NO BAIL OUT and why WE MUST SAY NO TO THE BAIL OUT!

The bailout is just Bush's final big payoff to those who made billions during his eight years.

He is conning everyone one final time by playing on the Democrats firm belief that he is an idiot.

By admitting figuratively - asking Democrats to help him when his own party will not, his is succeeding one final time using the Democratic leaders belief of his stupidity to manipulate you and the party and blind You Madame Chairwoman Pelosi and the Democrats with your own "good intentioned" righteousness.

As right as you are on the issues, the one thing you are are wrong about is Bush being stupid, but by believing so firmly that he is, you do not consider that you are being gamed one last time by the master of the game, whose been gaming the US economy for the benefit of his cronies for the last 8 years.

Bush knows saying "mea culpa - "I'm wrong, my policies have failed" (figuratively again not literally :-)induces multi-orgasmic fits for entire Democratic Caucus at this moment in time.

His timing is perfect too. Right when Democrats are "exhausted from waiting to win it all in 2008" distracted and desperate to close the winning deal with the American public in November.

He is LYING AGAIN.

The "financial system" after 20 years of wild, incestuous rule making that basically turned it into a trillion dollar gambling pit serves NO function in the REAL economy other than to give those with billions easy and quick ways in the guise of "financial investment vehicles" to take control of the "creative, labor and productive" forces, profit and capital in our economy.

They claim they created the ideal instrument to ensure the market work efficiently, and adapt to the needs of the market by directing capital to where it's most needed, but that has meant the valuable, otherwise constructive profits and proceeds from the "producing, creative classes" into the pockets of the likes of, who then uses it to gamble some more.

Dollar for dollar they create LESS regular jobs than any traditional financial investment.

It's the most distant form of trickle down economics of them all. One has to travel miles and miles of assumed connections to find a connection between a job created and the gambling of hedge funds, investment banks Etc.

They invest NOTHING in research.

Instead they invest in "venture capital firms" which are just another form of glorified gambling by people who know a little of this and that basically guessing which new creative development has the greatest potential to turn a huge profit in less than a year.

It's ludicrous to make every decision on the long-term future based on whether it can be successfully monetized, in order to produce windfall short-term profits for them, without producing any real, viable product the economy needs to ensure a stable long term future.

Like all gambling, the big gamblers are addicts.

Bailing them out is like giving a gambler an unlimited credit line.

They have to be allowed to lose.

The Government's role should be is to ensure the "landing is orderly."

Ensure the parts of the economy that struggled to play by sound economic rules survive.

The Government's role should be to ensure the ones who caused the crash by lose their fortunes, their reputations as well as any credibility in terms of future employment in the financial world.

The Government should use the economic situation to Remove them, and ensuring such a parasitic entity NEVER gets the opportunity to do what it has been doing for the last 20yrs.

Doing that, no matter how bad the short term resultant could/will be, would NOT EVER COME CLOSE TO deflating the US economy by 700 billion that Bush wants you to approve in order to rescue them.

We the people will survive just fine.

The world of the gambling financial world long ago stopped being relevant to the common man.

What is good for them has NO connection to the normal person.

Their "financial overlay" is a PARASITIC structure on the real "labor, creative and productive" economy.

They produce nothing PRODUCE NOTHING.

The sole purpose of their "financial instruments" is to ensure vast amounts of wealth created by the genius of others, the sweat of the common man, and the collective productive corporations and businesses of this land are redirected to their pockets so they can continue to gamble.

Then far from directing their gains into future development, research, production or job creation, they use that money to basically legally gamble on gaining huge profits based on "educated assumptions i.e.. gambling" what the future price of this or that will be, regardless of the demand or supply, as in oil, the price of which reflects a growing scarcity and rapidly growing demand that IS NOT, HAS NOT BEEN THERE EVER!

That's NOT capitalism, that's describes a legalized kleptocracy.

It has to end.

NO BAIL OUT. NO BAIL OUT.

I know as one of the "people" I'm more than willing to do my share of personal suffering in order to eliminate this unique class of worthless, money sucking parasite from our economy forever.

Now's your chance to ensure the Bush legacy dies a permanent death when he leaves office - NO BAIL OUT FOR THE BUSH CRONIES WHO REAPED BILLIONS IN HIS LEGALIZED KLEPTOCRACY GOVERNED PSEUDO-FINANCIAL GAMBLING PIT.

Sarah Palin is Phyllis Schaffley along with all her female self-loathing albeit with a prettier face

As long as women are seen as "baby makers" first and foremost..

• As long as the rights of a grown woman to live her life as she sees fit suddenly becomes second to her fetus....
• As long as men have an inherent advantage in the workplace, because they don't have to take leave or quit a job to finish a pregnancy...
• as long as a woman is seen as LESS a person because she has decided to put herself first and not carry to term....

IT IS A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE FOR WOMEN.

Sarah Palin counts a woman as LESS of a person than a fetus an inch or so long, to a clump of less than 100 cells.

When facing a Solomon's choice like this it is always best to default to the one who is with us in totality, rather than to the one who MIGHT be with us later.

Sarah Palin, PRO-BIRTH forces WOULD SUBORDINATE a Women's right TO THE unborn AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION, BEFORE IMPLANTATION in the womb, even in cases of rape and incest.

They'd outlaw the morning after pill, that can stop a pregnancy within 48hrs.

That IS WHAT Sarah Palin wants.

Her extreme position is a direct and absolute threat to the equality of women today, who have control of their body ONLY IN THE 1ST TRIMESTER.

A woman faces greater and greater hurdles if she tries to terminate her pregnancy after 3months. Few women save to save her own life could successfully obtain an abortion after the 5th month, even though maybe 1 unborn preemie has survived being born so early IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

This protects unborn who are potentially viable outside the womb, and thus should be given a chance That is sufficient compromise.

The right to terminate a pregnancy as NEVER BEEN absolute.

Any rule that restricts the rights of a woman in favor of an unborn that canNOT survive outside the womb on its own makes her INFERIOR in rights to the fetus, So it is a civil rights issue.

To compound the issue, Sarah Palin's position on aide to single mothers, single parent children is cruel and evil.

She's OPPOSED to any program to help the newborn grow up healthy and become a productive citizen, to say nothing of the new, often teenage mother, like prenatal care funding, after-school food programs, motherhood programs or anything that are anathemas, because its paid for with tax money.

Her version of religion says the women deserve the hardship raising a child alone entails, because she had the audacity to have sex, and everyone knows what sex can lead to right?

The fact that she made a mistake doesn't matter. She must pay.

All too often their solution is born from a religious belief that a woman "sinned" by having sex, and the pregnancy is "punishment" that she cannot refuse. She knew what would happen, well now she should pay the price - yeah right. How twisted.

If you think I exaggerate, visit any group's website who pushes this agenda's, and pose the simple question "why shouldn't a woman be allowed to not have a baby?" You'll get that answer about 1/3rd. the time.

The bottom line is Sarah Palin believes in an agenda that totally and utterly disempowers women.

Sarah Palin is lacking any sort of empathy for other women, because she thinks, because what she has came to her easily, other women who don't have it must be lazy or selfish or just sinners.

What an extreme irony that Sarah Palin is is simultaneously an example of sexual equality and sexual inequality whose extreme views would return women to return to the roles of baby-maker, provider of sex on demand, caretaker, domestic laborer Etc.

She'd be this nation's worst nightmare as president, and thus as a nation we cannot vote for McCain, because that would put her a heartbeat away from that role.

Self-proclaimed, naive wildlife advocates are the worst enemies of endangered animals.

My reply to naive article Tigers don't belong in zoos

"Born Free" wildlife people are the biggest enemies of the endangered species of this planet, for the push for impractical solutions based on fantasy notions of a wild animal's basic needs that condemn many wild animals to eventual extinction.

They imbue wild animals with a preeminent spiritual needs,so grand they assume they are basic needs without proof sans logic or reason.

Predators do NOT roam to enjoy the splendor of nature,

Animals in general do NOT roam just to have new experiences like breathe the fresh air of new places.

Animals roam to find adequate food firstly.

Animals roam for safety and security reasons.

3rdly they roam to find a mate when it's time.

Satisfy those 3 primary urges in a nicely appointed but admittedly limited living space (I DO NOT MEAN a 4 walls cage) and you will suddenly find yourself with an animal that does NOT, WILL NOT leave, and if you force it to leave - IT finds it's way back. So much for the vaunted yearning for freedom, or the notion animals rather not be among us.

Conflicts with big predators stem NOT from a lack of living space, but their clear documented preference for the food, shelter and safety living near or among us provides.

Our problem is we keep foolishly thinking "wild animals don't want to be among us." Yes they do.

The solution should be rather than cutting them off from us find ways to incorporate them as safely and neatly into our own world.

For the world of man has incorporated the world of nature and vice versa, or at least Nature is trying, and she'd have succeed if it weren't for the self-proclaimed wildlife advocates who fight her tooth and nail by insisting nature wants things she clearly has little interest in.

A quick look at Google Earth should show even the most unaware how pointless it is to push for "wild spaces" for lions tigers Etc. It's impossible to find a place on this planet big enough for a wild population of Tigers.

Any such spot good for a tiger is/was prime land for us, and we long ago moved in.

Even Siberia is under HEAVY exploitation pressure.

We may not live there in large #s, but there are few places there free of our presence.

"Born Free" are guilty of the worst kind of anthropomorphism we humans practice.

If resources were put to creating WELL-MANAGED, compact wild-life parks say a cross between the typical miserable wildlife ranch and a zoo, few animals would be in danger.

This IS THE SOLUTION. IT WILL WORK. I have over 5billion examples of just how right I am, or potentially right I am, we humans.

The idiocy behind the assumption that large predators have such a great need for "freedom" that it exceeds our own is disproven by our own choise to "settle in communities." Prior to this, we humans were quite the wanderers. We covered the globe before we built our first cities

Yet as soon as we learned how to grow food in one spot, and create a safe single room shelter - guess what we overwhelmingly decided NOT to roam anymore.

Not only that, members of 2 species who were known "must be free to roam" types eagerly joined us, cats and dogs.

How so many are so blind to the fact that the things that make us so content in our world, do the same for wild animals provided they are adopted to their form.

The ease at which we in overwhelming #s are happy to stay in our own well-provisioned home as long as we had access to various entertainment via computer and TV for MONTHS ON END. LOL is a great indicator of what the reactions of animals would be given the same circumstance.

In India cities are over-run by monkeys, not from lack of space, but their preference for our lifestyle, which they steal , because NO effort is made to sensibly incorporate them.

Just how dangerous this philosophy is that says animals yearn for freedom and choice to wild animal preservation can be seen in the case of the now Extinct Chinese River Dolphin.

I blame the extinction of the wild Chinese river dolphin squarely and solely on the so-called, self-proclaimed wildlife advocates. To save the dolphin they made cleaning up the entire Yangtze and limiting shipping in China's major transport artery their impossible goal.

They rejected transporting survivors to select lakes in China or elsewhere to create safe havens for them.

Such demands were never going to be met, and the Chinese River Dolphin went extinct waiting for them to "succeed" in their high minded fantasy quest.

Proof of how wrong they were/are can be found in the survival of the Chinese River propose.

The porpose survivors were transported to a lake, where they are adapting to. They survived thanks to pragmatic common sense solutions. The dolphin was a clear victim of the pretensions of a few who seek impossible solutions based on fanciful notions of what animals truly need to be happy.

The premise for all solutions should be "If that makes so many humans happy, you can bet it would make them happy to."

THE PRICE OF IGNORING PRIDE COULD BE LOSING THE ELECTION

NEWS FLASH: White Working Class Women have a sense of pride too - just like African Americans do!!!!

Obama received as close to universal support from African American Democrats.

The reason was simply PRIDE, and it was NOT racist at all, because it a vote of PRIDE, not against HRC, because she was white.

Anyone with eyes open though would have realized the dire implications of that happening.

ALL DEMOGRAPHIC GROUPS can have a sense of pride. It is NOT just a "black thing" to have pride.

PRIDE CAN JUSTIFY and NULLIFY the importance of issues to a voter. Only idiots think women voting out of pride for Palin are voting AGAINST YOUR OWN BELIEFS.

Just how overwhelming pride is, is proven when examining the overwhelming support from Southern Blacks Obama has.

Southern Socially conservative African Americans (the vast majority) are as Anti-abortion as Palin

Southern Socially conservative African Americans as Anti-gay rights as Palin

Southern Socially conservative African Americans are as Anti-science as Palin

Southern Socially conservative African Americans are as Sexist as Palin (yes women can be anti-woman LOL)

YET DESPITE ALL THAT THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA, Mr. Liberal himself.

They voted for a man, who did NOT, does NOT share their values, simply out of pride.

One would think the Left would have prepared for a similar reaction from any other "clearly definable demographic group, based on sex, color, religion Etc" and made sure to make the to neutralize the potential of a devastating Palin maneuver by choosing HRC.

Instead Obama chose a OLD White Man, and weakened the belief of millions of women that the Democratic party was the party for sexual equality

When McInsane chose Palin, he maximized the PRIDE EFFECT that all groups can manifest,

IT'S WHAT YOU DO, NOT WHAT YOU SAY, especially for the Democrats.

RepubliTHUGS NEVER claimed to be the party of "equality."

Anthing they did that did further that goal (even when 100% symbolic and contrary) was going to get them big points with many women.

Pride NULLIFIES ALL OTHER factors.

The overwhelming African American vote for Obama, against the previous record holder a Clinton should have made this absolutely, crystal clear.

To me the shocked and confused reaction of Team Obama is proof of the deep sexism among his managers.

They didn't see it coming, because seeing it coming would have required "respecting women as a group."

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

The devastating potential of Obama choosing anyone but HRC coupled with McCain choosing ANY woman should have been extremely obvious. I knew it.

The potential was maximized by the endless dismissal of the "white female vote" as a "group of any kind."

There is NO doubt when it comes to voting monolithically, few groups could match the African American #s in terms of percent who voted for Obama in the primaries.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT!!!

Other groups, like White Women, do NOT need to be as monolithic to affect the outcome even more dramatically, a mere simple majority of white women can win an election.

Nationally, across the board it has ALWAYS been a "SLIM, but SOLID Majority of Women" who delivered UNTOLD Democratic victories.

Team Obama I guess interpreted the overwhelming support of African American WOMEN to mean there was NO SUCH thing as "female demographic" to cater to, or solicit by choosing HRC as his VP.

His team must have figured that Democratic White Women were all like Carolyn Kennedy and Maureen O'Dowd..

Two classic examples of women of privilege.

They assume that what's true for them as white women must be true for all white women.

For them the struggle of "common" white women is invisible, because they won the battle for equality. The proof is all around them and seen in their peers all white women as successful as they are and as part of a privileged group, can give some to make us all equal.

Obama's winning primary strategy was NOT a winning general election strategy.

In the GENERAL ELECTION universal African American voter support was NOT GOING TO compensate for losing the "slim majority of White female voters" responsible for so many Democratic victories since suffrage.

To poke that "group of voters" in their "Pride" by choosing Biden, an old white man and dismiss their deciding role is what got Obama in this mess.

NO ONE should blame anyone but Obama and his election team should he lose.

Women stung by Team Obama's sexist attacks, and who will vote for McCain, because he chose Palin are NOT racist, not against Obama but are OFTEN PROUD and EXCITED that our next VP could be a woman (regardless of how insane this woman is).

There ability to be blind to how insane Palin is, and be happy she could be the first VP is the power of PRIDE in its glory.

Obama could have made the same, many times better choice but he didn't without a reason that held water for millions of women, making those millions feel additional justification for voting out of Pride for McCain.

McInsane just hopes the Left keeps hammering women leaning towards McCain for his Palin pick, continue to rant and verbally assault those women for voting against their own interest.

Pride trumps all.

It is NOT just a "Black thing". It's a "human thing" as the strong positive reaction of white women to the Palin maneuver shows.

If Team Obama does not acknowledge in some way shape or form that they were wrong to dismiss the "white female vote" to declare even talking about the "white female vote" as racist pandering, then they will lose.

It's as simple as that.