View Full Version : Obama - Worst President Ever?
SonOfSmeagol
11-19-2009, 04:07 PM
Why not? What's the rush? You seem to be implying that they need to be acting like nuclear war with Iran is right around the corner. That's probably the absolute worst way this situation can be approached.
If “weeks” is any indication, as we’ve seen with bho and Afghanistan, we’ll see something in, say, maybe, about a year, if that. Still wondering what the hell was wrong with his published strategy last March btw. I’m no expert, but as I’ve said Iran has done nothing but buy more time towards nuclear arms, and that is clearly not in the best interests of this country or our allies. From time to time, people here and there seem to want to encourage the notion that a nuclear Iran is somehow “ok”, or “not so bad”. I see NO possible upside to this, but if there’s a good argument for allowing it - and ultimately it will be up to the U.S. whether it is allowed or not - I would love to hear it.
TheMojoPin
11-19-2009, 04:13 PM
If “weeks” is any indication, as we’ve seen with bho and Afghanistan, we’ll see something in, say, maybe, about a year, if that. Still wondering what the hell was wrong with his published strategy last March btw. I’m no expert, but as I’ve said Iran has done nothing but buy more time towards nuclear arms, and that is clearly not in the best interests of this country or our allies. From time to time, people here and there seem to want to encourage the notion that a nuclear Iran is somehow “ok”, or “not so bad”. I see NO possible upside to this, but if there’s a good argument for allowing it - and ultimately it will be up to the U.S. whether it is allowed or not - I would love to hear it.
That's a lot of assumptions on your part.
I wish we were going more nuclear, too. It's an excellent source of power.
Besides, what's a more effective deterrent than nuclear weapons? They're arguably the greatest peacemaker we've ever seen.
GregoryJoseph
11-19-2009, 04:16 PM
Not only do I think Obama won't get reelected, I'm starting to think his health will prevent him from even running for a second term.
He really looks gravely ill.
I'm worried.
SonOfSmeagol
11-19-2009, 04:34 PM
That's a lot of assumptions on your part.
I wish we were going more nuclear, too. It's an excellent source of power.
Besides, what's a more effective deterrent than nuclear weapons? They're arguably the greatest peacemaker we've ever seen.
Like I said, I’m no expert. But my feeling is that Iran’s nuclear program involves a lot more than just power for the masses. I make no assumptions other that what I’ve read and heard from many sources. In addition to the US, the UK, France, Germany, UN, Russia, and to a lesser extent China, among others, are very concerned.
Yes, we have seen evidence of nukes as peacemakers – so far. I think I linked an article on that some time back and was very surprised as I had never thought of it that way. That article did not recommend continued expansion though. But again I would like to see the specific case that it’s ok to allow them to proliferate to Iran and then in all probability the greater middle east and how this could possibly contribute to the greater peace.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-19-2009, 04:47 PM
If you did you sure didn't feel motivated to ever share it here.
Up until '04 I am guilty, I voted mainly within the party. However into dubya's 2nd term, I saw Iraq and Afghanistan spiraling, the massive budgets, medicare part D. Talk of another amnesty and in 06 I was done with the GOP.
08 Came around and I saw the awful candidate of McCain, I voted for Change and that change was Bob Barr. December of last year I became a property owner and really saw how many layers of taxation there are
TheMojoPin
11-19-2009, 04:49 PM
Not only do I think Obama won't get reelected, I'm starting to think his health will prevent him from even running for a second term.
He really looks gravely ill.
I'm worried.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef012875b72bc2970c-600wi
TheMojoPin
11-19-2009, 04:52 PM
Like I said, I’m no expert. But my feeling is that Iran’s nuclear program involves a lot more than just power for the masses. I make no assumptions other that what I’ve read and heard from many sources. In addition to the US, the UK, France, Germany, UN, Russia, and to a lesser extent China, among others, are very concerned.
Yes, we have seen evidence of nukes as peacemakers – so far. I think I linked an article on that some time back and was very surprised as I had never thought of it that way. That article did not recommend continued expansion though. But again I would like to see the specific case that it’s ok to allow them to proliferate to Iran and then in all probability the greater middle east and how this could possibly contribute to the greater peace.
I think most of the concern of those powers of a nuclear Iran is that it gives Iran far more leverage in affairs involving those nations in the Middle East. I highly doubt they're concerned over the idea that Iran would some kind of rogue nuclear state looking to start radioactive shit. This is more about not letting someone else to the big boy table than anything else. I'm not saying that I "support" the idea of a nuclear Iran, but I don't look at it as something to fear in terms of Iran going to war with nukes. I think they want nukes for leverage, not actual conflict.
Those are my assumptions.
GregoryJoseph
11-19-2009, 04:58 PM
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef012875b72bc2970c-600wi
What is he...about 110 lbs?
He couldn't knock out a 1st grader with that bony fist...
TheMojoPin
11-19-2009, 05:02 PM
I think you have some fat in your eyes.
SonOfSmeagol
11-20-2009, 05:30 PM
I think most of the concern of those powers of a nuclear Iran is that it gives Iran far more leverage in affairs involving those nations in the Middle East. I highly doubt they're concerned over the idea that Iran would some kind of rogue nuclear state looking to start radioactive shit. This is more about not letting someone else to the big boy table than anything else. I'm not saying that I "support" the idea of a nuclear Iran, but I don't look at it as something to fear in terms of Iran going to war with nukes. I think they want nukes for leverage, not actual conflict.
Those are my assumptions.
The rest of the world may well end up not doing anything substantial about it, thinking that all Iran wants is leverage. I think that will be a huge mistake. There is one big player who hasn’t and most certainly will never buy the leverage angle. They’re still giving the “world powers” a chance, but I think Israel will act decisively if actions are not taken to stop Iran. And relatively soon - months not years. I think they will take out the Iranian nuclear facilities and capabilities with extreme force if necessary. I think when it comes down to it Israel will never, ever allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
keithy_19
11-20-2009, 07:32 PM
The rest of the world may well end up not doing anything substantial about it, thinking that all Iran wants is leverage. I think that will be a huge mistake. There is one big player who hasn’t and most certainly will never buy the leverage angle. They’re still giving the “world powers” a chance, but I think Israel will act decisively if actions are not taken to stop Iran. And relatively soon - months not years. I think they will take out the Iranian nuclear facilities and capabilities with extreme force if necessary. I think when it comes down to it Israel will never, ever allow Iran to attain nuclear weapons under any circumstances.
I agree with you that Israel will probably strike within months. Their attitude towards the Obama White House has been pretty dry.
I don't know what will happen once they do strike, however.
TheMojoPin
11-20-2009, 08:52 PM
I agree with you that Israel will probably strike within months. Their attitude towards the Obama White House has been pretty dry.
I don't know what will happen once they do strike, however.
Nothing. Israel can do whatever it wants to fuck up the region and nobody does shit.
I ultimately don't think a nuclear Iran is the end of the world, literally or metaphorically, due to their demographics. It's a very young country, and the younger generations in Iran tend to be very Westernized. A velvet revolution will take place within the next decade or so where the old guard from the actual revolution simply won't be around anymore. It'll likely just happen "naturally." Rushing into action against Iran now is the worst option in terms of dealing with them in the long run. A nuclear Iran being run by the 18-35-year-olds that make up most of the country now could go much further to reshaping the Middle East positively than we could ever possibly even just dream to do ourselves.
Nothing. Israel can do whatever it wants to fuck up the region and nobody does shit.
I ultimately don't think a nuclear Iran is the end of the world, literally or metaphorically, due to their demographics. It's a very young country, and the younger generations in Iran tend to be very Westernized. A velvet revolution will take place within the next decade or so where the old guard from the actual revolution simply won't be around anymore. It'll likely just happen "naturally." Rushing into action against Iran now is the worst option in terms of dealing with them in the long run. A nuclear Iran being run by the 18-35-year-olds that make up most of the country now could go much further to reshaping the Middle East positively than we could ever possibly even just dream to do ourselves.
All the more reason to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran. Let's promote American business and culture there and let's allow the young generation to come to American schools to study -- away from the religious freaks back home.
As for Israel -- I think that any strike Israel makes against Iran would secretly be appreciated by the Arab states since they hate Iran almost as much as they do Israel. You know: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Kevin
11-21-2009, 09:10 AM
All the more reason to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran. Let's promote American business and culture there and let's allow the young generation to come to American schools to study -- away from the religious freaks back home.
As for Israel -- I think that any strike Israel makes against Iran would secretly be appreciated by the Arab states since they hate Iran almost as much as they do Israel. You know: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
You could not be more right on with what you said.
TheMojoPin
11-21-2009, 09:18 AM
All the more reason to reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran. Let's promote American business and culture there and let's allow the young generation to come to American schools to study -- away from the religious freaks back home.
As for Israel -- I think that any strike Israel makes against Iran would secretly be appreciated by the Arab states since they hate Iran almost as much as they do Israel. You know: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I like the cut of your jib.
Kevin
11-21-2009, 09:37 AM
If Obama would have listened to the dumb shit Reps. He would have single handaly squashed any hope of a revolution in Iran.
He would have given the Iranians a battle cry of the big bad Americans butting in and telling us what to do.
He handled calm cool and collected.
Thank God he was in office instead of some retarded dip shit Rep.
If Obama would have listened to the dumb shit Reps. He would have single handaly squashed any hope of a revolution in Iran.
I'll blame Clinton here instead. He started the process of reengaging with Iran but didn't finish the job. He made the right move with Libya but wasted a great chance doing the same with Iran. We might have avoided the last decade of "denshun" with them.
Kevin
11-21-2009, 09:49 AM
I'll blame Clinton here instead. He started the process of reengaging with Iran but didn't finish the job. He made the right move with Libya but wasted a great chance doing the same with Iran. We might have avoided the last decade of "denshun" with them.
Agreed.
But the Bush admin made an even a bigger impact on it by doing things that made it that we have no right to speak or condem anyone on anything.
They came back at us with look at what the fuck you are doing, and you want to lecture us?
Russia and China has gained major power in captilizing on our mistakes.
They did what ever they wanted and formed a bond with many Arab countries on the simple fact of telling them what they wanted to hear. And that is that they they're against our policies and how we handled the rest of the world.
If Obama would have listened to the dumb shit Reps. He would have single handaly squashed any hope of a revolution in Iran.
He would have given the Iranians a battle cry of the big bad Americans butting in and telling us what to do.
He handled calm cool and collected.
Thank God he was in office instead of some retarded dip shit Rep.
That's the Israeli view of Iran. A former Mossad agent had come forth and talked about how Israel plans to deal with Iran. Their idea was to sit back and allow a popular revolution -- there was no need to intervene in Iran. The citizens of the country are coming closer and closer to an uprising against the mullahs and the puppet government. This was all before the last protests -- so again, why do we think that we need to give the hardliners and conservatives in Iran ammo to quell such things?
If there is anything we can be thankful for Obama doing as president is by not engaging in cowboy diplomacy with Iran at the time.
As for Israel -- I think that any strike Israel makes against Iran would secretly be appreciated by the Arab states since they hate Iran almost as much as they do Israel. You know: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
There is some truth in that. The historical enemies and the logical enemies of Iran are Saudi Arabia and Iraq. While I doubt they'd want Israel to attack Iran's facilities, they're not exactly going to be upset by the outcome should Iran's ambitions at nuclear power be thwarted. If Iran were to become a nuclear state and if by some miracle they had enough money to support an actual nuclear arsenal, i'd be more worried about them using the weapons to allow themselves to project power into the Persian Gulf and all but shutting down the Strait of Hormuz.
SonOfSmeagol
11-21-2009, 02:00 PM
Nice to think about things like establishing diplomatic relations, and the people of Iran rising up against the extremely powerful and entrenched Islamic Republic gov’t. But in fact those things are not close to the reality of the situation, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future. At least the foreseeable future that matters. I think most people recognize that discussion of these things, while good to have, is really nothing more than academic, idealistic, wishful thinking and simply not practical in the cruel, real world we live in.
So we’ll just have to wait and see if, according to bho “the six nations dealing with Iran's nuclear program will develop a package of serious new punitive measures in coming weeks.” How many “weeks” will he take? And how will he define "serious" and “punitive”. I actually think he will probably end up continuing to do next to nothing. Some people see doing essentially nothing as progress. I don’t.
Fuck the Monroe Doctrine or the Bush Doctrine. I believe that U.S. foreign policy should be based on the Vito Corleone Doctrine: "keep your friends close but your enemies closer".
WRESTLINGFAN
11-21-2009, 02:21 PM
Fuck the Monroe Doctrine or the Bush Doctrine. I believe that U.S. foreign policy should be based on the Vito Corleone Doctrine: "keep your friends close but your enemies closer".
The Mob should be in Washington they only take a 10% cut
TheMojoPin
11-21-2009, 03:04 PM
Nice to think about things like establishing diplomatic relations, and the people of Iran rising up against the extremely powerful and entrenched Islamic Republic gov’t. But in fact those things are not close to the reality of the situation, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future. At least the foreseeable future that matters. I think most people recognize that discussion of these things, while good to have, is really nothing more than academic, idealistic, wishful thinking and simply not practical in the cruel, real world we live in.
It's very practical and realistic. Look at the demographics of Iran's population: it's inevitable that such a political shift will indeed happen in the forseeable future. As "powerful" and as "entrenched" as you think their current government is they can't live forever and they've had to maintain a very delicate balance in recent to stay in power given the youthful population of Iran and how Westernized so much of it is. As we've seen in this past year, the people can only be pushed so far. The end result was hardly a decisive one for the current ruling figures and if anything was highlighted it is how vulnerable the current rulers are. There are still protests going on and the opposition to the current government is more vocal and visible than ever before. Iran attempting to go to war over the nuclear issue simply would not have the backing of enough of the populace. Any attempts to parlay the nuclear issue in active conflict would likely be the death knell for the current government and serve to only press the revolution from a slower, velvet one to a much more immediate and "hot" one.
So we’ll just have to wait and see if, according to bho “the six nations dealing with Iran's nuclear program will develop a package of serious new punitive measures in coming weeks.” How many “weeks” will he take? And how will he define "serious" and “punitive”. I actually think he will probably end up continuing to do next to nothing. Some people see doing essentially nothing as progress. I don’t.
It's a better alternative than "serious and punitive." Rhetoric like that just harkens back to the "Axis of Evil" garbage where we act like Iran is a cabal of supervillians that needs to be stopped or else. I don't want "nothing" to occur, but diplomacy is the much smarter action to guide this along and encourage an outcome that benefits us most down the line as opposed to coming down hard on Iran to please the rubes.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-21-2009, 03:31 PM
Stimulated yet?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574544063776158046.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/scrutiny-obama-stimulus-jobs-mounting/story?id=9075257&page=1
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30269030/ns/us_news-life/page/2/
http://www.capitol-monitor.org/nc-stimulus-watch/wheres-the-truthstimulus-jobs.php
GregoryJoseph
11-21-2009, 04:27 PM
The President is losing weight at a phenomenal rate.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224723-0708818C000005DC-809_224x616.jpg
Concern is mounting.
There's no doubt who wears the pants in this family, though.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224723-065A9647000005DC-699_468x353.jpg
TheMojoPin
11-21-2009, 04:29 PM
The President is losing weight at a phenomenal rate.
Our nation of slovenly behemoths could stand to do the same. I salute him bravely leading by example.
schmizzbo
11-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Are you suggesting that the president has some sort of human immunodeficiency virus??
Listen... He wasn't from that place, only his father was.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-21-2009, 04:38 PM
The President is losing weight at a phenomenal rate.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224723-0708818C000005DC-809_224x616.jpg
Concern is mounting.
There's no doubt who wears the pants in this family, though.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224723-065A9647000005DC-699_468x353.jpg
You call those pythons? Now these are!!!
http://images.contactmusic.com/images/artist/hulkhoganap.jpg
high fly
11-21-2009, 05:10 PM
The President is losing weight at a phenomenal rate.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/02/article-1224723-0708818C000005DC-809_224x616.jpg
Concern is mounting.
Why can't the sumbitch fatten up like Clinton?
Asshole......
Our nation of slovenly behemoths could stand to do the same. I salute him bravely leading by example.
Oh, if he'd only tax the shit out of mayo. He'd earn that Nobel Prize then.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 09:31 AM
Oh, if he'd only tax the shit out of mayo. He'd earn that Nobel Prize then.
I'd lead the charge of the coup myself.
I'd lead the charge of the coup myself.
Your cholesterol-clogged heart couldn't take the strain.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 09:39 AM
Your cholesterol-clogged heart couldn't take the strain.
I'd pass on the flag to the others....after using it as a bib.
GregoryJoseph
11-22-2009, 09:41 AM
Did Ramadan start already?
Did Ramadan start already?
It's come and gone. But the Haj is about to start.
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 09:47 AM
It's very practical and realistic. Look at the demographics of Iran's population: it's inevitable that such a political shift will indeed happen in the forseeable future. As "powerful" and as "entrenched" as you think their current government is they can't live forever and they've had to maintain a very delicate balance in recent to stay in power given the youthful population of Iran and how Westernized so much of it is. As we've seen in this past year, the people can only be pushed so far. The end result was hardly a decisive one for the current ruling figures and if anything was highlighted it is how vulnerable the current rulers are. There are still protests going on and the opposition to the current government is more vocal and visible than ever before. Iran attempting to go to war over the nuclear issue simply would not have the backing of enough of the populace. Any attempts to parlay the nuclear issue in active conflict would likely be the death knell for the current government and serve to only press the revolution from a slower, velvet one to a much more immediate and "hot" one.
It's a better alternative than "serious and punitive." Rhetoric like that just harkens back to the "Axis of Evil" garbage where we act like Iran is a cabal of supervillians that needs to be stopped or else. I don't want "nothing" to occur, but diplomacy is the much smarter action to guide this along and encourage an outcome that benefits us most down the line as opposed to coming down hard on Iran to please the rubes.
I think it still remains wishful thinking. In the real world of here and now, no power is relying on the gov’t of Iran changing any time soon. While you lay out a plausible scenario, it is only that - a scenario - and not something concrete that near- and mid-term, real foreign policy can be built upon. I personally don’t think the Iran gov’t is going away anytime soon, They are playing it very well, allowing “westernization” in a materialistic sense but holding fast – or even increasing - the ideological. And allowing limited outlet through “pressure valves”. That gov’t literally controls everything, and some street protesters here and there are not going to overcome that anytime soon, nor is a mullah or two from the revolution expressing displeasure.
The "serious and punitive” are the words of the "rubes" in the current administration. I’d like to see what they mean by that, and soon. No one is calling for an invasion or a war, but real and effective economic isolation by significant “world powers” might be one way to get there. Make it not worth it for Iran -– and, this is key – make it somehow worth it for the other world powers involved. Diplomacy alone so far, unless I’m mistaken, has made no progress whatsoever and sadly the outlook appears kind of grim.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 09:51 AM
The "serious and punitive” are the words of the "rubes" in the current administration. I’d like to see what they mean by that, and soon. No one is calling for an invasion or a war, but real and effective economic isolation by significant “world powers” might be one way to get there. Make it not worth it for Iran -– and, this is key – make it somehow worth it for the other world powers involved. Diplomacy alone so far, unless I’m mistaken, has made no progress whatsoever and sadly the outlook appears kind of grim.
When have major, longterm sanctions we have levelled againast a nation in recent decades resulted in anything but punishing the populace and turning them against us?
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 09:54 AM
[SIZE="2"]I personally don’t think the Iran gov’t is going away anytime soon,
That's simply not realistic, unless they've stumbled on some kind of formula for eternal life.
They are playing it very well, allowing “westernization” in a materialistic sense
The Westernization of Iran is far beyond simply materialistic. And they "allow" it because they have to.
but holding fast – or even increasing - the ideological.
That's simply not the case. The hardline schools are significantly outnumbered by the more progressive and Westernized ones.
And allowing limited outlet through “pressure valves”. That gov’t literally controls everything, and some street protesters here and there are not going to overcome that anytime soon, nor is a mullah or two from the revolution expressing displeasure.
You would have heard the same summation of Iran before the Shah was overthrown.
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 10:15 AM
When have major, longterm sanctions we have levelled againast a nation in recent decades resulted in anything but punishing the populace and turning them against us?
In the face of international involvement, which as I have said is key, the Iran gov't can decide how much they will allow their populace to be "punished" and how much they turn against the outside world.
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 10:23 AM
That's simply not realistic, unless they've stumbled on some kind of formula for eternal life.
The Westernization of Iran is far beyond simply materialistic. And they "allow" it because they have to.
That's simply not the case. The hardline schools are significantly outnumbered by the more progressive and Westernized ones.
You would have heard the same summation of Iran before the Shah was overthrown.
What’s realistic is that that gov’t is not going anywhere anytime soon. Like I said, you have a good scenario, but the real world speaks otherwise. Nobody in power is counting on significant change in that gov’t, and making plans accordingly. Nobody.
The Shah was a western puppet, for starters. It is a very poor example as to what’s going on now and the analogy does not hold up.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 10:30 AM
In the face of international involvement, which as I have said is key, the Iran gov't can decide how much they will allow their populace to be "punished" and how much they turn against the outside world.
That's a cop-out that hinges on the "Axis of Evil" garbage. Treating Iran as a whole as "the enemy" is not the answer. Sanctions never serve to actually impact the the relative few that are the target.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 10:33 AM
What’s realistic is that that gov’t is not going anywhere anytime soon. Like I said, you have a good scenario, but the real world speaks otherwise. Nobody in power is counting on significant change in that gov’t, and making plans accordingly. Nobody.
Then they're fools. Again, it's impossible for this current government to just last; the demographics simply don't match up. The majority of the population simply does not line up with the government and ultimately the country will end up in their hands. The wrong thing to do is to push those people away from us.
Do you think Iran is some kind of immediate threat?
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 10:41 AM
That's a cop-out that hinges on the "Axis of Evil" garbage. Treating Iran as a whole as "the enemy" is not the answer. Sanctions never serve to actually impact the the relative few that are the target.
Nope, last I heard the “international community” had nothing to do with the “axis of evil”. Last I heard the international powers involved are very interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not calling them the enemy. In the real world, gov’ts deal with gov’ts. And gov’ts are responsible for their people.
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 11:00 AM
Do you think Iran is some kind of immediate threat?
To be sure, Iran is not a friend. Their actions and words in recent years have not been in the best interests of this country and our allies. From time to time I agree with bho, and this is one of those times, although I have yet to see him act in any significant way on his words:
"We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table…Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks -- not just with our friends, but also with our enemies -- to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don't change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences."
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 11:13 AM
I don't disagree that a number of countries are opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power: my opinion is that they want to deny Iran the leverage that would come from having that power as opposed to concern about the threat of nuclear conflict or terrorism or even just an escalation of conventional conflict. I agree that Iran as it stands is by no meanns a "friend," but I think acting as if they can only be approached with threats is the stupid way to approach this. This is about Iran wanting to become a bigger player on the world stage and the other big players not wanting that to happen. Well, it might be something that does have to happen. Isn't that preferrable than a gameplan of ineffectual sanctions or invasion? Wouldn't is be preferrable to ease into this through diplomacy with an eye down the line to when Iran is run by far more pro-Western individuals than treating this as a standoff that must end in conflict? Why can't Iran become one of our "strongest allies in the region?"
SonOfSmeagol
11-22-2009, 12:11 PM
I disagree with the tone of inevitability and appeasement, for reasons we’ve already covered many times. It not acceptable that it will happen, it should not happen, and it must not happen. Sure, maybe one day, way down the line, they’ll be an ally, but that is just not in the cards right now.
TheMojoPin
11-22-2009, 12:37 PM
I disagree with the tone of inevitability and appeasement, for reasons we’ve already covered many times. It not acceptable that it will happen, it should not happen, and it must not happen. Sure, maybe one day, way down the line, they’ll be an ally, but that is just not in the cards right now.
Why not? We need to look past the rhetoric and look at the reality of practicality. There is a very good chance that a nuclear Iran is inevitable unless we engage in a significant pre-emptive military strike. Is the latter truly better for us in the long run than working with the former?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-23-2009, 10:47 AM
SNL Did a good job on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxYSduRES1o
Why not? We need to look past the rhetoric and look at the reality of practicality. There is a very good chance that a nuclear Iran is inevitable unless we engage in a significant pre-emptive military strike. Is the latter truly better for us in the long run than working with the former?
Since we're nearing up onto $1tn spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and we're having problems now with spending money on something as simple as healthcare reform, I have to wonder where we will have the money to pay for such an attack and where we will have the money to weather the inevitable oil embargo levied upon us.
SonOfSmeagol
11-23-2009, 05:05 PM
Why not? We need to look past the rhetoric and look at the reality of practicality. There is a very good chance that a nuclear Iran is inevitable unless we engage in a significant pre-emptive military strike. Is the latter truly better for us in the long run than working with the former?
All of this and more has been covered and re-covered. However, the real world prevails. Does any significant (non anti-Israel) power agree with your “let it happen because it’s gonna be ok in the long run and it’s just not worth it to stop it” approach? I don’t think so. Again, I don’t intend to belittle your idealism. We very well may ALL be fools because we earthlings just don’t get it.
TheMojoPin
11-23-2009, 09:35 PM
All of this and more has been covered and re-covered. However, the real world prevails. Does any significant (non anti-Israel) power agree with your “let it happen because it’s gonna be ok in the long run and it’s just not worth it to stop it” approach? I don’t think so. Again, I don’t intend to belittle your idealism. We very well may ALL be fools because we earthlings just don’t get it.
I'm not saying to just "let it happen." I'm saying to work with it because the only other options at this point are either military strike or basically try to starve the country back from the nuclear option. I think the former is far more benficial to us in the long run than the latter two options.
Again, I'm not placing too much stock into whether other major nuclear countries agree with me or not because they wouldn't want any other nation becoming a nuclear power.
GregoryJoseph
11-24-2009, 01:42 AM
I haven't read the news yet.
Is ol' skin and bones still alive?
Dude!
11-24-2009, 05:27 AM
I haven't read the news yet.
Is ol' skin and bones still alive?
yes, he is giving a state dinner tonight
to honor the people in England
who made up stuff on global warming
and then tried to destroy the emails
and cover-up the facts
that disproved their poppycock
the poor boy's world is collapsing
yes, he is giving a state dinner tonight
to honor the people in England
who made up stuff on global warming
and then tried to destroy the emails
and cover-up the facts
that disproved their poppycock
the poor boy's world is collapsing
Actually, it's for the PM of India.
Dude!
11-24-2009, 05:59 AM
Actually, it's for the PM of India.
ostensibly...
you need to look below the surface
WRESTLINGFAN
11-24-2009, 09:22 AM
Hes been compared to JFK, FDR and Lincoln, but hes acting like LBJ
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html
LordJezo
11-24-2009, 09:25 AM
Climategate!!!
WRESTLINGFAN
11-24-2009, 04:38 PM
YOU CALL THIS DINNER!!!!!!
Another reason why Obamas the worst ever!!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_state_dinner_menu_glance_1
GregoryJoseph
11-24-2009, 04:41 PM
YOU CALL THIS DINNER!!!!!!
Another reason why Obamas the worst ever!!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_state_dinner_menu_glance_1
Seriously.
What an embarrassment.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Seriously.
What an embarrassment.
Anyone Hindu or not who takes offense about having some prime rib or a porterhouse isnt worthy of coming to dinner
Bob Impact
11-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Roasted potato dumplings with tomato chutney, chick peas and okra or green curry prawns, caramelized salsify with smoked collard greens and coconut-aged basmati
You're both insane.
GregoryJoseph
11-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Anyone Hindu or not who takes offense about having some prime rib or a porterhouse isnt worthy of coming to dinner
Amen, brother.
This is OUR country.
Eat OUR food.
Thank you.
Bob Impact
11-24-2009, 04:56 PM
Amen, brother.
This is OUR country.
Eat OUR food.
Thank you.
Wouldn't it kinda be like if we went to dinner there and they slapped a Jesus Hock on the table and started to carve it up? Wait, Christians already do that once a week.
That said, I work with a lot of Indian guys who will request only that no beef is cooked on the same grill as their food, but they aren't going to yell at you for eating a steak.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-24-2009, 05:00 PM
Amen, brother.
This is OUR country.
Eat OUR food.
Thank you.
Obama shoulda said. "I'm the President Bitches!!! We eat what I wanna eat"
GregoryJoseph
11-24-2009, 05:01 PM
Wouldn't it kinda be like if we went to dinner there and they slapped a Jesus Hock on the table and started to carve it up? Wait, Christians already do that once a week.
That said, I work with a lot of Indian guys who will request only that no beef is cooked on the same grill as their food, but they aren't going to yell at you for eating a steak.
If Obama goes to India will they serve steak and burgers?
IMSlacker
11-24-2009, 05:06 PM
If Obama goes to India will they serve steak and burgers?
If the Chinese Premier came here, would we serve him cat?
GregoryJoseph
11-24-2009, 05:07 PM
If the Chinese Premier came here, would we serve him cat?
THANK YOU!
Recyclerz
11-24-2009, 05:49 PM
YOU CALL THIS DINNER!!!!!!
Another reason why Obamas the worst ever!!!!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091124/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_state_dinner_menu_glance_1
Obama found out that if he served meat Crazed would have boycotted his first State dinner. How could Obama risk that?
Meataball23
11-24-2009, 07:34 PM
Hes been compared to JFK, FDR and Lincoln, but hes acting like LBJ
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/79380.html
:lol:
Also im 100% in favor of a troop increase in the stan.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 12:19 PM
Obama breaks a record. Here's another thing he can do better than Bush
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/
Obama breaks a record. Here's another thing he can do better than Bush
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/
That's a shock. I thought two bailouts and a stimulus package came for free. Thanks for the obvious Fox News...next thing they'll tell me that Albert Einstein is dead.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 12:47 PM
That's a shock. I thought two bailouts and a stimulus package came for free. Thanks for the obvious Fox News...next thing they'll tell me that Albert Einstein is dead.
You forgot the federal budget and omnibus spending bills. you got your hopey changey starry eyed cool cat living in 1600 Penn. Ave. Deficits and debt don't matter anymore we'll just lower the bar and redefine rich How about people making over a buck 25 a year. How about begging the Chinese a bit more.
Hes about to send more troops to Afghanistan. For what?
Kevin
11-25-2009, 01:40 PM
You forgot the federal budget and omnibus spending bills. you got your hopey changey starry eyed cool cat living in 1600 Penn. Ave. Deficits and debt don't matter anymore we'll just lower the bar and redefine rich How about people making over a buck 25 a year. How about begging the Chinese a bit more.
Hes about to send more troops to Afghanistan. For what?
Ummm... Maybe to try to clean the big ass dump the previous admin took there?
We shoulda stayed there and gotten the job done, istead of using the country as a hitman.
You wanted to kill my dad and i want to kill you.
Now Afganastan is a bigger hot bed for terrorists than it was in 2001.
You forgot the federal budget and omnibus spending bills. you got your hopey changey starry eyed cool cat living in 1600 Penn. Ave. Deficits and debt don't matter anymore we'll just lower the bar and redefine rich How about people making over a buck 25 a year. How about begging the Chinese a bit more.
Hes about to send more troops to Afghanistan. For what?
Oh yeah. THAT was what over the top. The omnibus spending bills. They will be our downfall. We will all be eating catfood in a matter of months because of the omnibus spending bills.
brettmojo
11-25-2009, 02:02 PM
Hes about to send more troops to Afghanistan. For what?
How about you answer that question how you would have about 18 months ago...
FOR FREEDOM MANNNNNN!!! NEVER FORGET!!!
Looks like you forgot.
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Oh yeah. THAT was what over the top. The omnibus spending bills. They will be our downfall. We will all be eating catfood in a matter of months because of the omnibus spending bills.
All of these patriots seem to be under the impression that America is on the verge of collapse...which means they think America is weak...WHICH MEANS THEY HATE AMERICA!!! RRRRRRRRAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHH!!! EAT MY FUCKIN' FLAG YOU FUCKS!
If these flag-treading fucks want to live in a "fiscally secure" country there are plenty all over the world. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 02:11 PM
Oh yeah. THAT was what over the top. The omnibus spending bills. They will be our downfall. We will all be eating catfood in a matter of months because of the omnibus spending bills.
Why won't you look at the long term prospectus? Guess what? Its not looking too good. I guess youre fine with trillion dollar deficits from now on. You probably didnt hear about the debt ceiling being raised.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 02:15 PM
If these flag-treading fucks want to live in a "fiscally secure" country there are plenty all over the world. LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
What the fuck does this have to do with the flag?
I see how it is now. Last year 450 billion dollar deficit. Tar and Feather Bush. Trillion dollar deficits its ok Barrys got it under control
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 02:16 PM
I guess not! I guess so! I guess not! I guess so!
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 02:17 PM
What the fuck does this have to do with the flag?
SEE?!? This fucker doesn't care about the flag. THESE COLORS DON'T RUN, BUT YOU BETTER BE, TRAITOR.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 02:21 PM
SEE?!? This fucker doesn't care about the flag. THESE COLORS DON'T RUN, BUT YOU BETTER BE, TRAITOR.
These colors are runnin
http://www.urb.com/2009/11/23/freshjive-calls-out-obama
underdog
11-25-2009, 02:39 PM
SEE?!? This fucker doesn't care about the flag. THESE COLORS DON'T RUN, BUT YOU BETTER BE, TRAITOR.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhnUgAaea4M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IhnUgAaea4M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Why won't you look at the long term prospectus? Guess what? Its not looking too good. I guess youre fine with trillion dollar deficits from now on. You probably didnt hear about the debt ceiling being raised.
It wasn't looking good before Obama took office. This was all coming for a while and you kept your mouth shut until January 20th. Now you criticize Obama for dealing with the current, serious problems, you criticize him for what he hasn't done yet, you criticize him for greeting people wrong, you criticize him for the deficit which was mostly built up during the previous 8 years where you were largely silent.
It's just impossible for me to take any of it seriously. If the economy stabilizes and Obama is not lowering the deficit I'll be worried and mad. Until then he's cleaning up a huge fucking mess.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:00 PM
It wasn't looking good before Obama took office. This was all coming for a while and you kept your mouth shut until January 20th. Now you criticize Obama for dealing with the current, serious problems, you criticize him for what he hasn't done yet, you criticize him for greeting people wrong, you criticize him for the deficit which was mostly built up during the previous 8 years where you were largely silent.
It's just impossible for me to take any of it seriously. If the economy stabilizes and Obama is not lowering the deficit I'll be worried and mad. Until then he's cleaning up a huge fucking mess.
I criticized Bush for his out of control spending and that he was not a fucking conservative in fiscal matters. What Obama is doing is piling upon Bushs stupidity. Adding to the deficit isn't a smart idea, but since its Obama lets spend spend spend. Enough about the past 8 years. WE FUCKING GET IT!! Its what this economic illiterate Obama along with The Fed is doing going forward.
Who cares about greetings? What the fuck is wrong with criticizing someone who is continuing the same thing but on a greater scale? So dont you fucking lecture me that I cant raise my opinion about your beloved Obama!!!
The economy isnt stabilizing, The stock market isnt the entire economy. Unemployment is going to stay high for a long time. Foreclosures are mounting, The dollar is getting weaker while commodities are going up
Its people like you who states anyone who thinks otherwise is some misinformed rube. Well that isn't working with me, sir.
Im sorry if I don't fit your stereotype of someone who doesnt agree with Obama, as I am college educated who knows about Economics & living in Connecticut the bluest of blue states
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 03:03 PM
WF, how much spedning would be OK?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:10 PM
WF, how much spedning would be OK?
No ones saying to shut the wallet completely, Of course the federal government has to take in revenue and spend.
Look at the rate of spending along with monetizing the debt, and an out of control federal reserve What this country is doing can't go on forever its unsustainable.
Its the too big to fail mentality that is continuing to happen. Hell theres even scuttlebutt about another round of stimulus
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 03:12 PM
No ones saying to shut the wallet completely, Of course the federal government has to take in revenue and spend.
Look at the rate of spending along with monetizing the debt, and an out of control federal reserve What this country is doing can't go on forever its unsustainable.
I don't think anyone is proposing that the "emergency" responses to the economic downturn are supposed to be sustained "forever." We were able to turn it around after a decade of insane spending before, and this isn't even being blown on Cold War-driven military spending.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't think anyone is proposing that the "emergency" responses to the economic downturn are supposed to be sustained "forever." We were able to turn it around after a decade of insane spending before, and this isn't even being blown on Cold War-driven military spending.
Our nat'l GDP is in the range of 14 trill. The debt is over 12 trill. Even with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in '10 that probably wont make a big impact
If healthcare passes, We were promised that it would cost short of 900 bill over 10 years. Has anything ever gone to budget. This thing is going to run at least a trillion 5
Our nat'l GDP is in the range of 14 trill. The debt is over 12 trill. Even with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in '10 that probably wont make a big impact
If healthcare passes, We were promised that it would cost short of 900 bill over 10 years. Has anything ever gone to budget. This thing is going to run at least a trillion 5
So it's better to lose workers to preventable deaths because our debt is considered high to some people? Does that mean Japan should remove all social programs because its debt exceeds its GDP?
Its the too big to fail mentality that is continuing to happen. Hell theres even scuttlebutt about another round of stimulus
That's being left open, but only as an extreme measure. Throwing that out as a realistic possibility is pretty silly at this point.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:29 PM
So it's better to lose workers to preventable deaths because our debt is considered high to some people? Does that mean Japan should remove all social programs because its debt exceeds its GDP?
Japans debt ratio is worse than ours. Please see below, this is from 8 years ago when its debt ratio was 136% its about 200% now
Japan's Runaway Debt Train (2001)
Imagine, if you can, an economic Hell in which the U.S. government was borrowing 40% of its annual budget, creating annual deficits of 900 billion dollars a year; where 65% of all tax revenues were gobbled up by interest payments on a mind-boggling $13 trillion public debt; and where there was no conductor in sight to stop this runaway debt train.
Welcome to Japan, where that Hell is reality.
Reports on Japan's weak economy and the mountains of bad debt in its banking system have been percolating for over a decade; every once in a while, a downgrade bubbles to the surface, and then the whole "crisis" sinks from view again, lost in the complacency of seemingly permanent malaise.
But after a decade of half-hearted attempts at reform and repeated stabs at "kick-starting" its moribund economy with pork-barrel spending, time is finally running out for Japan. For despite the endless hand-wringing about weak banks, Japan's real financial cancer lies in the public sector, run not by bankers but by politicians.
In fact, if Japan's bad bank debt magically vanished tomorrow, the root causes of the nation 's financial woes would remain untouched.
GregoryJoseph
11-25-2009, 03:29 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vf5AqeATY2s/Sb-sc3DG1hI/AAAAAAAAAcs/Ic8NiztB-bQ/s400/Obama-in-over-his-head.jpg
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:31 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vf5AqeATY2s/Sb-sc3DG1hI/AAAAAAAAAcs/Ic8NiztB-bQ/s400/Obama-in-over-his-head.jpg
What a bunch of Racists!! They fell for the blacks cant swim stereotype
GregoryJoseph
11-25-2009, 03:32 PM
What a bunch of Racists!! They fell for the blacks cant swim stereotype
I'm so glad you post more these days.
You've moved into my top 10 list of favorite posters!
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:37 PM
I'm so glad you post more these days.
You've moved into my top 10 list of favorite posters!
Im honored
I know I fall in the minority politically speaking on this board, But Its good to see others who view Obama as someone who has a good shot of being worse than his predecessor
I knew 5 years ago when he made the Keynote speech at the DNC he would be venerated and sold to the country as the Knight in Shining Armor but I saw thru him and back then he was nothing but a good speech, He was on an extended run as flavor of the month
He's the male version of Sarah Palin
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 03:49 PM
Our nat'l GDP is in the range of 14 trill. The debt is over 12 trill. Even with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in '10 that probably wont make a big impact
If healthcare passes, We were promised that it would cost short of 900 bill over 10 years. Has anything ever gone to budget. This thing is going to run at least a trillion 5
So you, what, simply don't believe the projections that the health care plan would ultimately save the government money?
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 03:50 PM
Im honored
I know I fall in the minority politically speaking on this board, But Its good to see others who view Obama as someone who has a good shot of being worse than his predecessor
I knew 5 years ago when he made the Keynote speech at the DNC he would be venerated and sold to the country as the Knight in Shining Armor but I saw thru him and back then he was nothing but a good speech, He was on an extended run as flavor of the month
He's the male version of Sarah Palin
You know you're in trouble when you think Gvac backing you up is a good thing.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-25-2009, 03:51 PM
So you, what, simply don't believe the projections that the health care plan would ultimately save the government money?
Im a pessimist
keithy_19
11-25-2009, 04:19 PM
http://organizedkuhnfyoozhuhn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/end-the-fed-poster.jpg
opie's twisted balls
11-25-2009, 05:09 PM
he can't be that bad.....he took time out of what I'm sure is a busy schedule to send me a nice note....:lol:
Friend --
Tomorrow, Thanksgiving Day, Americans across the country will sit down together, count our blessings, and give thanks for our families and our loved ones.
American families reflect the diversity of this great nation. No two are exactly alike, but there is a common thread they each share.
Our families are bound together through times of joy and times of grief. They shape us, support us, instill the values that guide us as individuals, and make possible all that we achieve.
So tomorrow, I'll be giving thanks for my family -- for all the wisdom, support, and love they have brought into my life.
But tomorrow is also a day to remember those who cannot sit down to break bread with those they love.
The soldier overseas holding down a lonely post and missing his kids. The sailor who left her home to serve a higher calling. The folks who must spend tomorrow apart from their families to work a second job, so they can keep food on the table or send a child to school.
We are grateful beyond words for the service and hard work of so many Americans who make our country great through their sacrifice. And this year, we know that far too many face a daily struggle that puts the comfort and security we all deserve painfully out of reach.
So when we gather tomorrow, let us also use the occasion to renew our commitment to building a more peaceful and prosperous future that every American family can enjoy.
It seems like a lifetime ago that a crowd met on a frigid February morning in Springfield, Illinois to set out on an improbable course to change our nation.
In the years since, Michelle and I have been blessed with the support and friendship of the millions of Americans who have come together to form this ongoing movement for change.
You have been there through victories and setbacks. You have given of yourselves beyond measure. You have enabled all that we have accomplished -- and you have had the courage to dream yet bigger dreams for what we can still achieve.
So in this season of thanks giving, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to you, and my anticipation of the brighter future we are creating together.
With warmest wishes for a happy holiday season from my family to yours,
President Barack Obama
high fly
11-25-2009, 05:19 PM
Gotta give it up for the O-man!
Dude!
11-25-2009, 05:35 PM
. Until then he's cleaning up a huge fucking mess.
black cleaning ladies
are notoriously slow
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 05:44 PM
black cleaning ladies
are notoriously slow
Everyone hopes that your death is slow.
But soon.
high fly
11-25-2009, 07:22 PM
Everyone hopes that your death is slow.
But soon.
Like a case of swallowing some glass shards that cause internal bleeding that goes unnoticed and then misdiagnosed and then when the pain is at it's peak, the pharmacist accidently fills the prescription with placebos and then closes while the pharmacist goes to Tahiti for a few weeks and there are no more pharmacies around or anyone else to issue a script.
Then things get worse from there with the car breaking down and the phones going dead in a snowstorm ad other bad stuff.
Like that, Mojo?
Dude!
11-25-2009, 08:07 PM
i just love knowing that
you boys hang on
my every word
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 08:09 PM
I'd love knowing that you had been hanged.
Dude!
11-25-2009, 08:10 PM
I'd love knowing that you had been hanged.
I love that you follow me around
like a little puppy
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 08:18 PM
I'd love if a rabid dog followed you around.
And then raped you.
Dude!
11-25-2009, 08:20 PM
I'd love if a rabid dog followed you around.
And then raped you.
you fantasize about being
the rabid dog
TheMojoPin
11-25-2009, 08:22 PM
You're disgusting.
KatPw
11-26-2009, 08:17 AM
sold to the country as the Knight in Shining Armor but I saw thru him and back then he was nothing but a good speech, He was on an extended run as flavor of the month
He's the male version of Sarah Palin
Is this the new meme that is starting? Because I've seen you write it in two different threads here and I've seen it used by pretty much every known fark troll in the politics tab over there.
I criticized Bush for his out of control spending and that he was not a fucking conservative in fiscal matters. What Obama is doing is piling upon Bushs stupidity. Adding to the deficit isn't a smart idea, but since its Obama lets spend spend spend. Enough about the past 8 years. WE FUCKING GET IT!! Its what this economic illiterate Obama along with The Fed is doing going forward.
Maybe I am wrong. You are welcome to point out where the constant 17 post a day stream of you criticizing Bush's economic handling is located. I don't remember it at all but I could certainly be wrong. And yes, THIS is the time to add to the deficit, when private borrowing and spending is suffering greatly and the only way you can salvage a few jobs in a recession is government spending. Let me ask you a question. If you lose your job and subsequently you are taking in a lot less cash do you use credit when you have to to get by for the daily essentials or do you say fuck that and take every cent you have and pay down your credit card. You do the former and no the latter because the latter IS FUCKING STUPID! Obviously it would work better for Obama if he didn't inherit a massive deficit to begin with but you are sick of the reality of the situation because it restricts your ability to criticize him.
And the only dumbass in this thread expecting a knight in shining armor to come in and miraculously turn around the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression in less than a year is you. You are always the only one.
Dude!
11-26-2009, 11:06 AM
Bush went to war
only to make his friends
at Halliburton rich
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 11:54 AM
Maybe I am wrong. You are welcome to point out where the constant 17 post a day stream of you criticizing Bush's economic handling is located. I don't remember it at all but I could certainly be wrong. And yes, THIS is the time to add to the deficit, when private borrowing and spending is suffering greatly and the only way you can salvage a few jobs in a recession is government spending. Let me ask you a question. If you lose your job and subsequently you are taking in a lot less cash do you use credit when you have to to get by for the daily essentials or do you say fuck that and take every cent you have and pay down your credit card. You do the former and no the latter because the latter IS FUCKING STUPID! Obviously it would work better for Obama if he didn't inherit a massive deficit to begin with but you are sick of the reality of the situation because it restricts your ability to criticize him.
And the only dumbass in this thread expecting a knight in shining armor to come in and miraculously turn around the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression in less than a year is you. You are always the only one.
I didn't say you in particular fell for the savior schtick but the country as a whole? Of course. He was touted as the man who would change DC and that he was the savior. as far as economic policy encouraging people to assume more debt is a stupid fucking idea. Massive debt and consumption got us here!!! And Obamas solution buy a car, fuck it buy a house. Remember bush said after 9/11 to go shopping?. Since you brought up the depression didn't you realize that our savings rate prior to the recession was the lowest since the depression.
This isn't pointed to you but criticicizing Obama isn't racist!! If he was a Wasp raised in Saddle River I would still oppose his policies.
I will say it again piling on Bushs stupidity isn't that smart at all.
TheMojoPin
11-26-2009, 12:20 PM
I didn't say you in particular fell for the savior schtick but the country as a whole? Of course. He was touted as the man who would change DC and that he was the savior.
Almost anyone who wasn't Bush would have been seen as some type of "savior." The only people still harping on this sense of him being a "savior" or a "messiah" are those that are opposed to anything he does. It's false point now and it was then to act like most of the people that voted for him or aren't condemning everything he does now think that he's some kind of "messiah" or "savior."
as far as economic policy encouraging people to assume more debt is a stupid fucking idea. Massive debt and consumption got us here!!! And Obamas solution buy a car, fuck it buy a house. Remember bush said after 9/11 to go shopping?.
Those are so clearly not the same thing (and a massive overgeneralization of some of the suggestions/ideas of the Obama administration for some people), but when has that ever stopped you before?
Since you brought up the depression didn't you realize that our savings rate prior to the recession was the lowest since the depression.
Yes, that was and is a problem.
This isn't pointed to you but criticicizing Obama isn't racist!! If he was a Wasp raised in Saddle River I would still oppose his policies.
You'd criticize any Democrat in the White House right now. HBox's point is that your claims that you felt this way for most of Bush's second term ring hollow since you didn't seem motivated at all to say so. During Bush's time in office we'd see a post from your here or there on the board (if it was ever political it would be on immigration and not much else) and then you were gone. Now you're here daily dropping at least a dozen posts every day about what a horrible situation we're in. That doesn't mean that you can't have sound points, but it does seem rather hypocritical that you weren't this worked up until the Democrats took back the White House. It has nothing to do with race and seemingly everything to do with politics.
I will say it again piling on Bushs stupidity isn't that smart at all.
You seem to want the Bush thing in two ways: you don't want people who aren't always opposed to Obama (or the administration itself) to refer back to the Bush days, but you can whenever you want.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 12:31 PM
yes I have posted a lot recently. I didn't want to criticize Obama a couple of months into office, however we are 10 months in and his policies are going to do damage in the long term. Mc Cain? Give me a break, he would have been just as bad. Like I said in previous posts just because someone has an r after his name isn't an automatic vote from me.
TheMojoPin
11-26-2009, 12:47 PM
yes I have posted a lot recently. I didn't want to criticize Obama a couple of months into office, however we are 10 months in and his policies are going to do damage in the long term. Mc Cain? Give me a break, he would have been just as bad. Like I said in previous posts just because someone has an r after his name isn't an automatic vote from me.
Nobody said it was.
I also love how you act like 10 months is enough time to know how for sure "policies are going to do damage in the long term." I don't buy into anyone who isn't hinging their analaysis on the idea of us being in the "wait and see" period right now. This mess is simply too big at this point to know for sure, good or bad, how it's going to play out. There's no sure way out of it, so pretty much anything is a gamble.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 04:41 PM
Nobody said it was.
I also love how you act like 10 months is enough time to know how for sure "policies are going to do damage in the long term." I don't buy into anyone who isn't hinging their analaysis on the idea of us being in the "wait and see" period right now. This mess is simply too big at this point to know for sure, good or bad, how it's going to play out. There's no sure way out of it, so pretty much anything is a gamble.
Another poster mentioned that during WW2 Gov't spending was about half of GDP. While that is a fact, This country was actually cranking out tanks, jeeps and planes for the war effort, along with having a signifigant manufacturing sector
65 years later and what do we make in this country? Almost nothing. Listening to Thom Hartmann someone who I almost always disagree with made a great point. How many things in your house are actually made int he US?
The government is spending excessively on transfer payments that are already bloated. I know healthcare is a different forum but do we actually need another layer of federal programs? like we don't have enough already
As far as the TARP bailout done under Bush and which Obama voted for, it was to get credit flowing, The markets are still dry, banks arent lending. Geithner is getting grilled by progressives on the hill now
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 04:43 PM
I wish Obama a fruitful life as a 1 term President. Hopefully in '12 he will sit on a couple of boards of directors. Hell even write another book about the leaders of the Church from Peter to Benedict XVI call it The Audacity of Popes
65 years later and what do we make in this country? Almost nothing. Listening to Thom Hartmann someone who I almost always disagree with made a great point. How many things in your house are actually made int he US?
So we are supposed to bailout the car companies? Or are you just continuing to flail wildly?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 05:00 PM
So we are supposed to bailout the car companies? Or are you just continuing to flail wildly?
No more fucking Bailouts!!!! Didnt like TARP and bailing out GM and Chrysler either
No more fucking Bailouts!!!! Didnt like TARP and bailing out GM and Chrysler either
Then what the hell is your point? First you say we are suffering economically because we make nothing, but it pisses you off when we try to save what little manufacturing we have left?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 05:07 PM
Then what the hell is your point? First you say we are suffering economically because we make nothing, but it pisses you off when we try to save what little manufacturing we have left?
My point is let the weak companies fail like they should have. Not kick a can down the road Not have all this bureaucratic red tape when a factory wants to open or expand for example. As far as the autos Ford seems to be doing ok.
TheMojoPin
11-26-2009, 05:18 PM
My point is let the weak companies fail like they should have. Not kick a can down the road Not have all this bureaucratic red tape when a factory wants to open or expand for example. As far as the autos Ford seems to be doing ok.
Like HBox pointed out, it's not like this is a thriving industry where a company will simply take the place of one that fails. We needed to act to preserve those companies to preserve jobs and what little American manufacturing we have left.
TheMojoPin
11-26-2009, 05:25 PM
The government is spending excessively on transfer payments that are already bloated. I know healthcare is a different forum but do we actually need another layer of federal programs? like we don't have enough already
Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You don't want more government involvement, but you take numerous issues with the current economic mess which is largely the result of so many of these big corporations doing whatever the fuck they want thanks to the massive deregulation we've seen over the last 25+ years. So what's the answer? Letting the "free market" go nuts hasn't worked out...you don't want the government getting involved...so what kind of economy do you want to see?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-26-2009, 05:32 PM
Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You don't want more government involvement, but you take numerous issues with the current economic mess which is largely the result of so many of these big corporations doing whatever the fuck they want thanks to the massive deregulation we've seen over the last 25+ years. So what's the answer? Letting the "free market" go nuts hasn't worked out...you don't want the government getting involved...so what kind of economy do you want to see?
I dont want a free for all, Im not into AnarchyYes there has been deregulation but there has also been a lot of prevention by special interests and courts for expansion or starting a business.
If ABC Widget factory wanted to open up shop in Dayton Ohio it would be a nightmare trying to do so.
As far as companies failing like GE and Chrysler for example it was based upon bad business models for the most part. I am not too fond of Corporate welfare like for instance all the ethanol subsidies ADM gets
As far as corporations its not one party or politician in bed with them. They have infested DC.
If ABC Widget factory wanted to open up shop in Dayton Ohio it would be a nightmare trying to do so.
That is mainly because of two reasons: A) corporations protect their profits by stymieing growth B) Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake -- the calling card of the modern unchecked "Democrat"
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:56 AM
I bet he had a Koran placed inside the Lincoln Bible when he was sworn in on 1/20.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/20006-obama-sends-haj-aidiladha-greetings
Bob Impact
11-27-2009, 08:33 AM
Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You don't want more government involvement, but you take numerous issues with the current economic mess which is largely the result of so many of these big corporations doing whatever the fuck they want thanks to the massive deregulation we've seen over the last 25+ years. So what's the answer? Letting the "free market" go nuts hasn't worked out...you don't want the government getting involved...so what kind of economy do you want to see?
When has there been a free market in this country?
TheMojoPin
11-27-2009, 08:44 AM
When has there been a free market in this country?
There hasn't been a truly free market, which is why I said "free market" with the quotes. My point is even just heading towards some semblence of a free market thanks to the frenzy of deregulation we ended up in this mess, so why is a truly free market something people still want to see? It seems like that would just compound the problems we're seeing now. I don't want to see a marketplace dominated by the government, but it seems there has to be some kind of balance.
foodcourtdruide
11-27-2009, 08:52 AM
When has there been a free market in this country?
This is like asking "when has the tooth fairy ever done anything for me?" In a country our size a free market would ultimately lead to a dictatorship. For there to be a "free-market" we'd have to get rid of anti-monopoly laws. Free-market is not synonymous with competition. It actually leads to the exact opposite.
When has there been a free market in this country?
Early on -- during the Articles of Confederation years and on in to the early/mid 1800s when the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to regulate things, thus causing a string of events that led to the New Deal Court and the Rehnquist Court upholding it.
Bob Impact
11-27-2009, 10:04 AM
There hasn't been a truly free market, which is why I said "free market" with the quotes. My point is even just heading towards some semblence of a free market thanks to the frenzy of deregulation we ended up in this mess, so why is a truly free market something people still want to see? It seems like that would just compound the problems we're seeing now. I don't want to see a marketplace dominated by the government, but it seems there has to be some kind of balance.
It seems to me like government regulation of the market has caused every single one of these problems, continually drives inflation and devalues or money all while every increasing our debt load... you're right, government regulation is really working... can't wait till they take care of Healthcare too!
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 10:13 AM
It seems to me like government regulation of the market has caused every single one of these problems, continually drives inflation and devalues or money all while every increasing our debt load... you're right, government regulation is really working... can't wait till they take care of Healthcare too!
I love when these political hookers say that Insuance companies will pay more taxes. Who the fuck are they kidding? Theres a saying that corporations dont pay taxes, they collect taxes. It will be passed onto the consumer
As far as the housing bubble One factor that caused the housing bubble was Greenspans cheap money policy. FNMA and FRE guaranteeding trillions of dollars of nothing but worthless paper. Also government pushing programs for buying houses with nothing down
It seems to me like government regulation of the market has caused every single one of these problems, continually drives inflation and devalues or money all while every increasing our debt load... you're right, government regulation is really working... can't wait till they take care of Healthcare too!
You do realize that America was a failed state with a free market, right? The libertarian style of government barely lasted 7 years till everyone realized how untenable it was.
As far as the housing bubble One factor that caused the housing bubble was Greenspans cheap money policy. FNMA and FRE guaranteeding trillions of dollars of nothing but worthless paper. Also government pushing programs for buying houses with nothing down
wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong
The housing bubble was caused by 2 very specific things, one moreso than the other
1) The largest cause was the drive for home ownership: the tax breaks it caused as well as the "American Dream" pushed people into buying homes they could scarcely afford. Even prime loans were given to people who had terrible debt to income ratios.
2) Repeal of Glass Steagal -- it allowed "banks" to operate without any oversight and were free to begin using imaginary money (derivatives) for tangible things (homes, buildings and lands). The second the inevitable happened and the imaginary money could no longer be infinitely leveraged, we had the crash happen.
foodcourtdruide
11-27-2009, 10:18 AM
You do realize that America was a failed state with a free market, right? The libertarian style of government barely lasted 7 years till everyone realized how untenable it was.
It seems so logically impossible to me. Power would become centralized.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 10:21 AM
wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong
The housing bubble was caused by 2 very specific things, one moreso than the other
1) The largest cause was the drive for home ownership: the tax breaks it caused as well as the "American Dream" pushed people into buying homes they could scarcely afford. Even prime loans were given to people who had terrible debt to income ratios.
2) Repeal of Glass Steagal -- it allowed "banks" to operate without any oversight and were free to begin using imaginary money (derivatives) for tangible things (homes, buildings and lands). The second the inevitable happened and the imaginary money could no longer be infinitely leveraged, we had the crash happen.
That wasn't the only factor but it was a contributor. Rates were set artificaly low. Yes Glass Steagle being repealed in '99 was a cause as well. This caused Firms like Bear being leveraged 30 to 1 when in normal circumstances its about 10-1
The bubble had to burst. Home prices were rising while there was a huge supply of houses. These developers would be cranking out houses at record pace
That wasn't the only factor but it was a contributor. Rates were set artificaly low. Yes Glass Steagle being repealed in '99 was a cause as well. This caused Firms like Bear being leveraged 30 to 1 when in normal circumstances its about 10-1
The bubble had to burst. Home prices were rising while there was a huge supply of houses. These developers would be cranking out houses at record pace
Even if rates were higher, the same thing would have happened. It contributed to it, but it wasn't the cause.
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 11:37 AM
Even those who were die hard Obama supporters during his campaign are beginning to see how badly they were hoodwinked.
They bought his act hook, line, and sinker and can't believe he's dragging them down along with the country.
Talk about buyer's remorse...
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 12:01 PM
1) The largest cause was the drive for home ownership: the tax breaks it caused as well as the "American Dream" pushed people into buying homes they could scarcely afford. Even prime loans were given to people who had terrible debt to income ratios.
I blame stupid people for buying what they clearly could not afford. No one forced them to sign. No matter what some salesman says, personal responsibility for one's decisions trumps all.
Also, people buying shit they do not need, with money they do not have. Kinda like the government lately. And people having babies they cannot support.
Jujubees2
11-27-2009, 12:08 PM
Even those who were die hard Obama supporters during his campaign are beginning to see how badly they were hoodwinked.
They bought his act hook, line, and sinker and can't believe he's dragging them down along with the country.
Talk about buyer's remorse...
Pray tell, please explain....
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:09 PM
Even those who were die hard Obama supporters during his campaign are beginning to see how badly they were hoodwinked.
They bought his act hook, line, and sinker and can't believe he's dragging them down along with the country.
Talk about buyer's remorse...
He's losing support among independents, Its not looking too good for him now. I know theres a lot of time btwn now and '12 but he continues like this he will be a 1 termer unless the GOP is stupid and nominates Palin
Even the progressives want to "spank" him
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/27/liberals-vow-spank-obama-sending-troops-afghanistan/
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:14 PM
Pray tell, please explain....
I think he means that the Aura of Obama has faded and while The energetic unstoppable force that was Senator Obama could not change Washington
underdog
11-27-2009, 12:18 PM
I think he means that the Aura of Obama has faded and while The energetic unstoppable force that was Senator Obama could not change Washington
I think he meant he wanted him to explain why he said what he did. What exactly has happened to lead to people being "hoodwinked".
But answering in empty catch phrases and useless statements works, too, I suppose.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:20 PM
I think he meant he wanted him to explain why he said what he did. What exactly has happened to lead to people being "hoodwinked".
But answering in empty catch phrases and useless statements works, too, I suppose.
Empty Catchphrases like Hope and Change? how about Creating and Saving, Saving and Creating.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/02/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_dtv/index.htm?postversion=2009110314
underdog
11-27-2009, 12:26 PM
Empty Catchphrases like Hope and Change? how about Creating and Saving, Saving and Creating.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/02/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_dtv/index.htm?postversion=2009110314
Exactly.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:28 PM
Obama's not a Socialist , Communist or Marxist. He lives in a huge mansion, has his own private jet, servants and personal security for the rest of his life. When he's no longer President do you expect him to live on Chicago's south side? Are his daughters going to the fine DC Public school system? Obama is Bourgeoisie
Empty Catchphrases like Hope and Change? how about Creating and Saving, Saving and Creating.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/02/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_dtv/index.htm?postversion=2009110314
WAIT A SECOND. YOU MEAN A TEMPORARY INFLUX OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS WILL NOT CREATE JOBS THAT LAST FOREVER EVEN AFTER THE MONEY THAT PAID FOR THEM DRIED UP!? DOWN WITH OBAMA ARGLE BARGLE ARGLE BARGLE ARGLE BARGLE!
Obama's not a Socialist , Communist or Marxist. He lives in a huge mansion, has his own private jet, servants and personal security for the rest of his life. When he's no longer President do you expect him to live on Chicago's south side? Are his daughters going to the fine DC Public school system? Obama is Bourgeoisie
That's what's great about Obama. He's every bad thing you can call him, even if one insult directly contradicts the other. When there's no thought behind it, you can say anything you want!
I blame stupid people for buying what they clearly could not afford. No one forced them to sign. No matter what some salesman says, personal responsibility for one's decisions trumps all.
Also, people buying shit they do not need, with money they do not have. Kinda like the government lately. And people having babies they cannot support.
Most Americans can't afford the homes they live in now. Their debt to income ratio is atrocious and their personal savings are lackluster at best. It wasn't the people getting sub-prime loans, it was everyone. If your debt to income ratio isn't single digits going into a home purchase, you should just keep on renting.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:37 PM
WAIT A SECOND. YOU MEAN A TEMPORARY INFLUX OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS WILL NOT CREATE JOBS THAT LAST FOREVER EVEN AFTER THE MONEY THAT PAID FOR THEM DRIED UP!? DOWN WITH OBAMA ARGLE BARGLE ARGLE BARGLE ARGLE BARGLE!
Temporary jobs are going to really save everything?? Even the communist Chinese are concerned that they loaned us close to 800 billion for this stimulus. This was from back in March and it hasnt gotten better
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/china.wen/index.html
Temporary jobs are going to really save everything?? Even the communist Chinese are concerned that they loaned us close to 800 billion for this stimulus. This was from back in March and it hasnt gotten better
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/china.wen/index.html
They're worried that we're not buying their shit because that money hasn't helped much. Do you really think a 5% return on that means shit compared to how many useless items we buy from them over the course of the year?
Also the Chinese aren't communists, they're capitalists in the purest form.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:41 PM
They're worried that we're not buying their shit because that money hasn't helped much. Do you really think a 5% return on that means shit compared to how many useless items we buy from them over the course of the year?
Also the Chinese aren't communists, they're capitalists in the purest form.
787 billion going in the form of hundreds of billions in transfer payments and Welfare should worry the Chinese
787 billion going in the form of hundreds of billions in transfer payments and Welfare should worry the Chinese
The return on the money means shit, it's whether or not them buying debt helps the American consumer buy their cheap shit. We've already bought $100bn less shit from them than from last year, don't you think that concerns them more?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 12:45 PM
That's what's great about Obama. He's every bad thing you can call him, even if one insult directly contradicts the other. When there's no thought behind it, you can say anything you want!
True, Muslims don't go to Church
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 12:54 PM
What a great "transparent" Presidency! :lol:
high fly
11-27-2009, 12:59 PM
True, Muslims don't go to Church
That sneaky secret Muslim Obomber did!
Sumbitch decided over 20 years ago he was going to be president and would have to trick people into thinking he was Christian so he posed as one, going to church, talking about being saved and all.
It was just part of his FIENDISH MASTER PLAN to destroy America!
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 01:35 PM
Most Americans can't afford the homes they live in now. Their debt to income ratio is atrocious and their personal savings are lackluster at best. It wasn't the people getting sub-prime loans, it was everyone. If your debt to income ratio isn't single digits going into a home purchase, you should just keep on renting.
For the most part (real hardship aside), all of this is due to personal decisions about what to buy, when, with what, and how many fucking babies to have.
Bob Impact
11-27-2009, 01:44 PM
For the most part (real hardship aside), all of this is due to personal decisions about what to buy, when, with what, and how many fucking babies to have.
^.
Sarah and I do very well and we've passed on several houses we love now because they could have put us in position to be strained financially... we can all argue about politics all day long but the biggest problem is and will remain personal responsibility.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 02:00 PM
I didnt think it was a big deal that a couple of wanna be socialites crashed the State Dinner and got past Secret Service agents, but if this happened when Dubya was president Crazy Keith Olbermann would have gone batshit insane and probably would have done a special comment
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 02:04 PM
^.
Sarah and I do very well and we've passed on several houses we love now because they could have put us in position to be strained financially... we can all argue about politics all day long but the biggest problem is and will remain personal responsibility.
When I was looking to buy last year, The Mortgage brokers tried to convince me that I was able to go over budget, this was after Lehmans collapse and when everything went ballistic. My range was 250-275K They wanted me to go for over 300k, with an ARM. I told them no deal. Ended up buying a place much less than that and with a fixed rate
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 02:17 PM
You'd criticize any Democrat in the White House right now. HBox's point is that your claims that you felt this way for most of Bush's second term ring hollow since you didn't seem motivated at all to say so. During Bush's time in office we'd see a post from your here or there on the board (if it was ever political it would be on immigration and not much else) and then you were gone. Now you're here daily dropping at least a dozen posts every day about what a horrible situation we're in. That doesn't mean that you can't have sound points, but it does seem rather hypocritical that you weren't this worked up until the Democrats took back the White House. It has nothing to do with race and seemingly everything to do with politics.
Since it is a political forum, why shouldn’t WF and others feel free to get worked up about Dem control of the WH and Congress and their actions? Why should posting history be a factor at all? Also, I think it’s unfair to claim that he “rings hollow” and that he’s “hypocritical”. I for one think that WF nicely balances the scales here and stimulates some really good back-and-forth. All that said, I don’t see you, as a mod, chastising people on the other side of the fence for analogous behavior (not that you should, actually, I’m just saying… But just once - lemme see it). I love discussing the discussion.
Furtherman
11-27-2009, 02:25 PM
I didnt think it was a big deal that a couple of wanna be socialites crashed the State Dinner and got past Secret Service agents, but if this happened when Dubya was president Crazy Keith Olbermann would have gone batshit insane and probably would have done a special comment
It did happen to Bush. Clinton too. These aren't the first people to crash. Look up the Handshake man.
Temporary jobs are going to really save everything?? Even the communist Chinese are concerned that they loaned us close to 800 billion for this stimulus. This was from back in March and it hasnt gotten better
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/china.wen/index.html
You act like doing nothing was an option. You actually think that we would be in a better position right now had we not done the stimulus and allowed the unemployment rate to skyrocket even higher? It's really easy to sit back and criticize an awful choice with only bad options. If he hadn't done the stimulus and the unemployment rate was well over 10% you'd be complaining about lightweight Obama who was too scared to do anything. Because that's really what it's all about. Attacking Obama for ANY reason.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 02:34 PM
Since it is a political forum, why shouldn’t WF and others feel free to get worked up about Dem control of the WH and Congress and their actions? Why should posting history be a factor at all? Also, I think it’s unfair to claim that he “rings hollow” and that he’s “hypocritical”. I for one think that WF nicely balances the scales here and stimulates some really good back-and-forth. All that said, I don’t see you, as a mod, chastising people on the other side of the fence for analogous behavior (not that you should, actually, I’m just saying… But just once - lemme see it). I love discussing the discussion.
I don't criticize only Dems, there are a lot of people in the GOP who I am not a fan of and I mentioned them like McCain, Newt, Collins et al. I am not one of these follow the party guys at all
If someone who appeals to my views which is more of a libertarian philosophy runs on the GOP ticket, they have my vote. For example here in CT we need to Dump Dodd. Linda McMahon is running but the person who has my support is Peter Schiff who is also running on the GOP Ticket
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 02:37 PM
You act like doing nothing was an option. You actually think that we would be in a better position right now had we not done the stimulus and allowed the unemployment rate to skyrocket even higher? It's really easy to sit back and criticize an awful choice with only bad options. If he hadn't done the stimulus and the unemployment rate was well over 10% you'd be complaining about lightweight Obama who was too scared to do anything. Because that's really what it's all about. Attacking Obama for ANY reason.
I was opposed to all this spending from when things started in Early 2008 ie Bushs 170 billion stimulus, to the bailout of Bear, then the 300 billion housing bill, then bailing out FNMA & FRE, Then AIG on and on and on
Obama ran saying that he wasn't into fear politics, but he said that if the Stimulus didn't pass its the end of the world, Same thing with healthcare. Everyone who went apeshit about the AIG Bonuses didnt bother to read the fucking thing
When everyone else went crazy about the missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, I gave him credit for that.
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 02:51 PM
[SIZE="2"]I don't criticize only Dems, there are a lot of people in the GOP who I am not a fan of and I mentioned them like McCain, Newt, Collins et al. I am not one of these follow the party guys at all
If someone who appeals to my views which is more of a libertarian philosophy runs on the GOP ticket, they have my vote. For example here in CT we need to Dump Dodd. Linda McMahon is running but the person who has my support is Peter Schiff who is also running on the GOP Ticket
I definitely see that. That's a risk I took in responding to something directed to you and thus appearing to try to "speak for you". Glad you clarified it.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 02:59 PM
Im not the Hannity type to bash Obama for having state dinners in war time or during a huge recession, I know thats part of being President, they are supossed to do things like that from time to time. However I do think that Menu sucked big time but thats my opinion
Bob Impact
11-27-2009, 03:07 PM
Since it is a political forum, why shouldn’t WF and others feel free to get worked up about Dem control of the WH and Congress and their actions? Why should posting history be a factor at all? Also, I think it’s unfair to claim that he “rings hollow” and that he’s “hypocritical”. I for one think that WF nicely balances the scales here and stimulates some really good back-and-forth. All that said, I don’t see you, as a mod, chastising people on the other side of the fence for analogous behavior (not that you should, actually, I’m just saying… But just once - lemme see it). I love discussing the discussion.
I tend to lean towards WF in my opinions but Mojo, you saying anyone's opinion "rings hollow" because they're partisan is hysterical.
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 03:18 PM
I don’t think people have a problem with spending in order to “stimulate” the economy, but some have an issue with it’s how it was/is spent. The stimulus bill represents an extraordinary amount of money. Some necessary – for unemployment benefits, support for essential state/county/city services, some infrastructure projects, and some good R&D. But it’s questionable as to what the benefit of a LOT of it will be. A reasonable person will have a hard time not seeing that literally hundreds of billions of dollars are going towards questionable wish-list projects that have no real long term benefit to the country. In the face of immense debt the money could’ve been much better spent, or perhaps just NOT spent at all, had bho worked much better with Pelosi and Reid and the other side of the aisle.
As for healthcare, this is really questionable. No one is saying that some sort of reform is not necessary, but the WH and congress options appear ill-advised. They not only impose arbitrary regulations, standards, and metrics on 1/6 of our economy, but rely on questionable taxes downstream, Medicare cuts, and a fund for the uninsured that will be gone in a few years. In fact, the options do not address actual health care costs AT ALL and so called “savings” are dependent on budgetary gimmicks that simply will not stand the test of time and electorate changes. If WH estimation prowess is any gauge so far (present and past btw), they will be way off in actuality. There is nothing to address competition or malpractice costs, nothing in fact that addresses costs at all! Also, what about taxing employer-provided benefits to pay for it - actually tie taxes and scale it to those who benefit from it instead of some kind of arbitrary bullshit "rich tax"? These options we have are partisan entitlement messes that do not nearly involve all the stakeholders needed for such a huge initiative and they will unfortunately, most probably, in the end, fall way way short of expectations and cost a literal fortune.
underdog
11-27-2009, 03:20 PM
Im not the Hannity type to bash Obama for having state dinners in war time or during a huge recession, I know thats part of being President, they are supossed to do things like that from time to time. However I do think that Menu sucked big time but thats my opinion
The fact that something as trivial as the food served at a state dinner bothers you means you're exactly like Hannity.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 03:28 PM
The fact that something as trivial as the food served at a state dinner bothers you means you're exactly like Hannity.
That wasn't a serious criticism per se. I hope you didn't take it literally
I really dont care if they had Waterford crystal China or not
I don’t think people have a problem with spending in order to “stimulate” the economy, but some have an issue with it’s how it was/is spent. The stimulus bill represents an extraordinary amount of money. Some necessary – for unemployment benefits, support for essential state/county/city services, some infrastructure projects, and some good R&D. But it’s questionable as to what the benefit of a LOT of it will be. A reasonable person will have a hard time not seeing that literally hundreds of billions of dollars are going towards questionable wish-list projects that have no real long term benefit to the country. In the face of immense debt the money could’ve been much better spent, or perhaps just NOT spent at all, had bho worked much better with Pelosi and Reid and the other side of the aisle.
As for healthcare, this is really questionable. No one is saying that some sort of reform is not necessary, but the WH and congress options appear ill-advised. They not only impose arbitrary regulations, standards, and metrics on 1/6 of our economy, but rely on questionable taxes downstream, Medicare cuts, and a fund for the uninsured that will be gone in a few years. In fact, the options do not address actual health care costs AT ALL and so called “savings” are dependent on budgetary gimmicks that simply will not stand the test of time and electorate changes. If WH estimation prowess is any gauge so far (present and past btw), they will be way off in actuality. There is nothing to address competition or malpractice costs, nothing in fact that addresses costs at all! Also, what about taxing employer-provided benefits to pay for it - actually tie taxes and scale it to those who benefit from it instead of some kind of arbitrary bullshit "rich tax"? These options we have are partisan entitlement messes that do not nearly involve all the stakeholders needed for such a huge initiative and they will unfortunately, most probably, in the end, fall way way short of expectations and cost a literal fortune.
There's a lot of sure we should be doing this but....... stuff going on here. First of all for the stimulus: It had to be done quickly. And, yes, it HAD to be done. They needed to hurry up and get that money out there. You say pet projects but ANYTHING being spent would qualify. It's all representatives getting money to their districts for jobs. Unless the pet project is "Iowa's Giant Valley of Barrel's Full O' Burning Money" these pet projects create jobs.
As for your criticisms of the health care bill, they couldn't be more wrong. You can read about everything they are doing to control costs right here. (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php)
I'm sorry but this argument infuriates me. This whole "Oh we should do this..... but not now, not like this" spiel. It's why we've had such a crappy health care system for so long. No plan is going to be perfect right out of the box. Certainly nothing this big. But if they don't do anything now nothing will be attempted for another 14 years and costs will continue to skyrocket, people will continue to suffer and die and the next time it comes around we'll hear the same fucking thing. "Eh, not this, not now."
I don't criticize only Dems, there are a lot of people in the GOP who I am not a fan of and I mentioned them like McCain, Newt, Collins et al. I am not one of these follow the party guys at all
If someone who appeals to my views which is more of a libertarian philosophy runs on the GOP ticket, they have my vote. For example here in CT we need to Dump Dodd. Linda McMahon is running but the person who has my support is Peter Schiff who is also running on the GOP Ticket
I will grant you that occasionally you take a brief, token jab at a Republican amongst your dozens of posts a day slamming Obama.
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:28 PM
You act like doing nothing was an option. You actually think that we would be in a better position right now had we not done the stimulus and allowed the unemployment rate to skyrocket even higher? It's really easy to sit back and criticize an awful choice with only bad options. If he hadn't done the stimulus and the unemployment rate was well over 10% you'd be complaining about lightweight Obama who was too scared to do anything. Because that's really what it's all about. Attacking Obama for ANY reason.
Of course you are correct. Down where I live, stimulus money provided for som much-needed road improvements and built a health center for people who really needed one in the country, among other things. Ain't no way McCain or a President Palin or Romney or Huckabee or any of the rest would have been able to do better with no banks and the automobile industry belly-up.
Conservatives are better at making these messes than cleaning them up and when it comes to fixing things, they just get in the way.
That is pretty much all conservatives have done through our history.
They just get in the way of progress and freedom.
* The conservatives, then as now known as "Tories," sided with the team that came in second place during our Revolution and lots of them got sent back to Britain aboard ships because we didn't want their kind around.
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to abolishing slavery
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to giving women the vote
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to bringing electricity to rural America when 90% of them had none
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to passing the Civil Rights Act
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to passing the Voting Rights Act
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to cleaning the smog from over our cities and giving us clean water
* The conservatives just get in the way when it it comes to giving gays equal rights. They will gain equality, and it will be in spite of the efforts of conservatives standing in the way.
When it comes to improving the lives of Americans, it is those to the left of the political spectrum which have led the way and the righties have stood in the way and gotten run over, eventually, each time.
This time will be no different........
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:32 PM
The fact that something as trivial as the food served at a state dinner bothers you means you're exactly like Hannity.
Yup.
If I get a chance, I'll try to watch how much time Manatee spends on the menu on Monday's show.....
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:32 PM
I will grant you that occasionally you take a brief, token jab at a Republican amongst your dozens of posts a day slamming Obama.
For 8 years im sure there were posts slamming Bush. Im sure many Bush voters had a lot of gripes with him. I know I did, but It seems that many Obama supporters think he can do no wrong
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:34 PM
Yup.
If I get a chance, I'll try to watch how much time Manatee spends on the menu on Monday's show.....
Queef Slobberman sounds funnier
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 05:34 PM
For 8 years im sure there were posts slamming Bush. Im sure many Bush voters had a lot of gripes with him. I know I did, but It seems that many Obama supporters think he can do no wrong
Agreed. Blind obedience always disturbs me.
People will slay someone on the other side of the aisle for a misstep, but if one of "theirs" does THE EXACT SAME THING they've got a list of excuses a mile long.
Call it like it is.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of whether the politician has a "D" or an "R" after their name.
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:34 PM
Anyone can just bitch bitch bitch..............
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 05:36 PM
There's a lot of sure we should be doing this but....... stuff going on here. First of all for the stimulus: It had to be done quickly. And, yes, it HAD to be done. They needed to hurry up and get that money out there. You say pet projects but ANYTHING being spent would qualify. It's all representatives getting money to their districts for jobs. Unless the pet project is "Iowa's Giant Valley of Barrel's Full O' Burning Money" these pet projects create jobs.
As for your criticisms of the health care bill, they couldn't be more wrong. You can read about everything they are doing to control costs right here. (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/a_milestone_in_the_health_care_journey.php)
I'm sorry but this argument infuriates me. This whole "Oh we should do this..... but not now, not like this" spiel. It's why we've had such a crappy health care system for so long. No plan is going to be perfect right out of the box. Certainly nothing this big. But if they don't do anything now nothing will be attempted for another 14 years and costs will continue to skyrocket, people will continue to suffer and die and the next time it comes around we'll hear the same fucking thing. "Eh, not this, not now."
The gov’t can piss away $ like the best of ‘em. They certainly didn’t need that amount of spending for essentials. It’s incredible that people can actually stand up and try to defend the totality of that bill. All that spending in that bill does not, simply cannot, actually end up “creating jobs”. How many documented jobs have actually been created so far? ... Anyway, let’s just say they’ve “saved or created” 1,000,000 jobs so far and spent say half of it. That’s about $400,000 per job. Sign me up! Or even let’s say they’ve spent ¼ of it and created 2,000,000 jobs. That about $100,000 per job. Not bad! I’d love to see a rundown of those 2,000,000 $100,000 jobs. Even though none of that is actually true. I know I exaggerate a bit and have taken some liberties, but so does that bill. It’s helpful, but it’s a disaster in terms of spending many many 100s of billions of dollars that simply should not have been spent in that way.
In the healthcare post, it’s a point of view. Points of view are all good, but, my impression is that it’s distinctly a left of center one and does a “good” sales job – it sounds good but there are few specifics. They remain partisan bills lacking real input and consensus from relevant stakeholders. Period. I see in there the author quotes this gem in the second para:
“but I can't think of a thing to try that they didn't try. They really make the best effort anyone has ever made. Everything is in here....I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing.’ …”
Hmmmm. That kind of sets the tone. Then again it makes good talking points:
Obama makes a Ron Brownstein blog post mandatory reading for the West Wing (http://www.politico.com/playbook/1109/playbook874.html)
No one is saying “not now”. What’s being said is “not this”.
Of course you are correct. Down where I live, stimulus money provided for som much-needed road improvements and built a health center for people who really needed one in the country, among other things. Ain't no way McCain or a President Palin or Romney or Huckabee or any of the rest would have been able to do better with no banks and the automobile industry belly-up.
Conservatives are better at making these messes than cleaning them up and when it comes to fixing things, they just get in the way.
That is pretty much all conservatives have done through our history.
They just get in the way of progress and freedom.
* The conservatives, then as now known as "Tories," sided with the team that came in second place during our Revolution and lots of them got sent back to Britain aboard ships because we didn't want their kind around.
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to abolishing slavery
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to giving women the vote
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to bringing electricity to rural America when 90% of them had none
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to passing the Civil Rights Act
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to passing the Voting Rights Act
* The conservatives just got in the way when it came to cleaning the smog from over our cities and giving us clean water
* The conservatives just get in the way when it it comes to giving gays equal rights. They will gain equality, and it will be in spite of the efforts of conservatives standing in the way.
When it comes to improving the lives of Americans, it is those to the left of the political spectrum which have led the way and the righties have stood in the way and gotten run over, eventually, each time.
This time will be no different........
Whenever people are suffering, liberalism comes to the rescue. There hasn't been a popular revolution to succeed without the far left being extensively involved.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:38 PM
Agreed. Blind obedience always disturbs me.
People will slay someone on the other side of the aisle for a misstep, but if one of "theirs" does THE EXACT SAME THING they've got a list of excuses a mile long.
Call it like it is.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of whether the politician has a "D" or an "R" after their name.
Bush had his Bushisms and was properly calld out for saying things like Internets and the google. Obama says 57 states, kids shouldnt get Breathalzers, A cop acted stupidly he gets called out. Immediately you hear RACIST RACIST!!!!
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:39 PM
WF: Im not the Hannity type to bash Obama for having state dinners in war time or during a huge recession, I know thats part of being President, they are supossed to do things like that from time to time. However I do think that Menu sucked big time but thats my opinion
UNDERDOG: The fact that something as trivial as the food served at a state dinner bothers you means you're exactly like Hannity.
HF: Yup.
If I get a chance, I'll try to watch how much time Manatee spends on the menu on Monday's show.....
Queef Slobberman sounds funnier
[high fly just shakes his head ruefully]
underdog
11-27-2009, 05:42 PM
It seems that many Obama supporters think he can do no wrong
Then you're not paying attention.
You keep throwing out these phrases you think people use to describe Obama (like messiah), but you're the ONLY PERSON HERE using them. The only people anywhere using them are the foxnews fans who hear other dumb people using them on Fox.
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:43 PM
Whenever people are suffering, liberalism comes to the rescue. There hasn't been a popular revolution to succeed without the far left being extensively involved.
I gave a few highlights of things the left has achieved for Americans, this is a golden opportunity for the conservatives her to put up a similar list so we can compare.
I think we can expect them to avoid even trying.........
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:44 PM
Then you're not paying attention.
You keep throwing out these phrases you think people use to describe Obama (like messiah), but you're the ONLY PERSON HERE using them. The only people anywhere using them are the foxnews fans who hear other dumb people using them on Fox.
I didnt say Anyone on this board thinks he is the Chosen one but there are a lot of naive uninformed lemmings who think he is. IE the people in Detroit getting money from his secret stash. You don't find that disturbing??
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:46 PM
I gave a few highlights of things the left has achieved for Americans, this is a golden opportunity for the conservatives her to put up a similar list so we can compare.
I think we can expect them to avoid even trying.........
Social Security? The great society? Medicare and Medicaid? Open Borders? yes those are symbols of success
high fly
11-27-2009, 05:46 PM
Then you're not paying attention.
See my post above yours.
You keep throwing out these phrases you think people use to describe Obama (like messiah), but you're the ONLY PERSON HERE using them. The only people anywhere using them are the foxnews fans who hear other dumb people using them on Fox.
Not exactly making a case for not being a glassy-eyed zombie, mindlessly parroting the right-wing pundits, with head lolling from side to side like Terry Schiavo watching a balloon..........
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 05:48 PM
See my post above yours.
Not exactly making a case for not being a glassy-eyed zombie, mindlessly parroting the right-wing pundits, with head lolling from side to side like Terry Schiavo watching a balloon..........
Those were many many O'bots what I like to call them
Oh yes Ted Kennedy was such a compassionate man. With other peoples money!!!
I don't live and die for any politician. Lou Dobbs wants to start pandering? Fuck him!!!! If I succeed or fail its on me. I don't need any politician either left or right lecturing to me about religion, how I should spend my money or what car to drive or saying that I dont contribute enough in taxes
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 05:54 PM
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d16/TheQuestion202/ObamaJoker.jpg
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:00 PM
His next book should be. Dreams from my father.... Who abandoned me
Or about his college days. The Audacity of Coke
I gave a few highlights of things the left has achieved for Americans, this is a golden opportunity for the conservatives her to put up a similar list so we can compare.
I think we can expect them to avoid even trying.........
There are victories for the right, but they won't admit to them. My favorite being the closest thing to a benevolent emperor, Napoleon, who helped spread social reforms throughout Europe (Napoleonic code, Metric System, Universieties, etc) Rosetta Stone and helped break apart the hegemony of Monarchs in Europe.
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 06:03 PM
I gave a few highlights of things the left has achieved for Americans, this is a golden opportunity for the conservatives her to put up a similar list so we can compare.
I think we can expect them to avoid even trying.........
Off the top:
Lincoln - Republican, Emancipation Proclamation
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - try again - Southern Dems filibustered it and failed. Byrd was (still is?) a HUGE opponent
Tories - good riddance! Who the fuck cares?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:07 PM
Off the top:
Lincoln - Republican, Emancipation Proclamation
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - try again - Southern Dems filibustered it and failed. Byrd was (still is?) a HUGE opponent
Tories - good riddance! Who the fuck cares?
When they unveil a statue of Robert Byrd will it be covered in a sheet first?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Tories - good riddance! Who the fuck cares?
Let him stay with the Dodgers
[SIZE="2"]
Off the top:
Lincoln - Republican, Emancipation Proclamation
Lincoln is also the conservatives' worst enemy. He's the original person to expand the central government to something that it had never been before -- an absolute power in the union with higher authority than any state or group of states. Also, too bad every other country had abolished it several decades before hand and by using legal means. That and Lincoln was quite liberal -- if the expansion of government wasn't enough to sell you, just remember that he had earmarked a considerable amount of money for government spending to rebuild the South. So, as Republicans so lovingly say -- Lincoln was a RINO.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - try again - Southern Dems filibustered it and failed.
Southern Democrats of that era are commonly considered Republicans nowadays. Pro states rights/pro limited government. So, as Democrats so lovingly say -- Dixiecrats were DINO.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Many Obama supporters say that "Obama is going to give me XYZ or Obama is going to provide me this. However they dont realize that in order for that to happen, It had to be taken away from someone else to "give" to them
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 06:25 PM
Lincoln is also the conservatives' worst enemy. He's the original person to expand the central government to something that it had never been before -- an absolute power in the union with higher authority than any state or group of states. Also, too bad every other country had abolished it several decades before hand and by using legal means. That and Lincoln was quite liberal -- if the expansion of government wasn't enough to sell you, just remember that he had earmarked a considerable amount of money for government spending to rebuild the South. So, as Republicans so lovingly say -- Lincoln was a RINO.
Southern Democrats of that era are commonly considered Republicans nowadays. Pro states rights/pro limited government. So, as Democrats so lovingly say -- Dixiecrats were DINO.
Want to claim Lincoln for the left, sorry - with all his faults he remains Republican and you can't have him. As for Byrd, oh that's right! He's still Democrat and still in office! No prob, you can have him. Some DINO you got there!
edit: By the way, his power stemmed from the Constitution, during wartime. And not every other country, or even most (or any) others had "abolished it several decades before hand and by using legal means".
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:26 PM
This is what I mean by naive ignorant childish voters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:27 PM
Want to claim Lincoln for the left, sorry - with all his faults he remains Republican and you can't have him. As for Byrd, oh that's right! He's still Democrat and still in office! No prob, you can have him. Some DINO you got there!
You got that right, the fuckers a Dinosaur whats he about 95?
high fly
11-27-2009, 06:28 PM
Many Obama supporters say that "Obama is going to give me XYZ or Obama is going to provide me this. However they dont realize that in order for that to happen, It had to be taken away from someone else to "give" to them
Yeah, I hear Laura Ingraham playing that same tape over and over and heard her play it the other night when she interviewed Palin.
Same with Hannity, who is still playing it and wheeled it out the other day when he had the guy from Lynard Skynard on. That was in the first hour of the show, wasn't it?
Please familiarize yourself with the American tax system's history. We have had a progressive tax system since the founding of the nation.We have always had some pay for things others enjoyed.
The great trick of the conservatives has been the way they have convinced those in middle class income groups to take more of the tax burden carried by the wealthy. They never point out that when the riche were taxed more, they got along just fine.... but they have patises who will spout anything they put out on shows like Ingraham and Hannity.......
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:31 PM
Yeah, I hear Laura Ingraham playing that same tape over and over and heard her play it the other night when she interviewed Palin.
Same with Hannity, who is still playying it and wheeled it out the other day when he had the guy from Lynard Skynard on...
Please familiarize yourself with the American tax system's history. We have had a progressive tax system since the founding of the nation.We have always had some pay for things others enjoyed.
The great trick of the conservatives has been the way they have convinced those in middle class income groups to take more of the tax burden carried by the wealthy. They never point out that when the riche were taxed more, they got along just fine.... but they have patises who will spout anything they put out on shows like Ingraham and Hannity.......
I love you you bring up taxes. Yes they are needed to fund basic functions of Government. Was there really taxes levied so someone can pump out kids every 9 months?
Look at states like CA, NJ and NY with State Income taxes, those are beacons of fiscal responsibilities
I dont mind if someones a Single Mother if she can afford to have them fine.
Like the old saying goes, when you take from Peter to give to paul, you always get pauls vote
Want to claim Lincoln for the left, sorry - with all his faults he remains Republican and you can't have him. As for Byrd, oh that's right! He's still Democrat and still in office! No prob, you can have him. Some DINO you got there!
edit: By the way, his power stemmed from the Constitution, during wartime. And not every other country, or even most (or any) others had "abolished it several decades before hand and by using legal means".
So Republicans are pro big government, pro central authority and pro election rigging? :clap:
No wonder you all were so behind Bush.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:35 PM
So Republicans are pro big government, pro central authority and pro election rigging? :clap:
No wonder you all were so behind Bush.
Bush expanded the Government the most since LBJ he was no conservative
high fly
11-27-2009, 06:38 PM
[SIZE="2"]
Want to claim Lincoln for the left, sorry - with all his faults he remains Republican and you can't have him.
Sorry, but you have been lied to by right-wing pundits who know you won't go looking up the history yourself. Maybe this time you'll learn so they don't play you for a patsy again.
Back then, the Republican Party was by and large a progressive party leaning to the left.
They were not conservative at all, overall.
By the sam token, you may want to catch up on more recent political history before the pundits make a fool of you on more recent trends.
The Democratic Party once dominated Dixie the way the Republicans do now. It was called "The Solid South." Then civil rights came along and split the party. The conservative Democrats who were opposed to civil rights went over to the Republicans.
Right wing icon Jesse Helms was a Democrat back then.
So was Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond had a piss-boy named Harry dent working for him.
Dent went on to formulate the "Southern Strategy" for Nixon and the Republicans to attract more conservative Democrats to the GOP.
Dent was the political godfather of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
You will never learn this history listening to right-wing pundits. All that will happen is you will repeatedl touch a hot stove, the way you did here, thinking the Republicans were a conservative party at the time of Lincoln.
When you hear the bell, go to math....
Bush expanded the Government the most since LBJ he was no conservative
Then Lincoln was no conservative.
high fly
11-27-2009, 06:40 PM
I love you you bring up taxes. Yes they are needed to fund basic functions of Government. Was there really taxes levied so someone can pump out kids every 9 months?
One of the first taxes passed on individual citizens was to fund federally-mandated health care.
1790, I think, is when it was imposed.
So you might want to hold off on referring to those who are "naive."
I understand you wishing to avoid the fact we have always had a progressive tax system.
Anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker, eh?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 06:44 PM
One of the first taxes passed on individual citizens was to fund federally-mandated health care.
I understand you wishing to avoid the fact we have always had a progressive tax system.
Anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker, eh?
I never said that we didn't How do you think wars were paid for? Up until a few years ago the tax on Phone service I believe was still in effect to Pay for the Spanish American war
The founders were for Wealth Redistribution?
To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” Thomas Jefferson
So that means Bush was a progressive since he redistributed wealth more than anyone since LBJ?
Don't even bring up the Bible if you want to get religious. It encourages Charity instead of forced redistribution
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 06:48 PM
So Republicans are pro big government, pro central authority and pro election rigging? :clap:
No wonder you all were so behind Bush.
Like I said - "with all his faults". Although it's easy for you to take it out of historical context and try to compare him with a modern figure, he was the obviously the best man for the job during the incredibly difficult Civil War and again he took powers consistent with the constitution and actually made it work for the entire country after victory. As for election rigging - have you no shame? If you come to DC stay the fuck outta the Lincoln Memorial. Shun all pennies, and never take a five dollar bill. And you better not be living in a log cabin. Ingrate.
Ritalin
11-27-2009, 06:49 PM
just the word "the who".
high fly
11-27-2009, 06:54 PM
Bush expanded the Government the most since LBJ he was no conservative
Here's a newsflash, none of them are once they get in power.
They just put on an act so they con fool the gullible, but it took a Superstar Bill Clinton to reduce the size of the federal government and put us on the path to balancing the budget.
Reagan didn't balance the budget in one or two years the way he promised, nor did he reduce the size of the federal government or abolish the Department of Education. He had a far-left Wilsonian foreign policy and the largest tax increase to date - 1% of GDP - got his signiture of endorsement on the bottom line.
Conservatism is a massive fraud composed of nothing but words and posing and posturing, but that's about it....
Any of you conservatives got a list of what you have done for Americans to compare to the one I posted earlier? Or are you gonna keep hiding from it?
high fly
11-27-2009, 06:59 PM
I never said that we didn't How do you think wars were paid for? Up until a few years ago the tax on Phone service I believe was still in effect to Pay for the Spanish American war
The founders were for Wealth Redistribution?
Yeah.
That was the system they implemented.
I think Jefferson's actions speak louder than his words.
Lots of people paid no taxes, but benefitted from government programs and projects, and others were taxed quite a bit.
Like I said, better hold off on referring to others as "naive"...............
Like I said - "with all his faults". Although it's easy for you to take it out of historical context and try to compare him with a modern figure, he was the obviously the best man for the job during the incredibly difficult Civil War and again he took powers consistent with the constitution and actually made it work for the entire country after victory. As for election rigging - have you no shame? If you come to DC stay the fuck outta the Lincoln Memorial. Shun all pennies, and never take a five dollar bill. And you better not be living in a log cabin. Ingrate.
So we're ok with rigging elections in Maryland because the supremacy of the central government must be maintained?
Most of the important SCOTUS rulings came during the Civil War as well, specifically limiting the power of government in spite of Lincoln's attempts to expand the power.
Lincoln was an authoritarian shitbag who represents one of the worst moments for democracy. The world would have been better off without him. Abolition movements would have taken care of slavery -- most of the South was trending towards that. The framing of slavery happened after the fact, well after the fact, to make Lincoln's traitorous actions seem not as bad as they were. He was the closest thing to a despot America ever had and though I wish no death on anyone, it's entirely possible the actions of Boothe helped the nation along to a more democratic future.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:02 PM
Here's a newsflash, none of them are once they get in power.
They just put on an act so they con fool the gullible, but it took a Superstar Bill Clinton to reduce the size of the federal government and put us on the path to balancing the budget.
Reagan didn't balance the budget in one or two years the way he promised, nor did he reduce the size of the federal government or abolish the Department of Education. He had a far-left Wilsonian foreign policy and the largest tax increase to date - 1% of GDP - got his signiture of endorsement on the bottom line.
Conservatism is a massive fraud composed of nothing but words and posing and posturing, but that's about it....
Any of you conservatives got a list of what you have done for Americans to compare to the one I posted earlier? Or are you gonna keep hiding from it?
And progressives believe that they can spend your money better than you can. They believe in revolution until they are in power then they want no part of the common community. Individual private property should only belong to the select few. They champion for the underprivliged meanwhile they are in the gated communities or the high skyscrapers. They rely on the gullible, promise them the world and abandon them
During the campaign season you will see them in the minority communities , neve to be seen until its time to run again. They tout public education, mass transit but they feel that it should only be the common who participate in those programs
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 07:03 PM
"Progressives" really don't think too progressively, now do they?
They're bigger sticks in the mud than any other political wing.
high fly
11-27-2009, 07:07 PM
So that means Bush was a progressive since he redistributed wealth more than anyone since LBJ?
When you get the back of those ears dried out, you will discover people have to be judged on far more than one issue. Robert Byrd has done more than flirt with the KKK during the Truman administration.
Nixon did more than cover up Watergate.
Reagan did more than give the PLO an honor guard out of Lebanon so Israel couldn't kill them.
Clinton did more than get a blowjob.
Don't even bring up the Bible if you want to get religious. It encourages Charity instead of forced redistribution
I am not the one throwing out catch-phrases and then being unable to handle a response. That is what you are doing.
You throw out one cliche, get thumped, then throw out another cliche, get thumped and then throw out another cliche, always on a new subject.
I suppose you think this is debate but it is not. It is you running away repeatedly because you are only able to deal with these issues superficially.
The Bible?
The early church of the Book of Acts, which is in the Bible to provide a model for how the Christian churches are to be, says they "had all things in common."
They all got together and pooled their wealth among themselves, each receiving according to his need, each giving according to his ability to give. They were not as stingy as conservatives are and pooled their wealth willingly.
Of course Jesus was a liberal....
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:09 PM
I dont know if he would be considered a conservative but it was under Nixons administration where the EPA, OSHA, Endangered Species act Title 9 .
The Dems want to act all high and mighty but they did not let any black delegates in until 1933
high fly
11-27-2009, 07:09 PM
"Progressives" really don't think too progressively, now do they?
They're bigger sticks in the mud than any other political wing.
Go back a page, I posted a list of historic examples to prove otherwise.
I can repost it if you want.
You got anything to show what wonderful advances the conservatives have achieved?
It's funny that Noam Chomsky's beliefs aren't too far removed from Jesus' yet no one will admit to it.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:12 PM
Was the Messiah a liberal? Who knows? I never saw his voter registration card but that was 2000 years ago
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 07:12 PM
SIZE="2"]Sorry, but you have been lied to by right-wing pundits who know you won't go looking up the history yourself. Maybe this time you'll learn so they don't play you for a patsy again.
Back then, the Republican Party was by and large a progressive party leaning to the left.
They were not conservative at all, overall.
By the sam token, you may want to catch up on more recent political history before the pundits make a fool of you on more recent trends.
The Democratic Party once dominated Dixie the way the Republicans do now. It was called "The Solid South." Then civil rights came along and split the party. The conservative Democrats who were opposed to civil rights went over to the Republicans.
Right wing icon Jesse Helms was a Democrat back then.
So was Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond had a piss-boy named Harry dent working for him.
Dent went on to formulate the "Southern Strategy" for Nixon and the Republicans to attract more conservative Democrats to the GOP.
Dent was the political godfather of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
You will never learn this history listening to right-wing pundits. All that will happen is you will repeatedl touch a hot stove, the way you did here, thinking the Republicans were a conservative party at the time of Lincoln.
When you hear the bell, go to math....
Sorry, like I said, you can't have him. I actually stand behind every word I said. He was a Republican, a member of the GOP, and he abolished slavery. You got Byrd and he filibustered Civil Rights, and he's still in office. If you want to reconsider your affiliation with the GOP for old timesake we may take it under advisement.
And save your patronization, it's very tiring.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:14 PM
It's funny that Noam Chomsky's beliefs aren't too far removed from Jesus' yet no one will admit to it.
I dont think Chomsky is Just alright with me would be a good Doobie Bros. song
high fly
11-27-2009, 07:15 PM
I dont know if he would be considered a conservative but it was under Nixons administration where the EPA, OSHA, Endangered Species act Title 9 .
The Dems want to act all high and mighty but they did not let any black delegates in until 1933
Ok, you're slowly beginning to get it that the Democrats were conservative or at least had a powerful conservative wing.
In Nixon's day, the batshit-crazy conservatives now in vogue were relegated to the fringe and kept there.
He was for national health care and I, unlike you, can recall the glory of "Phase I" and "Phase II."
But we can not consider politicians in a vacuum. For his time, he was right of center, overall. He was no lefty, believe me. I was there. I remember....
It would be refreshing if you would continue your polit6ical education here. You will not hear that:
Jesse Helms
Strom Thurmond
Harry Dent
- were Democrats from the right-wing pundits.
Was the Messiah a liberal? Who knows? I never saw his voter registration card but that was 2000 years ago
No, but most of his actions as recorded in the Bible are quite anarcho-socialist. Dissolution of any form of power except the community. Render unto Caesar what is his -- and Caesar has nothing.
high fly
11-27-2009, 07:21 PM
I never said that we didn't
You asked if taxes were levied to pay for someone pumping ou kids every 9 months and I replied saying one of the first taxes levied on citizens was a federally-mandated health insurance program. I believe it was passed in 1790.
It came out of a committee established to come up with a health care program on July 20, 1789 by the First Congress.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:25 PM
You asked if taxes were levied to pay for someone pumping ou kids every 9 months and I replied saying one of the first taxes levied on citizens was a federally-mandated health insurance program. I believe it was passed in 1790.
It came out of a committee established to come up with a health care program on July 20, 1789 by the First Congress.
Going back 200+ years there were scores of bills that made it thru committee but were eventually killed off because many in Congress believed that it violated the enumerated powers of Congress in Art I Sec 8
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 07:26 PM
Lincoln was an authoritarian shitbag who represents one of the worst moments for democracy. The world would have been better off without him. Abolition movements would have taken care of slavery -- most of the South was trending towards that. The framing of slavery happened after the fact, well after the fact, to make Lincoln's traitorous actions seem not as bad as they were. He was the closest thing to a despot America ever had and though I wish no death on anyone, it's entirely possible the actions of Boothe helped the nation along to a more democratic future.
I now proclaim you, by my non-powers, "officially insane". And goddammit don't you know how to spell the name of your hero, "Boothe"?!
Ironically, your left-wing cohort, High Fly, makes a case that "Boothe" may have in fact NOT killed Lincoln!. Can you fellas please take that offline and let us know the results?
Edit/Addition: Don't you in fact loathe the notion of moving this "nation along to a more democratic future"?
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:28 PM
I now proclaim you, by my non-powers, "officially insane". And goddammit don't you know how to spell the name of your hero, "Boothe"?!
Ironically, your left-wing cohort, High Fly, makes a case that "Boothe" may have in fact NOT killed Lincoln!. Can you fellas please take that offline and let us know the results?
It was the Jews!!!!!!
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 07:31 PM
It was the Jews!!!!!!
It was me, actually. I already confessed. Shhh.
Bob Impact
11-27-2009, 07:39 PM
It's funny that Noam Chomsky's beliefs aren't too far removed from Jesus' yet no one will admit to it.
You and I can agree on that, although not on the appraisal of what that implies I'm sure.
At least the storybook Jesus could claim to live his gimmick, Chomsky can't even do that much.
I now proclaim you, by my non-powers, "officially insane". And goddammit don't you know how to spell the name of your hero, "Boothe"?!
Ironically, your left-wing cohort, High Fly, makes a case that "Boothe" may have in fact NOT killed Lincoln!. Can you fellas please take that offline and let us know the results?
Sorry they didn't teach you about how Lincoln had despotic tendencies in school. Most people are incapable of understanding what it really took to make America, so it's easier to paint it all in rosy, politically correct shades that conveniently don't mention what really caused things. Only "HE FREED THE SLAVES! HE MADE EVERYTHING RIGHT!"for the Civil War; nothing about how he rigged an election in Maryland and unlawfully imprisoned citizens. The abolitionist movement was tacked on after the fact when it became politically convenient to do so. The real abolitionists weren't politicians at all.
As for the misspelling, watched Southern Comfort today and had Powers rockin' Boothe on my mind apparently.
You and I can agree on that, although not on the appraisal of what that implies I'm sure.
At least the storybook Jesus could claim to live his gimmick, Chomsky can't even do that much.
The only thing that implies is that religion can be a tool to continue evil or to inspire good. Unfortunately all too often it is used for the former. What Jesus was and what he really did aren't all too compatible for televangelists, politicians and anyone else who can profit by selling their own brand of blasphemy.
GregoryJoseph
11-27-2009, 07:45 PM
The Tao Te Ching predates Jesus.
From verse 57 -
"The more restrictions there are, the poorer are the people.
The more laws and edicts that are posted,
the more thieves and robbers that arise."
From verse 58 -
"When the government is unseen
the people are simple and happy.
When the government is lively
the people are cunning and discontented."
Obviously, these are not new ideas...
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:47 PM
Back to Obama. Where does he find these people to fill positions? We all know that Bush liked to have Religious people in his administration, But Look at someone like Cass Sunstein. Animals have rights to lawyers He wants to ban Hunting
Look at his views on Free Speech
“A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”
“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”
Other Gems in his Administration include a fatty who is Surgeon General. An incompetent Treasury Secretary, A DHS Secretary who thinks legalizing 20 million illegal aliens is a good policy, An Atty General whos law firm represents Gitmo terrorists, and now is on the prosecution, an incompetent VP who cant keep track of stimulus money. Remember "Nobody Messes with Joe"
The people he picks are to appease the retard midwesterners who make up the "independent" voting bloc. I wish he had the fortitude to appoint more people like Van Jones that do more to break up the typical nepotism that is involved with appointments.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 07:51 PM
The people he picks are to appease the retard midwesterners who make up the "independent" voting bloc. I wish he had the fortitude to appoint more people like Van Jones that do more to break up the typical nepotism that is involved with appointments.
That wasn't the Van Jones Obama knew
That wasn't the Van Jones Obama knew
Van Jones did rule though, he was someone who gave a shit about energy conservation. Unfortunately energy conservation isn't as short-term profitable as energy gormandizing (google word of the day right there) so Van Jones had to go.
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 07:54 PM
Sorry they didn't teach you about how Lincoln had despotic tendencies in school. Most people are incapable of understanding what it really took to make America, so it's easier to paint it all in rosy, politically correct shades that conveniently don't mention what really caused things. Only "HE FREED THE SLAVES! HE MADE EVERYTHING RIGHT!"for the Civil War; nothing about how he rigged an election in Maryland and unlawfully imprisoned citizens. The abolitionist movement was tacked on after the fact when it became politically convenient to do so. The real abolitionists weren't politicians at all.
As for the misspelling, watched Southern Comfort today and had Powers rockin' Boothe on my mind apparently.
I hated how he wussed out in Deadwood! The fucker!
Who in fact is your Greatest American Hero, if any?
high fly
11-27-2009, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by high fly
You asked if taxes were levied to pay for someone pumping ou kids every 9 months and I replied saying one of the first taxes levied on citizens was a federally-mandated health insurance program. I believe it was passed in 1790.
It came out of a committee established to come up with a health care program on July 20, 1789 by the First Congress.
Going back 200+ years there were scores of bills that made it thru committee but were eventually killed off because many in Congress believed that it violated the enumerated powers of Congress in Art I Sec 8
Yeah, I know.
I was talking about a federally-mandated health insurance program that actually passed, was signed into law and never ruled unconstitutional.
Just ask yourself, who is the best authority on what the Constitution allows? I go with the Founding fathers who wrote it and implemented it. They knew better than us what their words meant and had the context of their times along with the nuances of the day.
On July 20, 1789 the First Congress set up a committee to come up with a health bill. A year later it was passed and the federal government imposed the first health insurance program in America. They passed a tax to fund it and this tax on citizens was one of the first. This program was expanded further over the years.
Like I said, you'd best hold off on throwing around words like "naive" when there are others around here who know their history better..........
The bottom line is the Founding Fathers believed from the beginning that the Constitution they wrote and implemented gave the federal government the power to impose a health insurance program on private industry and impose a tax to pay for it
I hated how he wussed out in Deadwood! The fucker!
Who in fact is your Greatest American Hero, if any?
Tadeusz Kosciusko. Was willing to give his life for the freedom of a country to which he did not belong. After the success of the American Revolution, he went back to Poland to start another revolution although unfortunately it was unsuccessful.
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 08:14 PM
Yeah, I know.
I was talking about a federally-mandated health insurance program that actually passed, was signed into law and never ruled unconstitutional.
Just ask yourself, who is the best authority on what the Constitution allows? I go with the Founding fathers who wrote it and implemented it. They knew better than us what their words meant and had the context of their times along with the nuances of the day.
On July 20, 1789 the First Congress set up a committee to come up with a health bill. A year later it was passed and the federal government imposed the first health insurance program in America. They passed a tax to fund it and this tax on citizens was one of the first. This program was expanded further over the years.
Like I said, you'd best hold off on throwing around words like "naive" when there are others around here who know their history better..........
The bottom line is the Founding Fathers believed from the beginning that the Constitution they wrote and implemented gave the federal government the power to impose a health insurance program on private industry and impose a tax to pay for it
Where was this legislation? Here were the major laws passed in 1789
June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
July 4, 1789: Hamilton Tariff, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24
July 27, 1789: United States Department of State, was established, originally named the Department of Foreign Affairs, ch. 4, 1 Stat. 28.
August 7, 1789: Department of War was established, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 49.
September 2, 1789: United States Department of the Treasury was established, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65
September 24, 1789: Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, which created:
§ 1: Supreme Court, 1 Stat. 73
§ 3: District courts, 1 Stat. 73
§ 4: Circuit courts, 1 Stat. 73
§ 35: District attorneys, 1 Stat. 92 and Attorney General, 1 Stat. 93
Congress can't have it both ways. Here's a good article about the commerce clause
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 08:20 PM
Tadeusz Kosciusko. Was willing to give his life for the freedom of a country to which he did not belong. After the success of the American Revolution, he went back to Poland to start another revolution although unfortunately it was unsuccessful.
Wow! I think I've seen that dude's statue down by the WH? It says "Saratoga" at the bottom. As a son of upstate NY, I tip my hat.
high fly
11-27-2009, 08:22 PM
Where was this legislation? Here were the major laws passed in 1789
June 1, 1789: An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, ch. 1, 1 Stat. 23
July 4, 1789: Hamilton Tariff, ch. 2, 1 Stat. 24
July 27, 1789: United States Department of State, was established, originally named the Department of Foreign Affairs, ch. 4, 1 Stat. 28.
August 7, 1789: Department of War was established, ch. 7, 1 Stat. 49.
September 2, 1789: United States Department of the Treasury was established, ch. 12, 1 Stat. 65
September 24, 1789: Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, which created:
§ 1: Supreme Court, 1 Stat. 73
§ 3: District courts, 1 Stat. 73
§ 4: Circuit courts, 1 Stat. 73
§ 35: District attorneys, 1 Stat. 92 and Attorney General, 1 Stat. 93
I said the committee was established in 1789, July 20, to be exact.
The fun part for me is I know the crap you have been fed about the Constutition by the Tenthers and I know you are trying to play catch-up on history by hastily trolling the net.
That's not the way, grasshopper.
Hie thyself down to the public library and start checking out good solid books on American history instead of letting pundits give it to you.
Believing them, finding out you're wrong, and then going back is like touching a hot stove after being repeatedly burned.
Stop touching that hot stove, man....
WRESTLINGFAN
11-27-2009, 08:28 PM
I said the committee was established in 1789, July 20, to be exact.
The fun part for me is I know the crap you have been fed about the Constutition by the Tenthers and I know you are trying to play catch-up on history by hastily trolling the net.
That's not the way, grasshopper.
Hie thyself down to the public library and start checking out good solid books on American history instead of letting pundits give it to you.
Believing them, finding out you're wrong, and then going back is like touching a hot stove after being repeatedly burned.
Stop touching that hot stove, man....
When was the law passed and signed by the president. Youre all over the place
Trolling the internet? Thats only trying to go to chatrooms and to bother people so thats a weak comment by you
How do you know my education about the founding documents? Do you have some sort of special powers? I happen to know the powers and limits of the constitution so your silly comments arent impressing me sir
If you want to talk hot stove move over to the sports thread
high fly
11-27-2009, 08:36 PM
How do you know my education about the founding documents? Do you have some sort of special powers? I happen to know the powers and limits of the constitution so your silly comments arent impressing me sir
If you want to talk hot stove move over to the sports thread
By the stuff you post.
By the way you keep changing the subject. Jusr look over the last 3 or 4 hours in this thread at how you keep bringing up something new each time someone responds to one of your bumper sticker cliches.
Like I said, the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution they wrote and implemented gave them the authority to impose heath insurance on private industry because they did it.
The first bill was signed into law in 1790 and expanded several years later under President Adams.
The right wing pundits will not tell you that, any more than they'll tell you Lincoln was a progressive, that the Republican conservatives in the South by and large used to be Democrats and went over to the GOP when civil rights came along. Just like they won't tell you the Republicans who helped get the Civil Rights Act were liberals helping President Johnson get past some conservative Democrats.
Learn history the old fashioned way, my friend.
Getting it from Tenthers and pundits will burn those fingers repeatedly.
Stop touching that hot stove........
SonOfSmeagol
11-27-2009, 08:41 PM
I said the committee was established in 1789, July 20, to be exact.
The fun part for me is I know the crap you have been fed about the Constutition by the Tenthers and I know you are trying to play catch-up on history by hastily trolling the net.
That's not the way, grasshopper.
Hie thyself down to the public library and start checking out good solid books on American history instead of letting pundits give it to you.
Believing them, finding out you're wrong, and then going back is like touching a hot stove after being repeatedly burned.
Stop touching that hot stove, man....
Why do you keep belittling people and trying to question their knowledge, aptitude, and ability to sort through information provided to them? He was actually trying to converse, and you come across like you think you're the ultimate authority. It's not attractive nor productive.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.