11/3/2010

NOT QUITE RACIST, NOT QUITE RACIST TEA

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 4:31 pm

President Obama the good news is we, we pundits near "historians" can still make you look better than Clintons.

President Obama the bad news is we, we the pundits nearer "historians" can now suredly make the Clintons look like the second coming of H______r or Mussolini, and in the right air that Clintons get made not out as "racists" specifically but something equally sinister.

President Obama are you sure you still want to play the CYA game for Clintons?  Can you see any up side to such, still?

The whole "racist" label is a conundrum like few others in human history and even more confused than hearing VP Biden in mid 90s speaking to "Federalism as like ‘devolving’" before our very eyes, while at a symposium hosted by Yale.  Tough image from a Senator, even Senator Biden to ask us to actually see man reverting back into apes.

Oh, by the way — Senator Blumenthal wasn’t lying about Vietnam service and "action" after all — he sees dead people and speaks in tongue, he is, you can say - "bewitched" or "possessed".  He speaks honesty, it just isn’t his own original soul he speaks from? 

Boy when he gets going he will rock the Senate?   Is it an MIA soldier — a forgotten soul or a honored and recognized soul haunting him for some political reason or another now more our business than ever before?

Yes I have known Sarah Heath Palin since early 80s and for having (regrettably) asked everyone if there was another "Sarah Heath" in the world other than the one of recently teaching me about photography and darkroom processing that I might need to be aware of if I were to parlay such into a career in photojournalism.  You, know like one of those questions a stupid (but smart) high school kid might ask and then regret for someone other than the Heaths you knew and then were of walking near and by such’s home becoming a sudden "pain in your butt." 

But really, Mr. President we should still be able to make you historically better at presidency than Clinton "two-fer" but yes that is for the Clintons’ "two-fer" now nearer a just prosecution for some base and horrible mis-governancings. 

See, we can let the record of Clintons show now fairly, finally past the whole novelty of "first female president angst" aires, that Bill and Hillary woke near every day since law school days (of "compatibility") to working out plans to keep tiddy whity them in power instead of any others, and with a purposeful deciding to let Bill go first for eight years and with such towards years of manipulations and false pretenses such that a full eight years for Hillary to be "inevitable" and with a clever "hiding" of Bill’s supremacy and all the while with there selfish plotting a white washing (but for moving onto Whitehaven Rd. in DC) such that they could still manipulate facts and history and American sentiment and global spending on American campaigns to their selfish establishment to an autocracy of Clintons that would necessarily leave only a "hedge fund manager" as compatible with their daughter and such leaving only the issue of whether Chelsea or husband then to go first for another "locked up" and "inevitable" eight more years for Bill, oh and for Hillary too.

Yes, Mr. President, it is not all bad news for you.  Well but then you did appoint Hillary to your cabinet — maybe we can only make you now look only "as good" as evil axis of Clinton "two-fer".

LEGALLY BLACK - FREE BLACK

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 10:41 am

So President Clinton threw you under the bus - a housing bus - a artificial housing bubble economics bus!

That’s the fact.

See, we at least know one thing for certain today while so much other "change" being analyzed - we know that Clintons now won’t be able to escape the economic forensics tracing back indirectly and directly to them.

Yes President Clinton is remembered for having asked banks if they could just "gamble away the new risks" to be in the pushing of irresponsible spending in housing and around mortgages he so wanted. 

Yes,he just wanted to be popular for everything and so wanted to be popular for cutting spending to an "all time record" - he wanted to have your cake and eat it too.  He wanted peoples who had no great or grand history of quick and great economic change pushed into new record spending and all the while wanting to be popular for cutting the federal spending that historically had always been needed to balance such "social programming" and with one trillion not enough such that an extra trillion so to a record popularity as "surplus President" could be had.

Yes, at least President Clinton sold us out - and sold some out more than others.

Yes, urban blacks may now be hit the worse, as now Economists can look back and measure and calculate and place blame on more than just Clinton. 

Yes, President Clinton’s selfish economics have sold out blacks more than any other, and mostly for his having asked banks to "gamble away the new risks" that historically had been "balanced" with federal spending and budgeting not so of cutting and slashing programs needed to save or create jobs.

Yes, he is so smart that he must have known he was setting up blacks more than any others, he must have known he was pushing an unstable agenda with most of his popular "social programming" essentially unfunded. 

Surely, "Hillary" is at least as smart, right?

The Clintons are off the hook, sort of, for coldness of their plotting such that now they can say they gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.

But that only if you accept that pushing "social programming" that historically needed increase federal funding but as they did with a vast underfunding and unfunding not of clear intent and purpose.

See, they must have known that what they were trying had never ever worked before and really was just a political game that shouldn’t have been played.

See, today it is "street" to be able to name more black millionaires than white for many and now so that economists and Clintons can and should be asking first like > if blacks aren’t "giving back" to other blacks… why should others be taxed to pick up the slack?

See, we didn’t need to cut another trillion out nor consider more cuts so soon upon balancing national budget under Clintons.  Such was irresponsible and well short of "discussed the wisdoms" confidence. 

You can even say that the Bush tax cuts were due and not a concern because of Clintons rush to surplus - we didn’t need the taxes, the Clintons had established we don’t need to spend on so much and now so much though that Obama heard professing "necessary spending".

So President Clinton threw you under the bus?

So we are at a place in American race politics and economics I now am not qualified to discuss much more deeply than this.  It isn’t my opinion and personal story really involved.

Well, but that I was of speaking to Grover Norquist before 9/11 while a contractor at his rented townhome, and of discussing coming tax cut legislation and of suggesting they at least postpone voting for such for my gut was telling me something was coming we might need the additional revenues for. 

He, Grover Norquist, really didn’t seem to see or share such a gut sense that America might suddenly be needing more revenues in its budget.

So will Senator Blumenthal be seeing a need to become another Connecticut "Independent"?

Has California spoken and loudly that the actually prefer their pot "illegal"?

And, well is Senator Manchin really a TEA PARTY success story as former President Clinton professed?

What can we do with such change?

Who best to do what with such change?

Free at last?  Free at last?  Thank God we are free at last?