

    Post #61 under the "Presdient Obama" thread in which you were responding to a post by TOS (post #50 of same thread) in which you said the following:

    Gez and things were going so swell too! :happy-very:

    You gotta admit, for a few days you stuck to that and come on, it felt good didn't it? Admit it. The idea I no longer existed was just wonderful and good feeling. You can have that again Tie, just a single mouse click away.

    As to exactly how I feel about what I say here on this site relating to some bogus superiority thinking? On numerous occassions in posts acroos this website I've stated that what we all say here is just in truth pure BS. We're just a bunch of nobodies with such little to do in life that we come here to create some false world of percieved self importance. In the midst of it all, we make a friend or 2, learn some things in the process and have lots of laughs when you don't take this crap so damn serious. Read my signature line below Tie, does that sound like the rantings of someone who thinks they have a superioity issue or is it the words of someone who loves jerking the chain of someone who's chain is so easy to jerk in the first place?

    Hear that scratching sound outside your box, hear that big rat sniffing around outside? Wanna killit for good?

    Click the button Tie! Listen to Jesus and click the ignore button! Role play and pretend Susan and I are married or something just to justify your righteous motive!
  15. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Hmmmm whats this. sounds someone likes to post a bunch of BS without being challenged on any of it? Wheres that dang howling dogs video when you need it?:happy-very:

    Na just console yourself by providing us with another 100,000 words showing us how superior you are to us. "Look at me I'm the only one that can figure out our political system has faults. Watch as i vote for todays version of Ross Perot to show How much smarter I am then everyone else"

    " Oh look here is some professor from politically corrupt russia telling us how the US will soon split into six pieces"

    "Oh look I'm afraid If I vote for one of the two choices for president I might have to admit to it in four years. So I will vote for someone that has no prayer of winning so I can blame the 99 percent that actually had the guts to chose between the lesser of two evils. I will then bash those 99 percent as being so much dumber then me"

    Click the button? Heck no. I'm having too much fun knocking the snot out of your arrogance.
  16. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Howling Dogs
  17. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Cat on A Fence!

    Cat on the Fence

    Hey Tie, for Christmas, could you get me a nice rug to lay over the fence so I could relax in comfort like he does!

  18. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

  19. chev

    chev Nightcrawler

    :rofl::stalker: Too funny wkmac!
  20. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member