I may regret posting this tommorow morning....but if I tax Jane Doe $100 in order to loan John Doe $100 in order to buy products from Jane Doe...am I helping Jane?

 

You tell me.

 

http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

Very nice. Breaking out the "liberal" tag. Impressive response. Even more impressive is your ability to get "socialist" and "commie" all into one response.

 

I'll break it down for you. AGAIN.

 

She said that tax dollars were being used. Uh, incorrect.She said that it was hurting the US when in fact the bank in question is designed to loan money to foreign countries in order to help US BUSINESS.

 

Strike 2.

 

She COMPLETELY misinterpreted the point of the editorial. Strike 3.

 

HAD she pointed out that Soros had made some transactions that will allow him to profit THEN she would have been in the right ballpark.

 

So, when it comes to not being able to "connect the facts and truth" I now know of two. Her and you.

 

I haven't followed this issue but if Congress approves an annual appropriation for the bank, how are tax dollars not being used?

This I believe from the whole Sarah Palin phenomenon....every time there are negative criticisms of her personally, rather than politically, more and more ordinary people rush to her defense. The constant barbs of her intelligence or lack thereof only strengthens her role as the "everyman" and increases her popularity. And, I believe, more elections are won on personality than policy. If Obama can win on a single issue of "change" which I think he did, the Palin can win on the same catchphrase "change' next time.

 

Hey, it worked for Hillary Clinton for years.

Typical of a liberal to fail to connect the facts and truth. But that is not hard to understand as liberals, socialists and commies never allow the truth to keep them from their agendas.

 

Is this similar to how the Bush adminstration manipulated the "terror alert levels" pre-election time? Don't take my word for it. Ask Tom Ridge.

I haven't followed this issue but if Congress approves an annual appropriation for the bank, how are tax dollars not being used?

 

I'm guessing that 75 years ago when they started they needed tax dollars. Today they are self-sustaining.

Is this similar to how the Bush adminstration manipulated the "terror alert levels" pre-election time? Don't take my word for it. Ask Tom Ridge.

 

Let us remember that most Democrats supported Bush, but as his popularity soared the Dems had to bash him to try to win back the White House. After 5 or so years of bashing, their plan finally worked. Once again the "Big Lie" theory works. Tell it often enough lots of people will believe it. The Dems concern was winning elections, not the safety of the country, just look of how they wish to divert attention from their failures by attacking the CIA once more.

Let us remember that most Democrats supported Bush, but as his popularity soared the Dems had to bash him to try to win back the White House. After 5 or so years of bashing, their plan finally worked. Once again the "Big Lie" theory works. Tell it often enough lots of people will believe it. The Dems concern was winning elections, not the safety of the country, just look of how they wish to divert attention from their failures by attacking the CIA once more.

 

You are dancing around the issue. Tom Ridge is not a democrat.

 

While we're on the subject of the "Big Lie" and the safety of the country, we sure did brain wash a lot of people into supporting a war in Iraq as a direct result of 9/11.

I'm guessing that 75 years ago when they started they needed tax dollars. Today they are self-sustaining.

 

If they are self sustaining, do they still receive the apporpriations? I'd sure like to see that pulled back if they don't need them. We have to start somewhere.

Let us remember that most Democrats supported Bush, but as his popularity soared the Dems had to bash him to try to win back the White House.

How did most Democrats support Bush in either election, given that he lost the popular vote to Gore and didn't beat Kerry by a big margin?

After 5 or so years of bashing, their plan finally worked. Once again the "Big Lie" theory works. Tell it often enough lots of people will believe it. The Dems concern was winning elections, not the safety of the country, just look of how they wish to divert attention from their failures by attacking the CIA once more.

Talking point, talking point, talking point ... and not even well-supported ones.

I was speaking of the Dems in Congress and Bush enjoyed a very high popularity rate, until the bashing starting. Not only did the Congressional Dems support Bush on the belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but so did most of the European leaders and the UN. The difference came about in that Bush was willing to do something about it and some just wanted to continue to talk, talk and talk. (Kind of like what is happening in Iran. Talk, talk, talk as they continue to develope atomic weapons.) It does seem as if Saddam pulled off the greatest hoax in world history. It was a lie on Saddam's part and the entire world bought it.

 

The talking point for Bush-bashers is using the phrase "talking point, talking point."