Posted: Oct 11, 08 1:02pm
If so, how? I'm including those who actually don't own stock but have been affected economically just the same. Please elucidate.
Welcome! Join for Free
|
Sign in
Groups > Heffalumps and Woozles
Join Group
- Group admin:
- wcbiv
- Created:
- August 3, 2007
- 332 Members
Member Kudos
- Helpful (7312)
- Funny (3345)
- Inspirational (3822)
20 Comments
// 7 Members
Posted: Oct 11, 08 1:55pm
We are ALL going to be impacted (negatively) by the Wall St. crooks.
And if the next administration does not go after them with gusto we will be getting screwed twice. Make that 3 times!!
Posted: Oct 11, 08 2:00pm
My IRA and 401K stocks are down. But since I don't plan on retiring very soon, I'm hoping that they will recover somewhat. My husband and I invest in rental properties so the value of our current properties have gone down. Otherwise, I haven't been affected significantly yet.
Don't count on either a McCain or Obama administration going after wall street crooks. Their campaigns are funded by them and some of them are running the campaigns as well. If you know what's good for you, you'll vote third party. We need to get rid of most of the jokers in congress as well. We need to keep people like Kucinich and Bernie Sanders who voted against this bailout. Anyone else... Buh bye.
Posted: Oct 11, 08 4:18pm
If you know what's good for you, you'll vote third party.
I saved my old Ralph Nader posters. I figure they're good for another election, possibly two more before he croaks.
Posted: Oct 11, 08 4:28pm
Nader looks better by the day--by the hour---by the minute. If only he had a REAL chance. Damn that Ross Perot for wrecking the 3rd party movement in '92. That was the best chance this country had to throw the trash out and we bit into his egocake and ended up having to spit the whole thing out.
Posted: Oct 11, 08 5:44pm
Nader looks better by the day--by the hour---by the minute. If only he had a REAL chance. Damn that Ross Perot for wrecking the 3rd party movement in '92. That was the best chance this country had to throw the trash out and we bit into his egocake and ended up having to spit the whole thing out.
Do you all know that the commission for the presidential debates no longer allow the league of women voters to sponsor the debates since they INSISTED that Ross Perot be part of the debates in 92? This is why no other candidates are allowed to participate. The CPD is controlled by former dem and rep party officials.
Nader is DEFINITELY the better choice.
Posted: Oct 11, 08 7:08pm
Nader is DEFINITELY the better choice.
It's difficult to listen to the bilge from 2 candidates. Three and I'd be hurling all of my meals.
Posted: Oct 11, 08 7:51pm
Count me ignorant--I did not know that the League of Women Voters were responsible for "including" Perot.
However; if memory--what is left--serves me, he was at one time leading both Bush and Clinton in the polls. And, if he'd had the cojones to withstand the onslaught of the press and stay in the race. It might have saved us from the embarrasment of a Clinton and the stupidity of a 2nd Bush.
HE was, at least, a successful businessman which neither of the others could ever have been without chicanery. Oh well....
ADVERTISEMENT
