[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Regexp madness

Vassilis Rizopoulos

4/1/2006 3:32:00 PM

OK you Regexp gurus out there (has anyone noticed the relative size of
regexp threads -anything with regexp seems to excite lots of attention).

I have a puzzler. I've been combing the ruby-talk archives trying to
convert the BlogRD format to Textile.
BlogRD marks links with ((< >)) and I thought it would be simple to use
the pattern /\(\(<(.+)>\)\) to get the links.

Problem:

Having two links in the same block of text completely screws up the results:

TXT="((< Link one >)) and a bit further down ((< Link two >))"
LINK=/\(\(<(.+)>\)\)/

TXT=~LINK
p $1
---
" Link one >)) and a bit further down ((< Link two "

I was expecting " Link one "
Why the result? Where id I go wrong?
V.-
P.S.
Take your time,I solved the parsing problem another way.
--
http://www.braveworl...

____________________________________________________________________
http://www.f... - äùñåÜí õðçñåóßá çëåêôñïíéêïý ôá÷õäñïìåßïõ.
http://www.f... - free email service for the Greek-speaking.


20 Answers

Chris Alfeld

4/1/2006 4:12:00 PM

0

I just answered this is the other regexp thread. If you put a ?you're regexp becomes non-greedyLINK=/\(\(<(.+?)>\)\)/On 4/1/06, Damphyr <damphyr@freemail.gr> wrote:> OK you Regexp gurus out there (has anyone noticed the relative size of> regexp threads -anything with regexp seems to excite lots of attention).>> I have a puzzler. I've been combing the ruby-talk archives trying to> convert the BlogRD format to Textile.> BlogRD marks links with ((< >)) and I thought it would be simple to use> the pattern /\(\(<(.+)>\)\) to get the links.>> Problem:>> Having two links in the same block of text completely screws up the results:>> TXT="((< Link one >)) and a bit further down ((< Link two >))"> LINK=/\(\(<(.+)>\)\)/>> TXT=~LINK> p $1> ---> " Link one >)) and a bit further down ((< Link two ">> I was expecting " Link one "> Why the result? Where id I go wrong?> V.-> P.S.> Take your time,I solved the parsing problem another way.> --> http://www.braveworld.net/ri... ____________________________________________________________________> http://www.f... - d??e?? ?p??es?a ??e?t??????? ta??d??µe???.> http://www.f... - free email service for the Greek-speaking.>>

James Gray

4/1/2006 4:53:00 PM

0

On Apr 1, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Damphyr wrote:

> Why the result? Where id I go wrong?

I see you already got an answer to the other question, I will tackle
this one. In a Regexp, .+ means one or more of anything, but (and
here is the kicker) as many as possible. It will keep eating
characters as long as it can, with the expression still being true.

See Chris reply for how to turn it into one or more of anything, but
as few as possible.

James Edward Gray II



Vassilis Rizopoulos

4/1/2006 6:22:00 PM

0

Chris Alfeld wrote:
> I just answered this is the other regexp thread. If you put a ?
> you're regexp becomes non-greedy
>
> LINK=/\(\(<(.+?)>\)\)/
>
Yeap, it had to be something like this. Nice, thanks. Now I know.
Oh well, I'll just change the code once more, regexps make it so much
more compact :)
V.-

--
http://www.braveworl...

____________________________________________________________________
http://www.f... - aunaUi o?cnao?a ceaeoniieeiy oa?oaniia?io.
http://www.f... - free email service for the Greek-speaking.


PATRICK

2/10/2013 6:35:00 PM

0

Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:

>Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
>three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
>this mess?

Democrats caused the recession and Republicans tried to stop it
Who caused this economic downturn and what should we do about it?

Almost no one realizes that this entire subprime lending mess was
created by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by
President Carter, a Democrat, in 1977. Later on in the 1990s, Bill
Clinton, another Democrat, passed laws to enforce the original bill.
The purpose of the CRA is to force banks to make risky loans to people
who can?t afford to repay those loans.

The extremely left-wing Los Angeles Times explains in 1999 that the
CRA was passed to force banks to make risky loans.

Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into
enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute
meant to combat ?redlining? by requiring banks to serve their
low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear
message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending
laws.

?

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains? Fannie Mae has
agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments?or with mortgage
payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer?s
income. That?s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families
they once might have rejected.

The extremely left-wing New York Times noted in 1999 that the GSEs
gave out the risky loans under duress from Democrat Bill Clinton.

Fannie Mae, the nation?s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has
been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to
expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt
pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in
profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have
been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called
subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and
savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can
only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest
rates ? anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than
conventional loans.

According to the New York Times in 2003, George W. Bush tried to stop
the Democrats from ruining the economy with these forced loans. He was
blocked by Democrats like Barney Frank.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
and loan crisis a decade ago.

?

?These two entities ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,? said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
Committee. ?The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
affordable housing.?

Here are some video clips to prove that the Democrats opposed
regulating the GSEs. They are responsible for this mess, along with
the irresponsible people who signed up for these loans that they could
not repay.

Timeline of the events in the crisis: Bush was the first to recommend
regulating the GSEs in April, 2001. In 2003, Bush tried to create a
new federal agency to regulate the GSEs. He was blocked from doing so
by the Democrats in the Senate, especially by Barney Frank. In 2005,
Alan Greenspan warned that failing to regulate the GSEs could be a
catastrophe. Again, Democrats blocked the effort to regulate Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. The video shows Democrat Chuck Schumer protesting
that regulation is not needed. In 2006, McCain and other Republicans
introduced a bill to regulate the GSEs. Again, the Democrats voted
against it and nothing happened.

Republicans and Democrats in their own words on the GSE accounting
practices: Here we have Republican Rep. Richard Baker, Democrat,
Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat Rep. Gregory Meeks, Republican
Rep. Ed Royce, Democrat Rep. Lacy Clay, Republican Rep. Christopher
Shays, Democrat Rep. Arthur Davis, Democrat Rep. Barney Frank,
Republican Rep. Don Manzullo. Shays notes that the GSEs make many
contributions to Democrats who are blocking their regulation.

Fannie Mae CEO addresses Democrats: Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and
the Dems the ?Family? and ?Conscience? of Fannie Mae. The Democrats
obstructed the regulation of the GSEs while taking political
contributions from them, especially Obama. Franklin Raines, Jamie
Gorelick and Jim Johnson were all executives at the GSEs and are all
Democrats. Other Democrats like Penny Pritzker ran other mortgage
banks into the ground, and now work for Obama.

According to Human Events, Obama himself sued banks on behalf of
ACORN, to force the banks to make these risky loans.

Obama sued Citibank under the Community Reinvestment Act in a typical
ACORN-style lawsuit to force the bank to make these risky loans. ACORN
filed many of this type of lawsuit alleging racism in all of them.

According to opensecrets.org, Obama was also the second-highest
recipient of political contributions from the GSEs. The American
Spectator notes that he included 5.2 billion dollars of taxpayer money
for ACORN in the porkulus bill.

UPDATE 1: The Achoress just posted even more of the history of this
mess here. She has a link to Nice Deb?s post which contains about 2
dozen warnings issued by the Bush administration about the looming
crisis, including 17 warnings in 2008 alone.

George Kerby

2/10/2013 8:12:00 PM

0




On 2/9/13 7:42 PM, in article 0kudh8l6phganm1209afsfpvol6gs50v0j@4ax.com,
"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:51:12 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:16:26 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:04:07 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:07:09 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:11:30 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracey12 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are being called "anti-government"
>>> because >> they >> >> >> oppose >> Obama's radical left wing style of
>>> leading >> the nation. >> >> >> Yet, this is >> just one more tool
>>> being used >> by the left to >> >> silence >> opposition. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are not anti-government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True. They are pro-big government. "Papers please"
>>>>>>>>>>>> identity checks, mandatory vaginal probes, drug tests
>>>>>>>>>>>> on welfare recipiants - if there is a big government
>>>>>>>>>>>> intrusion into private lives, there is a Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>> policy behind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Those on government welfare should be mandated by law to
>>>>> pass a >> >> drug >> test to receive benefits.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Make that apply to farmers getting crop
>>>>>>>>>> subsidies and bankers getting bailouts and
>>>>>>>>>> federal welfare to "faith-based" charities
>>>>>>>>>> and you've got a deal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fine with me. In my occupation, I had to submit to random
>>> drug >> >> >> tests. As far as I'm concerned, ALL should be required
>>> to do >> so. >> >>
>>>>>>>>> But you take about farmers. Why do farmers get subsidies?
>>> Is >> it >> not >> to control production of crop amounts so as to
>>> control >> the >> pricing. >> Why do bankers get bailouts? Is it
>>> not to >> protect the >> working man >> using the bank to remain
>>> solvent? >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>> And where do "faith-based" charities get welfare. If
>>> anything, >> >> it's >> to help the down and out that need help, not
>>> the Church or >> >> it's >> parishioners. The Church and it's
>>> parishioners are the >> ones >> funding >> the charities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are all getting federal welfare, the
>>>>>>>> drug testing requirement should apply to all -
>>>>>>>> or neither,.......
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, dumbass. None of your boogy-men are getting welfare from
>>> the >> >> USA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really think the CEO's at Bear Stearns
>>>>>> and AIG EARNED the federal bailouts they used
>>>>>> to enrich themselves with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? That's your definition of welfare?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's yours?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The money is coming straight from taxpayers, through the federal
>>> government filter (so they can keep 72% of all dollars and going to
>>> people that do not have to do anything to get the handouts.
>>
>>
>> Just like the Bush bailouts to Big Banks,
>> just like the Bush bailouts to Big Insurance,
>> just like the bush bailouts to Wall Street.
>>
>> When do we start drug testing THEM?
>>
>
> It is not your fault. our parents combined some defective DNA and you
> were created without the ability to analyze anything.
>
> Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
> three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
> this mess?
>
> Mike Smith

You are just confusing the sheep with that bit of reality, Mike.

George Kerby

2/10/2013 8:18:00 PM

0




On 2/10/13 12:35 PM, in article t1qfh8hqpfm9jjp4jkcdbkqp19nus9ao6a@4ax.com,
"Patrick" <pbarker001@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>
>> Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
>> three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
>> this mess?
>
> Democrats caused the recession and Republicans tried to stop it
> Who caused this economic downturn and what should we do about it?
>
> Almost no one realizes that this entire subprime lending mess was
> created by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by
> President Carter, a Democrat, in 1977. Later on in the 1990s, Bill
> Clinton, another Democrat, passed laws to enforce the original bill.
> The purpose of the CRA is to force banks to make risky loans to people
> who can?t afford to repay those loans.
>
> The extremely left-wing Los Angeles Times explains in 1999 that the
> CRA was passed to force banks to make risky loans.
>
> Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into
> enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute
> meant to combat ?redlining? by requiring banks to serve their
> low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear
> message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending
> laws.
>
> ?
>
> In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
> purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
> Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
> aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains? Fannie Mae has
> agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments?or with mortgage
> payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer?s
> income. That?s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families
> they once might have rejected.
>
> The extremely left-wing New York Times noted in 1999 that the GSEs
> gave out the risky loans under duress from Democrat Bill Clinton.
>
> Fannie Mae, the nation?s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has
> been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to
> expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt
> pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in
> profits.
>
> In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have
> been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called
> subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and
> savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can
> only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest
> rates ? anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than
> conventional loans.
>
> According to the New York Times in 2003, George W. Bush tried to stop
> the Democrats from ruining the economy with these forced loans. He was
> blocked by Democrats like Barney Frank.
>
> The Bush administration today recommended the most significant
> regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings
> and loan crisis a decade ago.
>
> ?
>
> ?These two entities ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? are not facing any
> kind of financial crisis,? said Representative Barney Frank of
> Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services
> Committee. ?The more people exaggerate these problems, the more
> pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of
> affordable housing.?
>
> Here are some video clips to prove that the Democrats opposed
> regulating the GSEs. They are responsible for this mess, along with
> the irresponsible people who signed up for these loans that they could
> not repay.
>
> Timeline of the events in the crisis: Bush was the first to recommend
> regulating the GSEs in April, 2001. In 2003, Bush tried to create a
> new federal agency to regulate the GSEs. He was blocked from doing so
> by the Democrats in the Senate, especially by Barney Frank. In 2005,
> Alan Greenspan warned that failing to regulate the GSEs could be a
> catastrophe. Again, Democrats blocked the effort to regulate Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac. The video shows Democrat Chuck Schumer protesting
> that regulation is not needed. In 2006, McCain and other Republicans
> introduced a bill to regulate the GSEs. Again, the Democrats voted
> against it and nothing happened.
>
> Republicans and Democrats in their own words on the GSE accounting
> practices: Here we have Republican Rep. Richard Baker, Democrat,
> Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat Rep. Gregory Meeks, Republican
> Rep. Ed Royce, Democrat Rep. Lacy Clay, Republican Rep. Christopher
> Shays, Democrat Rep. Arthur Davis, Democrat Rep. Barney Frank,
> Republican Rep. Don Manzullo. Shays notes that the GSEs make many
> contributions to Democrats who are blocking their regulation.
>
> Fannie Mae CEO addresses Democrats: Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and
> the Dems the ?Family? and ?Conscience? of Fannie Mae. The Democrats
> obstructed the regulation of the GSEs while taking political
> contributions from them, especially Obama. Franklin Raines, Jamie
> Gorelick and Jim Johnson were all executives at the GSEs and are all
> Democrats. Other Democrats like Penny Pritzker ran other mortgage
> banks into the ground, and now work for Obama.
>
> According to Human Events, Obama himself sued banks on behalf of
> ACORN, to force the banks to make these risky loans.
>
> Obama sued Citibank under the Community Reinvestment Act in a typical
> ACORN-style lawsuit to force the bank to make these risky loans. ACORN
> filed many of this type of lawsuit alleging racism in all of them.
>
> According to opensecrets.org, Obama was also the second-highest
> recipient of political contributions from the GSEs. The American
> Spectator notes that he included 5.2 billion dollars of taxpayer money
> for ACORN in the porkulus bill.
>
> UPDATE 1: The Achoress just posted even more of the history of this
> mess here. She has a link to Nice Deb?s post which contains about 2
> dozen warnings issued by the Bush administration about the looming
> crisis, including 17 warnings in 2008 alone.
>

Man, the sheep are going in circles by now!

They are stomping their hooves and bleating loudly to cover the truth.

Someone bring in a German Shepherd, please!

Mike Smith

2/10/2013 11:00:00 PM

0

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 14:11:30 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 2/9/13 7:42 PM, in article 0kudh8l6phganm1209afsfpvol6gs50v0j@4ax.com,
>"Mike Smith" <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:51:12 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:16:26 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:04:07 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:07:09 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:11:30 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tracey12 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are being called "anti-government"
>>>> because >> they >> >> >> oppose >> Obama's radical left wing style of
>>>> leading >> the nation. >> >> >> Yet, this is >> just one more tool
>>>> being used >> by the left to >> >> silence >> opposition. >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conservatives are not anti-government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True. They are pro-big government. "Papers please"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identity checks, mandatory vaginal probes, drug tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on welfare recipiants - if there is a big government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intrusion into private lives, there is a Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy behind it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those on government welfare should be mandated by law to
>>>>>> pass a >> >> drug >> test to receive benefits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Make that apply to farmers getting crop
>>>>>>>>>>> subsidies and bankers getting bailouts and
>>>>>>>>>>> federal welfare to "faith-based" charities
>>>>>>>>>>> and you've got a deal.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fine with me. In my occupation, I had to submit to random
>>>> drug >> >> >> tests. As far as I'm concerned, ALL should be required
>>>> to do >> so. >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> But you take about farmers. Why do farmers get subsidies?
>>>> Is >> it >> not >> to control production of crop amounts so as to
>>>> control >> the >> pricing. >> Why do bankers get bailouts? Is it
>>>> not to >> protect the >> working man >> using the bank to remain
>>>> solvent? >> >> >>
>>>>>>>>>> And where do "faith-based" charities get welfare. If
>>>> anything, >> >> it's >> to help the down and out that need help, not
>>>> the Church or >> >> it's >> parishioners. The Church and it's
>>>> parishioners are the >> ones >> funding >> the charities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are all getting federal welfare, the
>>>>>>>>> drug testing requirement should apply to all -
>>>>>>>>> or neither,.......
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, dumbass. None of your boogy-men are getting welfare from
>>>> the >> >> USA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You really think the CEO's at Bear Stearns
>>>>>>> and AIG EARNED the federal bailouts they used
>>>>>>> to enrich themselves with?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? That's your definition of welfare?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's yours?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The money is coming straight from taxpayers, through the federal
>>>> government filter (so they can keep 72% of all dollars and going to
>>>> people that do not have to do anything to get the handouts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just like the Bush bailouts to Big Banks,
>>> just like the Bush bailouts to Big Insurance,
>>> just like the bush bailouts to Wall Street.
>>>
>>> When do we start drug testing THEM?
>>>
>>
>> It is not your fault. our parents combined some defective DNA and you
>> were created without the ability to analyze anything.
>>
>> Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
>> three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
>> this mess?
>>
>> Mike Smith
>
>You are just confusing the sheep with that bit of reality, Mike.

I know...
But it is so easy to befuddle them with logic and common sense. Their
emotional makeup just does not know how to comprehend logic.

Mike Smith

Lee Curtiss

2/11/2013 4:23:00 PM

0

Mike Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:51:12 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:16:26 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:04:07 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > duke wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:07:09 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> >> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > duke wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:11:30 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
> >> >> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Tracey12 wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Conservatives are being called "anti-government"
> >> because >> they >> >> >> oppose >> Obama's radical left wing style
> of >> leading >> the nation. >> >> >> Yet, this is >> just one more
> tool >> being used >> by the left to >> >> silence >> opposition. >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Conservatives are not anti-government.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > True. They are pro-big government. "Papers please"
> >> >> >> >> >> > identity checks, mandatory vaginal probes, drug tests
> >> >> >> >> >> > on welfare recipiants - if there is a big government
> >> >> >> >> >> > intrusion into private lives, there is a Republican
> >> >> >> >> >> > policy behind it.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Those on government welfare should be mandated by law
> to >> >> pass a >> >> drug >> test to receive benefits.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Fine.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Make that apply to farmers getting crop
> >> >> >> >> > subsidies and bankers getting bailouts and
> >> >> >> >> > federal welfare to "faith-based" charities
> >> >> >> >> > and you've got a deal.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Fine with me. In my occupation, I had to submit to random
> >> drug >> >> >> tests. As far as I'm concerned, ALL should be
> required >> to do >> so. >> >>
> >> >> >> >> But you take about farmers. Why do farmers get subsidies?
> >> Is >> it >> not >> to control production of crop amounts so as to
> >> control >> the >> pricing. >> Why do bankers get bailouts? Is it
> >> not to >> protect the >> working man >> using the bank to remain
> >> solvent? >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> And where do "faith-based" charities get welfare. If
> >> anything, >> >> it's >> to help the down and out that need help,
> not >> the Church or >> >> it's >> parishioners. The Church and it's
> >> parishioners are the >> ones >> funding >> the charities.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > They are all getting federal welfare, the
> >> >> >> > drug testing requirement should apply to all -
> >> >> >> > or neither,.......
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sorry, dumbass. None of your boogy-men are getting welfare
> from >> the >> >> USA.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You really think the CEO's at Bear Stearns
> >> >> > and AIG EARNED the federal bailouts they used
> >> >> > to enrich themselves with?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Really? That's your definition of welfare?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What's yours?
> >> >
> >>
> >> The money is coming straight from taxpayers, through the federal
> >> government filter (so they can keep 72% of all dollars and going to
> >> people that do not have to do anything to get the handouts.
> >
> >
> > Just like the Bush bailouts to Big Banks,
> > just like the Bush bailouts to Big Insurance,
> > just like the bush bailouts to Wall Street.
> >
> > When do we start drug testing THEM?
> >
>
> It is not your fault. our parents combined some defective DNA and you
> were created without the ability to analyze anything.



Just explain why unearned federal benefits
are "welfare" when people get them and somehow
"deseved" when banks and insurance companies
get them.




>
> Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
> three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
> this mess?


Bush wanted the bailouts, Bush got the
bailouts. Where does the buck stop with you?

Lee Curtiss

2/11/2013 4:29:00 PM

0

Patrick wrote:

> Mike Smith <mws@wt.net> wrote:
>
> > Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
> > three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
> > this mess?
>
> Democrats caused the recession and Republicans tried to stop it
> Who caused this economic downturn and what should we do about it?
>
> Almost no one realizes that this entire subprime lending mess was
> created by the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by
> President Carter, a Democrat, in 1977. Later on in the 1990s, Bill
> Clinton, another Democrat, passed laws to enforce the original bill.
> The purpose of the CRA is to force banks to make risky loans to people
> who can?t afford to repay those loans.
>
> The extremely left-wing Los Angeles Times explains in 1999 that the
> CRA was passed to force banks to make risky loans.
>
> Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into
> enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute
> meant to combat ?redlining? by requiring banks to serve their
> low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear
> message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending
> laws.
>


If it happened under Clinton it is Clinton's fault.

If it happened under Bush it is Clinton's fault.

If it happened under Obama it is Obama's fault.

In all things Bush is blameless.

You guys are sooooo predictable.






White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
Dec 21 2008

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed
warnings from people inside and outside the White House
that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure
crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated,
Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope
of the downturn; as recently as February, for example,
Mr. Bush was still calling it a ?rough patch.?

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions
that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

?There is no question we did not recognize the severity
of the problems,? said Al Hubbard, Mr. Bush?s former
chief economics adviser, who left the White House in
December 2007. ?Had we, we would have attacked them.?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted...
r=0







Mike Smith

2/11/2013 6:34:00 PM

0

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:22:48 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
<cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:

>Mike Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:48:43 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mike Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:51:12 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Mike Smith wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:16:26 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Mike Smith wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:04:07 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > duke wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:07:09 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> >> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > duke wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:11:30 -0600, "Lee Curtiss"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <cleetis@verizon.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > Tracey12 wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Conservatives are being called "anti-government"
>> >> because >> they >> >> >> oppose >> Obama's radical left wing style
>> of >> leading >> the nation. >> >> >> Yet, this is >> just one more
>> tool >> being used >> by the left to >> >> silence >> opposition. >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Conservatives are not anti-government.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > True. They are pro-big government. "Papers please"
>> >> >> >> >> >> > identity checks, mandatory vaginal probes, drug tests
>> >> >> >> >> >> > on welfare recipiants - if there is a big government
>> >> >> >> >> >> > intrusion into private lives, there is a Republican
>> >> >> >> >> >> > policy behind it.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Those on government welfare should be mandated by law
>> to >> >> pass a >> >> drug >> test to receive benefits.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Fine.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Make that apply to farmers getting crop
>> >> >> >> >> > subsidies and bankers getting bailouts and
>> >> >> >> >> > federal welfare to "faith-based" charities
>> >> >> >> >> > and you've got a deal.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Fine with me. In my occupation, I had to submit to random
>> >> drug >> >> >> tests. As far as I'm concerned, ALL should be
>> required >> to do >> so. >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> But you take about farmers. Why do farmers get subsidies?
>> >> Is >> it >> not >> to control production of crop amounts so as to
>> >> control >> the >> pricing. >> Why do bankers get bailouts? Is it
>> >> not to >> protect the >> working man >> using the bank to remain
>> >> solvent? >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> And where do "faith-based" charities get welfare. If
>> >> anything, >> >> it's >> to help the down and out that need help,
>> not >> the Church or >> >> it's >> parishioners. The Church and it's
>> >> parishioners are the >> ones >> funding >> the charities.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > They are all getting federal welfare, the
>> >> >> >> > drug testing requirement should apply to all -
>> >> >> >> > or neither,.......
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sorry, dumbass. None of your boogy-men are getting welfare
>> from >> the >> >> USA.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You really think the CEO's at Bear Stearns
>> >> >> > and AIG EARNED the federal bailouts they used
>> >> >> > to enrich themselves with?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Really? That's your definition of welfare?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > What's yours?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The money is coming straight from taxpayers, through the federal
>> >> government filter (so they can keep 72% of all dollars and going to
>> >> people that do not have to do anything to get the handouts.
>> >
>> >
>> > Just like the Bush bailouts to Big Banks,
>> > just like the Bush bailouts to Big Insurance,
>> > just like the bush bailouts to Wall Street.
>> >
>> > When do we start drug testing THEM?
>> >
>>
>> It is not your fault. our parents combined some defective DNA and you
>> were created without the ability to analyze anything.
>
>
>
> Just explain why unearned federal benefits
>are "welfare" when people get them and somehow
>"deseved" when banks and insurance companies
>get them.

Banks and insurance companies provide benefits for our society.
Welfare queens do not.

>
>>
>> Now, for a government quiz... Who was in charge of Congress when all
>> three of your mis-statements happened? And why was Congress key to
>> this mess?
>
>
> Bush wanted the bailouts, Bush got the
>bailouts. Where does the buck stop with you?

You cannot even answer a simple quiz question, can you...

Mike Smith