Nancy Pelosi, Communist?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Make up your mind. 1st she's a Communist, and then you switch to her being a Capitalist. Fact is she's for well-regulated Capitalism, and her detractors want unregulated Capitalism.

she's a hoax , she's wants the gov't to run people's lives so that she and her cronies stay in power

you and i are not capable of taking car of ourselves , we have to become wards of the state

she has hers , but , she does not use her politcal power to free you up to get yours , but to become dependent on what she gives you , bits and pieces to keep you going so that you can vote every 2 years for this chirade

you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time , and her time is up scuds you know it and i do to

[otisotisotis]

Originally Posted by gales0678

they're a hoax , repubs want the companies to run people's lives so that they and them stay in power

you and i are not capable of taking car of ourselves , we have to become wards of the banks

they have theirs , but , they do not use their politcal power to free you up to get yours , but to become dependent on what big business gives you , bits and pieces to keep you going so that you can vote every 2 years for this chirade

you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time , and their time is up scuds you know it and i do to

propoganda works both ways....

[otisotisotis]

And about the foreclosure situation in this country.....you do realize that when the banks were given free reign to securitize and bundle mortgages that it became an absolute, unregulated money grab.
And in the rush to seize as mucho dinero as possible, they simple said 'ooops' about doing the proper paperwork. The chain of assignment has been broken on 10s of 1000s of properties. Yours may be one of them.....
This only comes to light because of people being run throught the foreclosure mill hastily, and when they ask the attorneys for the foreclosing bank to produce the promissory note in order to show proof of ownership, they can't in some cases.
What does that mean?
Well, if you bought a foreclosed propery in the last couple of years, it might actually not be yours, beacuase the bank that sold it to you may not have really owned it.........
and with each assignment of the mortgage, fees are due to your county of residence. So if the assignments are not recorded propery, your county is getting screwed out of 1000s of dollars in fees.
And furthermore, maybe your home is in one of the securities and you pay out your mortgage and/or decide to sell? Well, if the bank can't provide you with the note, then what do you have?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by otisotisotis

And about the foreclosure situation in this country.....you do realize that when the banks were given free reign to securitize and bundle mortgages that it became an absolute, unregulated money grab.
And in the rush to seize as mucho dinero as possible, they simple said 'ooops' about doing the proper paperwork. The chain of assignment has been broken on 10s of 1000s of properties. Yours may be one of them.....
This only comes to light because of people being run throught the foreclosure mill hastily, and when they ask the attorneys for the foreclosing bank to produce the promissory note in order to show proof of ownership, they can't in some cases.
What does that mean?
Well, if you bought a foreclosed propery in the last couple of years, it might actually not be yours, beacuase the bank that sold it to you may not have really owned it.........
and with each assignment of the mortgage, fees are due to your county of residence. So if the assignments are not recorded propery, your county is getting screwed out of 1000s of dollars in fees.
And furthermore, maybe your home is in one of the securities and you pay out your mortgage and/or decide to sell? Well, if the bank can't provide you with the note, then what do you have?

And is this supreme court going to be the one that puts the coup de grace to the financial system?

The banks will be protected. If not, we are in a bigger mess than even Nascar and TimmiG's love child could fathom.

[otisotisotis]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

And is this supreme court going to be the one that puts the coup de grace to the financial system?

The banks will be protected. If not, we are in a bigger mess than even Nascar and TimmiG's love child could fathom.

how this plays out will be anybody's guess. but I do agree that the banks will suffer minimal damage.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

she's a hoax , she's wants the gov't to run people's lives so that she and her cronies stay in power

you and i are not capable of taking car of ourselves , we have to become wards of the state

she has hers , but , she does not use her politcal power to free you up to get yours , but to become dependent on what she gives you , bits and pieces to keep you going so that you can vote every 2 years for this chirade

you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time , and her time is up scuds you know it and i do to

I know Republicans want 2 classes of people, and everything they do is to get that goal done. I actually think this lady is a lot better at her job than Obama is at his.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I know Republicans want 2 classes of people, and everything they do is to get that goal done. I actually think this lady is a lot better at her job than Obama is at his.

She is a tragedy. Obama is simply an overmatched twit.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I know Republicans want 2 classes of people, and everything they do is to get that goal done. I actually think this lady is a lot better at her job than Obama is at his.

It's the Democrats that want two classes: Providers and Recipients. Which group are you in?

[otisotisotis]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It's the Democrats that want two classes: Providers and Recipients. Which group are you in?

lol........i guess the Republicans are structuring a plan for a one world utopia...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by otisotisotis

lol........i guess the Republicans are structuring a plan for a one world utopia...

Utopia, as written by Sir Thomas More, is a work of fiction, and was meant as a parody when it was written.

I get your point -- but I do think that the Republican point of view is more universally applicable. I would paraphrase it as "those who work for the money should get to keep as much of it as possible. As a result, government is obligated to spend as little as possible. In this way freedom is maximized and the burdens of taxation would be minimized."

There is nothing in that kind of sentiment that screams "for the rich only", despite all the extreme comments from the left.

[Princess Doreen]

Nancy Pelosi a communist? Hmmmm! One does not necessarily have to be an idiot to be a communist.

[otisotisotis]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Utopia, as written by Sir Thomas More, is a work of fiction, and was meant as a parody when it was written.

I get your point -- but I do think that the Republican point of view is more universally applicable. I would paraphrase it as "those who work for the money should get to keep as much of it as possible. As a result, government is obligated to spend as little as possible. In this way freedom is maximized and the burdens of taxation would be minimized."

There is nothing in that kind of sentiment that screams "for the rich only", despite all the extreme comments from the left.

i read that and think 'Let them eat cake!".

[gales0678]

it's not been working washington for many years

harry reid and pelosi are part of the swamp

it's time for it to be drained

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by otisotisotis

i read that and think 'Let them eat cake!".

I don't see how you draw that from my comments. We would want the little guy to be able to keep as much of his as possible too.

Even with a flat tax rate, which we'd never see, the amounts would be fair. 10% tax is 10% tax, whether on $100,000 , a million, or 100 million.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

As a result, government is obligated to spend as little as possible. In this way freedom is maximized and the burdens of taxation would be minimized.".

So you like what the new conservative leadership of England just did? It is virtually exactly what the current ultra-conservative GOP is asking for in the US.

If so, how do you reconcile that when England did the same previously, in the early part of the last century, it was a massive economic failure?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1227957.story Britain unveils radical austerity plan

http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/c...the-us/1129353

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann..._b_770748.html

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

So you like what the new conservative leadership of England just did? It is virtually exactly what the current ultra-conservative GOP is asking for in the US.

If so, how do you reconcile that when England did the same previously, in the early part of the last century, it was a massive economic failure?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1227957.story Britain unveils radical austerity plan

http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/c...the-us/1129353

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann..._b_770748.html

They had to cut expenses. HAD TO. Soon, when China refuses to loan us another nickel, we will do the same.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I know Republicans want 2 classes of people, and everything they do is to get that goal done. I actually think this lady is a lot better at her job than Obama is at his.

let me guess , you own the gas pump she uses to fill up that air force 3 plane every time she flies into the west coast and you are p/o that she is going to lose that plane in 3 months

again , she has hers , her liberal mindset wants people dependent on her , it's very simple , she doesn't want people to get their shot

[Riot]

Originally Posted by gales0678

let me guess , you own the gas pump she uses to fill up that air force 3 plane every time she flies into the west coast and you are p/o that she is going to lose that plane in 3 months

Letting them use a jet makes sense when you consider Constitutional succession:

Did Nancy Pelosi order up a 200-seat jet for her personal use?

Is it true that Nancy Pelosi travels from California three times a week on a private jet (200-seat size) at a cost to the taxpayers of $60K per flight? If so, this would total $480K per month or $5.7M per year. This comes from taxpayer money? If true, how can we criticize others? Is this a good use of taxpayers' hard-earned money and what about the carbon footprint?

A: The Democratic House speaker normally flies in a 12-seat Air Force jet, just as her Republican predecessor did.

More at Factcheck.org

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I know Republicans want 2 classes of people, and everything they do is to get that goal done. I actually think this lady is a lot better at her job than Obama is at his.

everything about this post is ridiculous.

[chucklestheclown]

Originally Posted by gales0678

she's a hoax , she's wants the gov't to run people's lives so that she and her cronies stay in power

you and i are not capable of taking car of ourselves , we have to become wards of the state

she has hers , but , she does not use her politcal power to free you up to get yours , but to become dependent on what she gives you , bits and pieces to keep you going so that you can vote every 2 years for this chirade

you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time , and her time is up scuds you know it and i do to

Spoken like a true tea-party-goer.