Bailo,
And here I am thinking something is wrong with my faculties. But somebody else
caught the absurdity in that argument.
http://gambian.blogspot.com
________________________________
From: bailo jallow <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, September 27, 2010 2:56:59 PM
Subject: Quote of 2010.
The 9th month of 2010 is about to end. So far this is my favorite quote of 2010.
It can only come from a genius like Donald Rumsfeld.
"Creating employment is NOT tantamount to decreasing unemployment." (Haruna)
In order words, job-creation does not necessarily lead to less job-seekers. Get
it?
Bailo
--- On Mon, 27/9/10, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Date: Monday, 27 September, 2010, 16:55
>
>
>Caesar I like you. And I love the fact that you can carry on an intelligent
>exchange of ideas. For that I commend you. I want you to stay with the stimulus
>package and how much it should have been. You risk a more comprehensive foray
>into other areas which have been thoroughly ventilated.
>
>
>[-----Original Message----- From: Ousman Ceesay [log in to unmask] To:
>GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sun, Sep 26, 2010 6:28 pm Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is
>the world. Figure out which way you want to go and join Haruna, (Obama chose
>alternative #4. Where's the problem???? You must understand that all of the
>stimulus package, whatever the amount, had to be borrowed. So even if you can
>borrow 1.4 trillion it doesn't mean you should borrow that. The great
>policy-maker has to engage in sober iterative econolitics in order to settle on
>a particular loan amount. Do you know what the state of the US deficit was when
>Obama was engaged in Stimulus linear programming?) ..Ron You keep harping about
>borrowing as if that is so foreign when it comes to budgets. Isn't that what
>governments do on a daily basis?] Caesar.
>
>I keep harping on about borrowing not that that is foreign to enterprise BUT
>that to determine how much should be borrowed must be due-diligent and iterative
>exercise for best fit. The Econolitics of borrowing. While I'm here I want to
>share with you Caesar that just because borrowing is not foreign to enterprise
>governance, it is not a natural attribute of enterprise. If you must borrow,
>exercise temperance and due-diligence.
>
>[Treasury bonds and other securities are sold, citizens are taxed to pay the
>investors.] Caesar.
>
>These are ways to raise revenue and to invest in what citizens need for survival
>and common prosperity. Treasury bonds and other securities are sold and bought
>in voluntary markets. And there is a regime of justification in both need and
>scale when government decides to borrow for the citizens. Let us stay with how
>much the stimulus ought to have been. You are disenchanted to the point of
>abandoning Obama because you think he is not fighting hard enough. Which is
>itself an opinion. I contested he is fighting like hell for you and the
>professional left, middle, and right. We must assist him and work with him to
>fight harder. He cannot do it alone even though he is the President. Every issue
>you fight for, you must anticipate that there will be as formidable a force
>against as for the issue Caesar. Remmember Brutus was also a citizen of Rome and
>your close friend prior.
>
>[If you are so gung-ho about deficits,] Caesar.
>
>Far from it Caesar. I am neither gung-ho nor discounting of deficits. Deficit is
>an adjective describing the result of global policy. What I shared with you
>about deficits in conjunction with scale of borrowing is that when you decide
>you want to borrow, first you will have to factor in your credit-worthiness with
>your creditors, the appetite of your creditors to part with their hard-earned
>monies given their own considerations, and you don't want to borrow funds to
>erect an electric fence around you when your children will be at risk of
>electrocution.
>
>[you should be advocating for the end to expensive and un-winnable wars that are
>been waged in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak.] Caesar.
>
>This is expanding the conjecture of how much the stimulus amount should have
>been. Let's leave it for another time when you desire. As you consider that
>time, I want you to know that President Obama inherited both wars and war is
>heirarchical to expenditure in as much as a sovereign nation is concerned. This
>will further reveal to you whether I'm gong-ho or gong-hee about deficits. But
>let us reserve the conversation about the wars for another time.
>
>[I have no clue what the US deficit was when Obama is engaged in stimulus linear
>programming as you intimated, but i trust you will enlighten me.] Caesar.
>
>The fact that there was a deficit in the balance of expenditure and revenue
>ought to inform your future borrowing. The scale of that deficit nourishes the
>litics in Econolitics when you decide to request authority to borrow. You will
>understand that the request to congress was not an act of borrowing. It was
>requesting PERMISSION to borrow. I'm sure you are aware that Obama could have
>asked to borrow 1.8 trillion dollars for stimulus but end up only being able to
>borrow 500 billion, particularly if the lender is another sovereign nation.
>
>[This is akin to been told to shut up because the great leader knows best.]
>Caesar.
>
>NO. it is not akin to that. It was asking you to reflect more comprehensively.
>Democracy-Plus.
>
>[(I knew this is what you believe. First of all, political capital is not an
>asset to be spent anyhow you desire Caesar. Political capital is as valuable as
>its manner of expenditure. It is what I call deferred assets) ..RON
>Preach on brother...I didn't know that you hoard political capital until its
>value depreciates to an abysmal level, but you have an insight into what I
>believe.] Caesar.
>
>My comment addressed your contention Caesar that when Obama could have asked to
>borrow 1.2 or 1.4 trillion for the stimulus, he chose timidly to borrow a little
>under 800 billion. You explained that he had ample POLITICAL CAPITAL to request
>to borrow the maximum amount. I shared with you that POLITICAL CAPITAL is a
>deferred asset whose character is not readily apparent to its custodian.
>Therefore, if the custodian were to hoard it, he/ahe will not have realised or
>known the value of the political capital. It is not wheat or corn or fish to
>hoard like our friend Evian is wont to do. It is a perishable and deferred
>asset. You hoard it at the risk of its evaporation. It is too volatile to
>depreciate.
>
>
>[(Obama was privy to more global information than you or Conrad, or
>Obey fathomed. Besides none of the three of you had to do the
>requesting.)...RON
>
>
>You are right in your estimation of me. But I think it is purely spite on your
>part to add Conrad and Obey to the mix; for they had a great deal to do with
>budgeting in the congress.] Caesar.
>
>No I actually adore Conrad and Obey, and Caesar. The fact that C&O had a great
>deal to do with budgeting in congress does not say they were the ones doing the
>requesting to borrow. Obama was the one doing that. Therefore, he had to hear
>from more Americans than Caesar/Obey/and Conrad. It doesn't take anything away
>from the trio's proficiencies otherwise. I was sharing with you the
>considerations Obama was confronted with at the time of making the REQUEST to
>borrow.
>
>
>[(Caesar, you will have to agree with me that this is convoluted conjecture as
>you have admitted. If it was conjecture, how could it have compounded anything?
>Besides, the stimulus was NOT MEANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE RISE OR FALL OF
>UNEMPLOYMENT. The Stimulus package is a positive measure to create employment,
>spur innovative enterprise in the transition to a clean energy economy, infuse
>capital into the private sector because the colluding banks (The scheme
>to atrophy the economy and inure an Obama failure) were witholding such critical
>funds from the private sector even after they were bailed out for spectacular
>theft.)..RON
>I am kind of confuse with your summation above. If the stimulus is not meant to
>do anything about the rise and fall of unemployment, why did the administration
>tout that so much.] Caesar.
>
>The Stimulus was not MEANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE RISE OR FALL OF
>UNEMPLOYMENT. The Administration did not tout it as such. The
>Obama Administration touted the Stimulus as an instrument to spur economic
>growth, EMPLOYMENT, Investment in a clean-energy future, Encourager of new
>consumer-spending to nourish an economy that was in free-fall. Whether Private
>enterprise decides to lay people off or not is not the purview nor the intent of
>the stimulus request. There were other policy measures designed to assist those
>who have been laid off including re-training and retrofitting to be suitable for
>jobs in the new economy. The several extensions of unemployment
>benefits, Moratoria on foreclosures, Ability to refinance mortgages for those
>whose homes were under water, consumer protection laws, the Health Insurance
>Reform bill, are among some of the critical measures MEANT to address the scale
>and impact of UNEMPLOYMENT.
>
>[And why did you did say "it is a positive measure to create employment"? What
>am I missing? Isn't creating employment tantamount to decreasing unemployment?
>No?] Caesar.
>
>Creating employment is NOT tantamount to decreasing unemployment. Especially
>when we talk about two distinct economies. One based on dirty-energy and odious
>greed and another based on cleaner-energy and sobriety. In econometrics, the
>creation of employment is not tantamount to decreasing UNEMPLOYMENT. Net
>Employment however has a direct effect on the rate of Unemployment. i don't want
>some idiot economist fucking with us here so I will just say that the STIMULUS
>Request was not based on Reduciing or Increasing UNEMPLOYMENT. Looking at the
>requisition bill will enlighten us on that. A STOP-GAP package to decrease
>UNEMPLOYMENT would have been incentives for the unemployer. That is not the
>purview of common government. You could perhaps say that the bank and auto
>industry bailouts (TARP) was meant to address UNEMPLOYMENT. I think you're
>confusing the stimulus package and TARP or AUTO IND BAILOUTS.
>
>
>[(One-trick or two-tricks, the stimulus was not a trick. I want you professional
>lefties to quit looking at policy and government expenditure as a friggin
>Christmas pot to dip in whenever Santa Claus comes aknocking. You do not
>demonstrate the requisite discipline expected of a leader of a democratic
>nation.)...Ron
>There you again playing semantics with my usage of one trick pony.] Caesar.
>
>It occurs to me that the purveyor of semantics is acutely sensitive to
>competition in that ware. Caesar, what is more semantic than calling the
>stimulus request a one-trick pony????????????????????? I was just getting into
>that trench with you. It was not terribly significant. You professional lefties
>think the medianites wear their pants on both legs at a time.
>
>[You know the context I used it in, but to make a point, you had to make it look
>like I am calling the stimulus a trick.] Caesar.
>
>And you knew the context of the stimulus package, but to make a point, you had
>to make it look like we are calling it horseplay. Caesar you know we are twins
>don't you?
>
>[where did I intimate such absurdity to the policy?] Caesar.
>
>You intimated the idiots who called the stimulus package a One-trick Pony were
>right and Obama was insensitive to their warning.
>
>[With regards to the discipline expected of a leader of a democratic nation,
>well I will let you handle that. However, I do not profess to meeting the
>requisite for any job and you don't have to tell me what a bum lefties like
>yours truly are. We live that life daily.] Caesar.
>
>What you don't know however is that Bumtrinket was a minstrel prior. She aspires
>to be a gymnast now. To be a bum is not the exclusive domain of PL's. i will
>show you greater bums than you ever imagined if you indulge me. Caesar, why are
>you trying to get mad at these inutile sanaguyaa???? Well I will not let you be
>mad. Ye beggar hear of it. It will have been something or someone else to piss
>you off. Not yours truly. I turned a friggin bum into a Saint. Word!!!!
>
>
>[(We had seen 8 years of Laissez-faire prior. And who do you think were
>responsible for the Laissez-faire and your or Obama's emergent intervention in
>the first place??????? It is those same idiots who Want to do "LESS" for the
>economy today. You must therefore redouble your efforts to dispossess them of
>any fiduciary responsibility for America's ware.)...RON
>You don't have to lecture me on what transpired under the Bush administration. I
>am old enough to witness that.] Caesar.
>
>You were old enough to have witnessed the global cluelessness but what do you
>propose to do about it. I am sorry I did not intend to lecture you on anything.
>I was offering you an umbrella-for-two until the rains passed. Don't piss me off
>Caesar. I'm not in the mood.
>
>[Having said that, I believe it goes to the core of the argument been made by
>left of center progressives.] Caesar.
>
>Don't you see what you're doing Caesar????? You are actively limiting your own
>capacity and innovation and relegating yourself to the narrow constructs of CP,
>PL, CR, PR, PC, and LL.
>
>[If the previous 8 years were so disastrous and that disaster was started by the
>party in the minority today, why is the president elected to clean their act,
>acting as if they have any wonderful ideas?] Caesar.
>
>The disaster they created was precisely because they had wonderful ideas.
>Trained odiously. You and I and The GDP have this fervent belief that the
>solutions to the world's myriad problems will necessarily come from those
>who participated in the creation of the problems. NO?
>
>
>[(But Caesar YOU know the stimulus created and continues to create employment.
>If someone then tells you the stimulus did not create employment in order to
>discredit the idea of the stimulus, what will you tell them?????? Are you just
>gonna sit there and let them disrespect you by lying to you???? I don't know
>about you Caesar but NO-ONE, and I mean NO ONE, lies to Haruna and gets away
>with it)...RON
>But i remember you telling me it (the stimulus) has nothing to do with
>employment/unemployment.] Caesar.
>
>I reminded you the stimulus has nothing to do with addressing UNEMPLOYMENT. Not
>employment/unemployment.
>
>[That was your position.] Caesar.
>
>YES.
>
>[My position was, if the stimulus was larger than what was passed, it would have
>a more stimulative effect, creating more employment with it.] Caesar.
>
>Perhaps. More investment or capital expenditure is more likely to create
>more EMPLOYMENT. What does that have to do with UNEMPLOYMENT Caesar? Especially
>if your justification for the request did not have "Addressing UNEMPLOYMENT" in
>it??????
>
>[Will you make up your mind?] Caesar.
>
>I have.
>
>[To answer your question, yes I believe the stimulus created jobs.] Caesar.
>
>Thank you. Therefore, as far as you and I are concerned, those who will tell you
>the stimulus did not create employment just to discredit Obama's wisdom in
>requesting it, would be lying through their teeth????????
>
>[And I will argue further that it would have a bigger bang if it was spread so
>thin.] caesar.
>
>You mean if it wasn't spread so thin. Caesar, I don't know because I cannot
>qualify whether the disbursements or project implementations were optimal or
>not. That is a different argument than Obama should have asked for 1.2 or 1.4
>trillion instead of a little under 800 billion. I'm sure you will agree with me
>on that.
>
>[Why do you think the administration is proposing a $50 billion jobs package?]
>Caesar.
>
>To create more EMPLOYMENT I suppose.
>
>[Which has no chance of passing before the election.] Caesar.
>
>I thought you cherished Obama fighting for America even against filibusters.
>Remmember the aid to states to keep police, teachers, and firefighters
>employed????? Now that was aimed at stemming the tide of UNEMPLOYMENT.
>
>[Would it hurt to put that in the original stimulus bill?] Caesar.
>
>No it wouldn't have. But it is wiser to see what effect what you already
>borrowed and expended would have on creating jobs, is it not? Especially when
>we're talking about borrowed funds. From China.
>
>[That is borrowing money I can hear you saying. Well you tell me where else is
>the money coming from?] Caesar.
>
>Your worry should be discipline and due-diligence. Not where future loans are
>coming from or whether they are coming or not. If borrowing 50 billion would
>help in employing more Americans, I would borrow it with the least or no
>interest when possible. I will also figure out how it will be paid. In fact
>while we are here Caesar, If I were President of any nation and the citizens
>wish to be employed, I would tell them I'm going to have to borrow money for
>their employment and if they agree to help in its repayment from their new
>earnings, I would borrow it. I would fight for tax-cuts for them, health-care
>for them, build and renovate their roads, water supply, and sewerage,
>their clean transportation, and then go looking for work for them if they will
>not participate in their own prosperities. I will be the baddest dictator you
>ever saw Caesar. And no bailouts for private industry or dirty-economies.
>
>[(Caesar, what is Kumbaya???? Democrats not only have to push hard against
>devils, they have to push hard against the professional left. Make a list of the
>policies the Obama Administration has passed so far and come back here and tell
>us what is NOT progressive about a single one of them. I don't know what is
>wrong with you Caesar but you risk defeating even those democrats who cannot be
>bought by the Devil's money. Men. Are you serious?)...RON
>What is so progressive about a health care bill that mandates people to buy
>insurance from the same companies Obama lambasted during the campaign without a
>public option to keep the cost down? What is so progressive about the financial
>bill that leaves the Glass-Steagall act repeal in place. A repeal that is blame
>for the explosion in derivatives trading and the consequent crisis in the
>mortgage industry. I am convinced that your idea of progressive is totally
>different from mine.] Caesar.
>
>Caesar right now you're inordinately expanding this conversation. I will be
>happy to discuss the Health-Insurance Reform, The friggin Glass-Steagall, and
>McCain-Feingold etcetera another time and under separate cover. Right now let us
>conclude on your anxieties about Obama not fighting hard enough or not
>requesting more than 700 and some odd billion for Stimulus spending. I'm not
>trying to ventilate the scope of progressivism or Medinah here. Gimme a break
>will you?
>
>
>[I am looking forward to you coming back to lecture me on the structures of the
>US congress and how that made it virtually impossible to get anything through.]
>Caesar.
>
>No. I'm not interested in the nature of the juggernaut in Congress. I wanna take
>a friggin hammer at it and bust some bigheads. Will you help me?
>
>[However, any observer of the sausage making that is legislation, will agree
>that the aloof and leave it to Baucus and his committee approach that led to the
>mandated, no public option health care bill wasn't helpful.] Caesar.
>
>Oh brother. There you go again with Faucus. What has Baucus ever done to you
>Caesar????? I'm just curious.
>
>[Mr. Obama could have taken more leadership on the issue.] Caesar.
>
>I'm trying to share with you what leadership Obama is demonstrating. Men you
>make me sick Caesar. Brutus must have been onto something.
>
>[Sometimes politics is about optics] Caesar.
>
>Politics is ALWAYS about Optics. What're you talking about. And you PL's are
>giving the devils bifocals.
>
>[and you cannot define yourself in opposition to your base.] Caesar.
>
>And I ain't trying to do that. I'm trying to identify the base right now. At the
>friggin CROSSROAD.
>
>
>[(Caesar, I don't mind you begging to differ and I am not asking you to join any
>chorus. I am asking you my friend to reflect and engage for America. Not just
>yourself and your buddy lefties.
>Haruna. With friends like you who ...........)...RON
>If engaging for America meant not voicing my opinion regarding the policies of a
>leader I support, i will abstain. But guess what? With friends like us, you
>won't live in a bubble ala George W. We will voice our disagreement whenever the
>need arise. That my friend is the essence of democracy.] Caesar.
>
>Democracy-Deluxe Caesar. You sell yourself short. Why're you trying to play
>victim to yours truly men???? This is Haruna men. The ultimate purveyor of
>global freedoms. What're you talking about????? Men I wish I was in Flint
>Michigan where you frolick on the beach. And you wouldn't be bothered to go
>apprehend the Lancet-terrorist. We had to catch him for you remmember?????
>
>Haruna. And quit sharing your bio with me. I must have gone to the site a
>million times and I continue to learn about you there. OH, never-mind. My
>knucklehead cousin is telling me that was for Mams. My Bad.
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 1:09:08 PM
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>
>[-----Original Message----- From: Ousman Ceesay <[log in to unmask]> To:
>GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Sat, Sep 25, 2010 8:10 pm
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join Haruna, Let me take a stab at some of the points you
>made.] Caesar.
>
>Very well.
>
>[I didn't say Obama strong armed congress into passing the stimulus package.]
>Caesar.
>
>No. I said that.
>
>[In fact the man has not strong armed this congress into passing anything.]
>Caesar.
>
>May be strong-arm is not the right word when it comes to Obama. That's Rahm's
>forte. So let's say Obama persuaded congress. Is that better?
>
>[The opposition seems to get their way with mere threats of a filibuster.]
>Caesar.
>
>What way??? What has a threat of filibuster ever achieved for America?????
>
>[The stimulus passed both houses of congress by the way.] Caesar.
>
>Yes, I agree.
>
>[The president at that time has more political capital to spend and instead of
>going for a bigger stimulus package,] Caesar.
>
>I knew this is what you believe. First of all, political capital is not an asset
>to be spent anyhow you desire Caesar. Political capital is as valuable as its
>manner of expenditure. It is what I call deferred assets.
>
>[he went for what is expedient.] Caesar.
>
>I think you're mistaken. If Obama is given to expediency Caesar, he would not
>have run for President of the USA. You agree? Everything that Obama engages in
>during his presidency is NOT EXPEDIENT.
>
>[According to David Obey, treasury initially asked for 1.4 trillion dollars.
>Even Kent Conrad ( one of those democrats with a bipartisan fetish) went for
>$1.2 trillion. Instead what we end up with is a tad bit below $800 billion.]
>Caesar.
>
>Disregarding the factual nature of what you recount Caesar, it appears to me
>that according to you, Obama was presented with 4 alternatives vis-a-vis the
>stimulus;
>1-Do nothing
>2-Request 1.4 trillion dollars
>3-Request 1.2 trillion dollars
>4-request a little under 800 billion dollars.
>
>Obama chose alternative #4. Where's the problem???? You must understand that all
>of the stimulus package, whatever the amount, had to be borrowed. So even if you
>can borrow 1.4 trillion it doesn't mean you should borrow that. The great
>policy-maker has to engage in sober iterative econolitics in order to settle on
>a particular loan amount. Do you know what the state of the US deficit was when
>Obama was engaged in Stimulus linear programming?
>
>
>[I think the size (of the stimulus) was a mistake] Caesar.
>
>I take this as pure conjecture and opineering on your part. Otherwise we will
>ask you to make the case for 1.4t, 1.2t, 800 billion, or do nothing as far as
>scale goes. Obama was privy to more global information than you or Conrad, or
>Obey fathomed. Besides none of the three of you had to do the requesting.
>
>[compounded by the political calculus of the administration that they would be
>other chances for stimulus spending. Their thinking was (and this is totally my
>own conjecture): If $800 billion end up stimulating the economy...fine. But if
>unemployment continues to rise and the 800 billion stimulus didn't do the trick,
>there will be votes for further stimulus spending.] Caesar.
>
>Caesar, you will have to agree with me that this is convoluted conjecture as you
>have admitted. If it was conjecture, how could it have compounded anything?
>Besides, the stimulus was NOT MEANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE RISE OR FALL OF
>UNEMPLOYMENT. The Stimulus package is a positive measure to create employment,
>spur innovative enterprise in the transition to a clean energy economy, infuse
>capital into the private sector because the colluding banks (The scheme
>to atrophy the economy and inure an Obama failure) were witholding such critical
>funds from the private sector even after they were bailed out for spectacular
>theft.
>
>[They mis-calculated the political climate and what lefties were warning them at
>the time; that stimulus spending is a one trick pony.] Caesar.
>
>One-trick or two-tricks, the stimulus was not a trick. I want you professional
>lefties to quit looking at policy and government expenditure as a friggin
>Christmas pot to dip in whenever Santa Claus comes aknocking. You do not
>demonstrate the requisite discipline expected of a leader of a democratic
>nation.
>
>[If your initial intervention ( the arguement on the left goes) was too small
>and deemed a failure, it will empower the people attempting to do less for the
>economy.] Caesar.
>
>And it should empower the people attempting to DO MORE for the economy Caesar.
>What you're missing is that regardless of the nature of your or Obama's
>intervention, anyone who has made the conscious decision to do LESS for the
>economy, will do less. The stimulus is not meant to address the devil in folk.
>Just what Americans need for survival and prosperity. We had seen 8 years of
>Laissez-faire prior. And who do you think were responsible for the Laissez-faire
>and your or Obama's emergent intervention in the first place??????? It is those
>same idiots who Want to do "LESS" for the economy today. You must therefore
>redouble your efforts to dispossess them of any fiduciary responsibility for
>America's ware.
>
>[So rather than modestly sized stimulus leaving open the door for more stimulus
>if need be, its modest size and lack of stimuli as far as employment is
>concerned will be use to discredit the idea of stimulus.] Caesar.
>
>But Caesar YOU know the stimulus created and continues to create employment. If
>someone then tells you the stimulus did not create employment in order to
>discredit the idea of the stimulus, what will you tell them?????? Are you just
>gonna sit there and let them disrespect you by lying to you???? I don't know
>about you Caesar but NO-ONE, and I mean NO ONE, lies to Haruna and gets away
>with it.
>
>
>[The cry baby "professional left" gets up every day and go to work, so they are
>not the problem here.] Caesar.
>
>Don't you see how calous this sounds Caesar??? When millions of your fellow
>citizens do not have work to go to every day. And some of those jobs the
>professional left goes to everyday, are created by the stimulus don't you
>know??? Do you know how many professional lefties would have been out of work
>were it not for the stimulus? If I were the professional left I'd do overtime
>trying to help elect good managers and dispossessing bad managers of any
>authority.
>
>[What the "professional left" decry is the democrats penchant for Kumbaya rather
>than pushing hard and passing progressive policies.] Caesar.
>
>Caesar, what is Kumbaya???? Democrats not only have to push hard against devils,
>they have to push hard against the professional left. Make a list of the
>policies the Obama Administration has passed so far and come back here and tell
>us what is NOT progressive about a single one of them. I don't know what is
>wrong with you Caesar but you risk defeating even those democrats who cannot be
>bought by the Devil's money. Men. Are you serious?
>
>[If you have a disdain for that, and want us to join in a chorus of hail to the
>chief, well I am sorry sireee, this "professional leftie" beg to differ.]
>Caesar.
>
>Caesar, I don't mind you begging to differ and I am not asking you to join any
>chorus. I am asking you my friend to reflect and engage for America. Not just
>yourself and your buddy lefties.
>Haruna. With friends like you who ...........
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 3:28:20 PM
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>
>Hold on hold on hold on. Caesar you said a mouthful. Bear with me a little:
>
>Ok so let's say I agree with you that Obama strong-armed congress into passing a
>HALF-ASSED stimulus package. You will agree with me on the following:
>
>1. Whether the stimulus package was half-assed or full-assed, it had to pass in
>both houses of congress right?
>2. If the full-assed package could not be passed through congress, are you
>saying a half-assed package should not have been passed?
>3. With the half-assed stimulus package, private-sector job creation has been
>positive since the bill's passing. Instead of a steady loss of private-sector
>jobs prior, America has been creating private-sector jobs. The stimulus was
>meant to stimulate the economy for that purpose. The engine of the American
>economy is private enterprise not government enterprise.
>
>Caesar, President Obama was lucky to have the few Republicans who helped pass
>the half-assed stimulus package. Without it we would have continued the trend of
>Job-losses designed by the Republican Corporate interest who wanted to inure
>Obama's failure. If Obama insisted on the full-assed stimulus package but it
>didn't get passed what would the professional left have gained by that? And what
>is the full-assed stimulus package you guys keep dreaming about anyway??????????
>
>The Economic Stimulus package is a request for a certain amount of public funds
>targeted in such a way that the private sector and government infrastructure
>expenditure will spur JOB GROWTH.
>
>The stimulus package, half-assed or full-assed, has done its job. The Republican
>Corporate interest to inure Obama failure is still alive and fierce. The
>stimulus package was neither intended nor is able to address that. That is
>diablo's work. It can be turned on its head if the crybaby professional left got
>up, tied its bootstraps, and gets to work for America. I'm sick and tired of
>this tantrum-throwing, milk-vomiting, temperamentally itchy, clowning around
>Caesar. I'm dead serious. Who do you think Obama has helping him design
>policy???????????? Is it not the friggin professional left?????????????? Lemme
>know lemme know.
>
>Haruna.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ousman Ceesay <[log in to unmask]>
>To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sat, Sep 25, 2010 5:03 pm
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>
>
>
>Haruna wrote:
>
>
>"You know some folk have been looking for work for over a year in vain???? If I
>were the professional left, I'd participate in the re-start of the American
>Economic Engine."
>
>
>This is what "the professional left" was warning the president against, when he
>proposed a half ass stimulus package in a futile attempt to woo the wingnuts. He
>did not listen to the dirty lefties, after all they have nowhere to go. Well the
>stimulus was passed with grandiose statements that it will bring unemployment
>down to 8% by the summer. It didn't happen. The opposite trend continues to
>plague large portions of the population. Bold progressive leadership would have
>done Obama a lot of good. You and I have debated this issue on numerous
>occasions and the president hasn't done nothing since to change my perception
>that a lot of opportunities were squander in his quest for camaraderie with
>political opponents who made no secret of the fact that they want to see him
>fail.
>
>
>I am not raining on your parade, for I take no pleasure from taking issues with
>the president's leadership, been an "Obamabot" from the get go. But it is hard
>to defend him from a progressive point of view.
> http://about.me/ousman/bio
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 10:36:25 AM
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>
>Caesar,
>
>I agree with you. 20 years of Rubinite or whatever -ite economic policies does
>have its consequences. Generally, the consequences of economic policy have a
>life span of 1/2 its regime from when you decide to change economic policy. We
>changed course when President Obama was inaugurated. We are 2 years into the new
>policies. We have 8 years to go for the new policies to see their full force. We
>are now at the first Crossroad of the new DYNAMIC economic policy.
>
>So we can change policy managers at this crossroad fully aware of the attributes
>of all managers, we can sit on our hands and wait until we decide to resume the
>new policies (A dead Society for as long as we wait), or we can buckle-up and
>steer full steam ahead with Obama at the rudder.
>
>Regarding the comment about the professional left, I wouldn't take that too
>personally. I've heard worse. It is just that, a comment. Whoever views him or
>herself as the professional left must now review whether to take umbrage at that
>comment and go into a self-induced comma, or to work toward a different more
>genteel comment.
>
>Haruna. I love you Caesar but you appear to always want to get mad at something.
>BTW, I want to here thank you for your recent work on my behalf. I'm still
>waiting for a finale on the matter. Just lighten up men. You know some folk have
>been looking for work for over a year in vain???? If I were the professional
>left, I'd participate in the re-start of the American Economic Engine. So we can
>have a professionalite economic policy. Whaddoyou say Caesar???? And quit
>raining on my friggin parades will you??? You'd think we don't love each other.
>Jees!!!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ousman Ceesay <[log in to unmask]>
>To: GAMBIA-L <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Sat, Sep 25, 2010 1:03 pm
>Subject: Re: America is at a Crossroads. So is the world. Figure out which way
>you want to go and join
>
>
>Twenty months of following Rubinite's advice on the economy has consequences you
>know. "the professional left" ... A pejorative used by this white house to paint
>it's ardent base may just sit this midterm out.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:55 AM, Haruna Darbo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>your fellows on the same path. Haruna. Allez-y!!!
>>
>>Your Weekly Address: Crossroads on the Economy
>>The President lays out the choice between his plan to keep our economy moving
>>forward, and the agenda put out by Republicans in Congress taking us backward to
>>the special interest economy that created this mess. Watch the video.
>>
>>
>>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>>
>>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>>
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
>unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
>interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
>Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
>いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
>
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい To
unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web
interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List
Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
|
