Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

So, I guess you don't consider Obama a commie? ;):lol:

Commie... fascist... satan... who knows.

[randolph]

Commie... fascist... satan... who knows.

Usually the deal is "if you suck me Ill suck you". Since you invited Obama to suck you are you willing and able to suck Obama? Blacks have very big cocks you know. ;):lol:

[The Conquistador]

Okay Mr. Post, I would issue a word of caution. Tracy's cock may be desirable, however, you may be subjected to hours of right wing political rhetoric trickling down from the ultimate conservative spin machine, the Heritage Foundation. ;):lol:

And this is bad why?:p

[randolph]

And this is bad why?:p

Well it could be distracting if you want to focus on the sensual pleasures of a fine tranny cock. Tracy has assured us that she would refrain from right wing rhetoric while being pleasured. ;)

[The Conquistador]

But it would be killing two birds with one stone. Servicing a womans cock and "political re-education" except in this case, the shot does not go through the back of the head; it goes into the mouth ;)

[randolph]

But it would be killing two birds with one stone. Servicing a womans cock and "political re-education" except in this case, the shot does not go through the back of the head; it goes into the mouth ;)

Humm, I guess your saying that we could get politically re-educated with a load of tranny cum. An interesting idea. I guess we better be careful who we suck if we don't want to be re-educated. ;):lol:

[TracyCoxx]

Is someone going to suck my cock or not LOL

[randolph]

Is someone going to suck my cock or not LOL

Wow, you would let LIBERAL suck it. Be careful, liberals are known for all kinds of naughty behavior and dangerous thoughts. :eek:;)

[TracyCoxx]

Wow, you would let LIBERAL suck it. Be careful, liberals are known for all kinds of naughty behavior and dangerous thoughts. :eek:;)

This is, as they say, a teachable moment. I am fiscally conservative, I favor a strong foreign policy, but I am also socially liberal. I have mentioned this before, but no one believes me lol.

[The Conquistador]

Is someone going to suck my cock or not LOL

Some more "lightsaber" training this young Jedi needs. Yes?

[TracyCoxx]

You know how BO said for 95% of Americans tax will not go up? Forget that. Geithner just said the middle class will have to be taxed more as well. This is Obama's "No New Taxes!" moment. Luckily for him though, he controls the media.

[randolph]

You know how BO said for 95% of Americans tax will not go up? Forget that. Geithner just said the middle class will have to be taxed more as well. This is Obama's "No New Taxes!" moment. Luckily for him though, he controls the media.

Oh well, I seem to recall Ronney cutting taxes and then raising them and Sr Bush saying no new taxes and raising them. This is nothing new all politicians are lairs when it comes to taxes.
"Hope springs eternal" that we could have a good government that does what "needs" to be done and leaves us alone. :(

[randolph]

Quote of the Day
- By Kevin Drum | Tue August 4, 2009 9:42 AM PST

From Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), responding to Joe Sestak's decision to run against him in next year's Democratic primary:

His months of indecisiveness on his candidacy raises a real question as to his competency to handle the tough rapid-fire decisions required of a Senator.

Rapid fire? The U.S. Senate? Are we talking about the same U.S. Senate here?
:lol::rolleyes:

[transjen]

You know how BO said for 95% of Americans tax will not go up? Forget that. Geithner just said the middle class will have to be taxed more as well. This is Obama's "No New Taxes!" moment. Luckily for him though, he controls the media. What a surpise, Taxes going up, Well we do have two wars to pay for and a huge national debit to pay off so of cousre taxes will be going up only a fool would start two wars and still cut taxes for the super rich


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

What a surpise, Taxes going up, Well we do have two wars to pay for and a huge national debit to pay off so of cousre taxes will be going up....

Yeah, probably not a good time to start all those big spending programs. Oops.

[sceicco9000]

I think Obama will be a great President in the US

[randolph]

You know how BO said for 95% of Americans tax will not go up? Forget that. Geithner just said the middle class will have to be taxed more as well. This is Obama's "No New Taxes!" moment. Luckily for him though, he controls the media.

By the way, Obama denies any tax increase for the middle class. Lets hope he follows through on fucking the rich.:lol:

Also, I just watched the acclaimed video "The corporation". I would highly recommend it to anybody interested in understanding the role of corporations in our society.:respect:

[tslust]

By the way, obama denies any tax increase for the middle class.That's a big shocker there, why would he admit that he lied?:lol::lol:Lets hope he follows through on fucking the rich.:lol:

Hey, does that include all the hollyweird people and the music industry names that backed his campaign?

[transjen]

Yeah, probably not a good time to start all those big spending programs. Oops. You mean like what W did with the GOP congress and senate from 01 thru 06? It seems as long as it's a program from the GOP to help the rich you are all smiles but any program to help the working poor you are against. Besides you are forgetting who created this mess GEORGE W BUSH and his REAGEN trickle down ecomics which only helps those who don't need help and leaves a hugh debit to be paid by everyone else

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

I think Obama will be a great President in the US

The question is WHEN???

[TracyCoxx]

What a surpise, Taxes going up, Well we do have two wars to pay for and a huge national debit to pay off so of cousre taxes will be going up only a fool would start two wars and still cut taxes for the super richYeah, probably not a good time to start all those big spending programs. Oops.You mean like what W did with the GOP congress and senate from 01 thru 06?
There was no financial crisis then. And what big spending programs did Bush start in addition to the wars? Wars that BO has decided to continue BTW.

It seems as long as it's a program from the GOP to help the rich you are all smiles but any program to help the working poor you are against.I'm for programs that help both.

Besides you are forgetting who created this mess GEORGE W BUSH and his REAGEN trickle down ecomics which only helps those who don't need help and leaves a hugh debit to be paid by everyone elseI don't see how you have any right to make those claims since you've made them several times over the last several months and have never provided any details on that. So cut the crap. No one's buying it.

[randolph]

The question is WHEN???

A lot will depend on whether Congress can stand up to the financial corporations. Things don't look very good at this point. The lobbyists are swarming into Washington with tons of money, the favorite food of our Congressmen.

If he can achieve a humane health care system, minimize our military involvements, come up with a reasonable carbon control system, convince us to save and be thrifty, invest in energy efficiency, create a transparent financial system and balance the budget, yes, even Tracy might admit he is a great president. ;)

[TracyCoxx]

If he can achieve a humane health care system, minimize our military involvements, come up with a reasonable carbon control system,


If he achieves any kind of health care system to his liking we're fucked. Who is saying we need this health care system? Yes there are a lot of people who are unemployed now, but you don't fix that by creating a permanent national health care system. We're not going to have these unemployment numbers forever. So to fix this temporary situation he's going to screw this country from now on and force everyone to accept a more expensive health care system with worse quality of service.


convince us to save and be thrifty, invest in energy efficiency, create a transparent financial system and balance the budget, yes, even Tracy might admit he is a great president. ;)

LMAO!!! You want Barack Obama to show us how to save and be thrifty??! LOLOLOLOLOLOL :lol: OMG that's funny. Surely you realize how ridiculous that sounds.

As for transparency, his town hall meetings are staged, he pre-approves reporters questions, he insists on trillion dollar bills to be rushed through congress without time to read them. I see fewer signs of transparency than there were before.

If he balances the budget I will truly call him the messiah. Because that will be a miracle after what he's done to this country.

[randolph]

If he achieves any kind of health care system to his liking we're fucked. Who is saying we need this health care system? Yes there are a lot of people who are unemployed now, but you don't fix that by creating a permanent national health care system. We're not going to have these unemployment numbers forever. So to fix this temporary situation he's going to screw this country from now on and force everyone to accept a more expensive health care system with worse quality of service.




LMAO!!! You want Barack Obama to show us how to save and be thrifty??! LOLOLOLOLOLOL :lol: OMG that's funny. Surely you realize how ridiculous that sounds.

As for transparency, his town hall meetings are staged, he pre-approves reporters questions, he insists on trillion dollar bills to be rushed through congress without time to read them. I see fewer signs of transparency than there were before.

If he balances the budget I will truly call him the messiah. Because that will be a miracle after what he's done to this country.

Yes Tracy, The chances of any of this happening is remote to say the least. That's why those comments were intended to be "tongue in cheek". :lol:

On the other hand, if Obama is so bad why is the stock market doing so well? ;)
Some of my investments have fully recovered and others are on the way. :turnon:
Answer: his priority is the financial system recovery using our money.:turnoff:
The rich guys rule and Obama knows that. :frown:

[transjen]

There was no financial crisis then. And what big spending programs did Bush start in addition to the wars? Wars that BO has decided to continue BTW.

I'm for programs that help both.

I don't see how you have any right to make those claims since you've made them several times over the last several months and have never provided any details on that. So cut the crap. No one's buying it. Sorry that i'm not as intrenched in a party as you are to have a excuss list and links to make W appaer to be one of the greatest presidents of all time behind Regan, Unlike you i see whats going on i get my news from the newspaper the Courier Post the main paper in South Jersey ABC local news out of South Phillie and CNN mostly Wolfe B and LOU DOBBS i don't pay attention to Rush or FOXX NEWS or search the computers bloggers so sorry i don't have these so called spin links that you love and demand. All this links you provided is mostly the same crap the goose stepping Bushies were trying to hand out in 04 and i'm sure those links have been updated since.


Now about W big spending programs rember his great drug plan for seniors? Yeah a program writen for and by the drug and insurence companies which offers little help and is only going to bankrupt medicare.
Now about Obama sticking with the wars, Obama is drawing a close to the Iraq war and he is stepping up in the Afgan war a war that was right but a war W didn't want and didn't care about as he was to busy with Iraq he let Afgan slip in to a big mess and he never did catch Bin- Laddin because i think he never wanted him captured
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[Mel Asher]

From where I'm sitting, I think it's far too early for Barack to be judged or analysed through partisan eyes. He has one hell of a job in fron of him with Social Reforms, and the Senate are not likely to make that an easy ride. As far as international politics goes, the image of America ( for whatever reason ) has suffered severely in the last two decades world-wide, and this will not be changed overnight, especially in the face of sustained propaganda from America's enemies ( and, sadly, her ' allies ' too ).

What do other Brits think ? This thread is a really interesting one ! Keep posting ! !:yes:

[TracyCoxx]

Sorry that i'm not as intrenched in a party as you are to have a excuss list and links to make W appaer to be one of the greatest presidents of all time behind ReganIf that's what you think I'm doing, you're not paying attention.

Now about W big spending programs rember his great drug plan for seniors? Yeah a program writen for and by the drug and insurence companies which offers little help and is only going to bankrupt medicare.HEY!! Congratulations!!! You are on the verge of actually backing up one of your statements. And you may actually have one here. I haven't heard of it. Can you give more details?

Now about Obama sticking with the wars, Obama is drawing a close to the Iraq war
No, that was Bush that was drawing a close to the Iraq war after the surge worked. He and the Iraqi government already set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. BO wanted to withdraw troops over 16 months, but it's more like Bush's plan now.

and he is stepping up in the Afgan war a war that was right but a war W didn't want and didn't care about as he was to busy with Iraq he let Afgan slip in to a big mess and he never did catch Bin- Laddin because i think he never wanted him captured
The fighting was over in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda went elsewhere to cause trouble. They have since come back. Both Bush & BO wanted to return to Afghanistan to do another clean up.

As for the hunt for bin laden. Yes we must get him. But should we focus all our efforts on only finding him? It's easy for one person to hide and never be found. Do you think the conflict will be over if Bin Laden is gone? Of course not. Bush went after Al Qaeda. Given the choice, I'd choose Bin Laden without Al Qaeda rather than Al Qaeda without Bin Laden.

[TracyCoxx]

From where I'm sitting, I think it's far too early for Barack to be judged or analysed through partisan eyes.I don't think it's too early. We're not just judging him. We're judging his policies. Policies that have been tried before and have failed.

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly
SWEET SURRENDER.... In this clever Kos item, Stroszek, responding to "cogent and potent criticisms" from the right, is prepared to offer Republican critics of health care reform a gracious compromise.

Over the past week, we have seen your passionate protests and heard your concerns about Democratic proposals for health care reform. We have considered your insightful and well reasoned arguments, and on behalf of progressives everywhere, I am here to say: OK! We give up! We are willing to compromise on the proposals that concern you. You've won! Yay!

Yes, in light of the provisions that conservative activists have demanded be removed from any and all legislation, Stroszek is willing to say, without equivocation, that under Democratic reform proposals, "We will not euthanize your grandmother." Democrats will also agree, among other things, not to let Rahm Emanuel's brother kill Sarah Palin's baby, not to nationalize hospitals, not to "provide illegal immigrants with unlimited free health care," not to eliminate private insurance, and not to establish "a super-secret-awesome health care program for ACORN employees."

With these concessions having been made, I trust that we can now move forward on health care reform with a broad, bipartisan consensus. Blue Dogs and Republicans, you can now rest easy knowing that the concerns of the town hall protesters have been met. While the progressive dream of a nation in which old people are slaughtered to pay for the abortions of ACORN-employed illegal immigrants will again have to be deferred, we are willing to settle for a bill without these measures in the name of bipartisanship. Congratulations, Republicans. You've won this round.

The right sure knows how to drive a hard bargain, but I can live with these painful concessions, giving up these long-held liberal goals.

Compromise is all about give and take, and Democrats, no matter how much they want to euthanize grandmothers or reward ACORN employees, should be prepared to accept these concessions. Republicans, who seem to take these concerns very seriously, should be thrilled.

Can we pass reform now? ;):lol:

[ila]

......The fighting was over in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda went elsewhere to cause trouble. They have since come back. Both Bush & BO wanted to return to Afghanistan to do another clean up.....


The fighting in Afghanistan was never over. Al Qaida was driven and so was the Taliban. The Taliban have been waging an insurgency ever since 2002. It has been stronger at some times than at other times, but it has never died out.

[tslust]

The fighting in Afghanistan was never over. Al Qaida was driven and so was the Taliban. The Taliban have been waging an insurgency ever since 2002. It has been stronger at some times than at other times, but it has never died out.

That's true, it's interesting to note that Afganistan has never actually been conquered by an outside force.

[ila]

....it's interesting to note that Afganistan has never actually been conquered by an outside force.

It has been. Alexander the Great conquered the area and about 16 centuries after him the Mongols did also. Of course the country of Afghanistan didn't exist then. The various areas were under tribal control.

[tslust]

It has been. Alexander the Great conquered the area and about 16 centuries after him the Mongols did also. Of course the country of Afghanistan didn't exist then. The various areas were under tribal control.

What I ment, was the people of that region have never been subdued. Their lands may have been occupied, but they themselves have never been beaten.

[TracyCoxx]

The reality of Obama's policies are finally starting to dawn on the majority of Americans. 47% approve, 52% disapprove

[randolph]

The reality of Obama's policies are finally starting to dawn on the majority of Americans. 47% approve, 52% disapprove
Your graph is from Rassmussen. This one is from Gallup. Who shall be believe?

[TracyCoxx]

Your graph is from Rassmussen. This one is from Gallup. Who shall be believe?

Ok, the average approval rating between the polls is 50%. It won't be long.

[randolph]

Ok, the average approval rating between the polls is 50%. It won't be long.

If Obama caves in to big Pharma I will be very discouraged. :frown::censored:

[randolph]

From the Washington Monthly

THEY'VE BEEN WRONG FOR A VERY LONG TIME.... The benefits of hindsight can make opponents of popular measures look quite silly years later. Republican arguments against Medicare seem ridiculous now, but were intense at the time. Republican arguments against Clinton's economic policies are almost laughable now, but were widely believed at the time.

And Republican arguments against Social Security, as Nancy Altman explained today, seem awfully familiar 74 years later.

Though no one was talking about "death panels" back then, opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control. A Republican congressman from New York, for example, charged: "The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test."

Another New York congressman put it this way: "The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants." A Republican senator from Delaware claimed that Social Security would "end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European."

Today, opponents of a public health insurance option claim that it would drive private health insurance out of business and put a bureaucrat between doctors and patients. Back then, opponents of Social Security warned that it would "establish a bureaucracy in the field of insurance in competition with private business" that would "destroy" private pensions.

Then as now, opponents played the socialism card.

It wasn't just Social Security. When FDR tackled health care reform, the right condemned "the socialization of medicine," and the AMA said Roosevelt's plans were "un-American."

The difference, of course, is that most Americans rejected the nonsense, and welcomed FDR's reforms. Republicans of that era, similar to the Republicans of the current era, had failed so spectacularly at governing, their ideas had been thoroughly discredited. The conservative activists of the time struggled to convince the public to reject Roosevelt's agenda.

Altman recommends that Obama follow FDR's example. The problem is, Obama already has. Roosevelt anticipated Republican attacks, and told Americans the truth is speeches and fire-side chats. Obama has done the same thing. The difference is, FDR didn't have to overcome a Republican Propaganda Machine. :(

[aa2239]

What do other Brits think ? This thread is a really interesting one ! Keep posting ! !:yes:

Personally, I think that the American right wing barracking of Obama (excuse the pun) so early into his Presidency, and in light of the enormous challenges he faces (thanks in part to his inept Republican predecessor), borders on the shameful.

The right wing and general public's response to Obama's proposed healthcare reforms has been an outright disgrace, even dragging the name of America's closest ally through the mire, just to try and further discredit Obama... I find it astonishing that dumb and not-so-dumb Americans alike are jumping on the bandwagon to criticise a healthcare system that they have absolutely no experience of, and know very little about... as far as I'm concerned, the NHS is one of the crowning achievements of Western society. It may not be perfect, but at least it is based on the principle of EQUALITY (not Socialism), something that the Amercian right wing seems desperate to avoid in their country. For that reason alone, I say thank God I'm not American. I find myself thinking: "can't Americans see the overwhelming need for this sort of reform in their country, to improve the lot of the tens of millions of poor and disadvantaged when it comes to healthcare?"

I'm not saying that Obama is and will always be right, but given the unique set of circumstances he currently faces, he can't be judged for another year or two at least, and I think the majority of Americans should be applauding his intentions, especially after the Bush years. And this whole business about Americans slagging off the NHS really has annoyed me, especially given the fact that us Brits actually have a slightly higher life expectancy across the board compared to our US counterparts. There, that's my two cents lol.

[TracyCoxx]

And Republican arguments against Social Security, as Nancy Altman explained today, seem awfully familiar 74 years later.


Social security basically has the current working population paying for the current retired's retirement. But the thing about populations, that anyone with a brain knows (i.e. not a politician) is that populations grow exponentially.

dN
-- = r N
dt

where r is the rate of natural increase (about .6% for the US), t is time, N is the number of people in a population at a given instant. N = N0 * Exp(rt)

The rate that a population increases depends on r, but it is exponential. Which, when applied to social security means that the working population will have to pay exponentially more tax to support the retired population. Meaning the rate will start off manageable at first. It will raise a bit later. And eventually will start to sky rocket. It will become impossible to sustain.

[TracyCoxx]

It will raise a bit later. And eventually will start to sky rocket. It will become impossible to sustain.

Something like this...

[randolph]

Something like this...

This data needs to be compared to the gross national product to be meaningful. The country has also grown dramatically (exponentially?) over the years.

[The Conquistador]

Social Security is a scam. Who the hell would want the federal government AKA:"clusterfuck" to tell you how to save money?

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly.
THE PENANCE HAS NOT BEEN PAID.... Following up on this item from yesterday, I had an interesting conversation via email yesterday with Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations. Bruce made a point that really resonated with me, and he was gracious enough to allow me to republish it here.

I believe that political parties should do penance for their mistakes and just losing power is not enough. Part of that involves understanding why those mistakes were made and how to prevent them from happening again. Republicans, however, have done no penance. They just pretend that they did nothing wrong. But until they do penance they don't deserve any credibility and should be ignored until they do. That's what my attacks on Bush are all about. I want Republicans to admit they were wrong about him, accept blame for his mistakes, and take some meaningful action to keep them from happening again. Bush should be treated as a pariah, as Richard Nixon was for many years until he rebuilt his credibility by more or less coming clean about Watergate with David Frost and writing a number of thoughtful books.

One reason this isn't happening is because the media don't treat Republicans as if they are discredited. On the contrary, they often seem to be treated as if they have more credibility than the administration. Just look at the silly issue of death panels. The media should have laughed it out the window, ridiculed it or at least ignored it once it was determined that there was no basis to the charge. Instead, those making the most outlandish charges are treated with deference and respect, while those that actually have credibility on the subject are treated as equals at best and often with deep skepticism, as if they are the ones with an ax to grind.

I am truly baffled by this situation, as I'm sure you are.

As regular readers may imagine, I find this overwhelmingly persuasive. Bush/Cheney policies failed so spectacularly, Republican candidates and officeholders are generally reluctant to associate themselves with the tarnished name of the previous administration. But Bush/Cheney policies are still those of the contemporary Republican Party. Nothing has changed. Failure and defeat haven't chastened the GOP at all, and if given a chance to govern again, Republican leaders are quite anxious to return to the exact same agenda they embraced when they were in the majority. :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

And Dick Morris from Clinton's administration places blame squarely on the democrats.... shrug

[TracyCoxx]

Let's give a warm welcome to John Holdren - Science Czar and director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr Holden, can you please tell us some of your ideas?

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," Holdren wrote in "Human Ecology," a 1973 textbook he co-authored with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren heralded a "tightly reasoned essay" by law professor Christopher Stone, who said, "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment -- indeed, to the natural environment as a whole." Holdren, writing in 1977's "Ecoscience," which was also co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich

In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote.

Another "coercive fertility control" program floated by Holdren involved "the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired ... The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Holdren wrote in "Ecoscience."

To help achieve their goals, Holdren and the Ehrlichs formulated a "world government scheme" they called the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth. They also discussed the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

[randolph]

Nature has a very simple way of controlling populations, its called STARVATION. If humans aren't willing or able to control their population, then nature will eventually do it for us. We are still totally dependent on agriculture for food and our ability to produce it is limited. :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

Warren Buffett (an Obama supporter and indirect beneficiary of the stimulus packages) wrote this in the NY Times:

The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself.

To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory.

Because of this gigantic deficit, our country's "net debt" (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out.

...

Even with these heroic assumptions [on the part of other countries buying our debt and Amercan people actually donating their savings to the treasury], the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington's printing presses will need to work overtime.

Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can't come close to bridging that sort of gap.

Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

So get ready for inflation high enough to move over a $trillion from the American public (I know he says $900 billion, but I don't think anyone seriously believes the American public will fork over their savings to the treasury).

[charlietwobeans]

...with words like that. My goodness, I would suck you on the soapbox, in the soapbox, next to the soapbox, with the soapbox in the other room staring at me with its angry, sullen eyes, with the soapbox hanging over my head like the national debt hanging over our grandchildren's heads, with the.....ok, ok, I am digressing, but I think you get the point.

You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world.

This is, as they say, a teachable moment. I am fiscally conservative, I favor a strong foreign policy, but I am also socially liberal. I have mentioned this before, but no one believes me lol.

[TracyCoxx]

"You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world."

Awwww shucks :turnon:

[randolph]

Hey Tracey,
How do you feel about Cheney having the CIA work with Blackwater (Xe) to train assassination squads. The president of Blackwater, Mr. Prince, has stated, he would like to eliminate all Muslims from the face of the earth. Well I wonder what other people would his CIA trained assassination squads go after? :frown::no::censored:

[jimnaseum]

If you are a member of the American middle class and you vote Republican you have your head up your ass.

[CreativeMind]

You are like a little slice of heaven in an otherwise hellish world.

Awwww shucks :turnon:

No, no...he's right. You SHOULD take a bow, Tracy, especially given how long this Obama thread has carried on and for all that you've contributed to it. You always write incredibly intelligent posts and back them up with solid information or verifiable statistics or give web links so people can learn more for themselves, so long as they get off their butt and simply click on a computer mouse. So he's right, you ARE a slice of heaven around here.

On the other hand, don't get TOO turned on (:turnon:) or you'll have everyone fighting over you instead of politics! Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her! :p

[transjen]

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Hey Tracey,
How do you feel about Cheney having the CIA work with Blackwater (Xe) to train assassination squads. The president of Blackwater, Mr. Prince, has stated, he would like to eliminate all Muslims from the face of the earth. Well I wonder what other people would his CIA trained assassination squads go after? :frown::no::censored:

I haven't heard of Blackwater before reading this. But I looked into it, and damn... they're like a mini military. I can see how they would make the fight in Iraq personal. 4 of their contractors were killed and hung from a bridge Fallujah, which I do remember. This was one of the events that demonstrated how out of control Fallujah had become and our military cleared it out.

There seems to be some evidence that they carry their christian-right attitudes too far. I don't approve of making the war against Al Qaeda or Iraq a holy war. There's plenty of non-religious reasons to go over there and kick some ass. I think we should leave mercenaries out of the war. I think it was done because the job in Iraq was so big that hiring Blackwater was seen as one way to help solve the enormous problem of security in Iraq. But these guys are contractors which gives the US less say into how their operation is run.

As for the assassination program, it's against Al Qaeda and I don't have a problem with it. I don't know why it was hidden from congress. It didn't need to be, and that was a mistake.

I bet BO is keeping an eye on Blackwater bigtime. They could be a threat to BO's own civilian security force that he wants to create.

[TracyCoxx]

Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her! :p

Ok, let's hurry up and save the nation!

[TracyCoxx]

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Nevermind the fact that Obama... I mean Osama aired a video right before the 2004 election spewing his crap and making threats.

[transjen]

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

You do know that the tape is specifically about the 2004 election right? Bush was not sitting on it. Unless you have some evidence, save your conspiracy theories.

[transjen]

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

More ramblings about conspiracy theories? Again, back it up with some evidence.

[randolph]

No, no...he's right. You SHOULD take a bow, Tracy, especially given how long this Obama thread has carried on and for all that you've contributed to it. You always write incredibly intelligent posts and back them up with solid information or verifiable statistics or give web links so people can learn more for themselves, so long as they get off their butt and simply click on a computer mouse. So he's right, you ARE a slice of heaven around here.

On the other hand, don't get TOO turned on (:turnon:) or you'll have everyone fighting over you instead of politics! Let's focus on the problem at hand, people! We have a nation to save! First we take care of that and THEN we can throw Tracy on the bed and take turns ravishing her! :p

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you. :drool::p;):respect:

[randolph]

This Blackwater thing is very ominous. Prince had access to the highest levels of the CIA. For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent. The following is a link to one article on this.:frown::censored:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090831/scahill1

[CreativeMind]

So the truth is starting to come out, As Tom Ridge is spilling the beans that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft wanted the terror alter levels raised just before the election in 04 not because of any threats or hard facts but wanted it raised to scare the American public in to voteing for our savior W, So all the treats on the banks in 04 was a big load of Bush lies , Looks like the Bush adminastration rats are starting to come clean
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Except that's NOT what Tom Ridge said at all. It's merely the spin that the Left is trying to put on a quote that has been excerpted from his upcoming book, which his PUBLISHER was trying to push. In fact, consider this -- Ridge HIMSELF has not gone on TV saying any such thing to confirm THAT was the intent at the time OR that he had been ORDERED to raise an alert level to affect the upcoming election. Likewise, Ridge HIMSELF has not come forward to even say the Left are accurately quoting his quote.

More laughable still, literally only an hour or so ago, I got a huge laugh while I was flipping around some news channels in the midst of having lunch. I caught Nora O'Donnell on MSNBC interviewing someone from US News & World Report who had gotten a hold of the quote. The problem was...as much as O'Donnell openly wore her Left-leaning politics on her sleeve, right there on the air, and as much as she kept trying to ram home the idea that "Bush and his people tricked us! They pressured Ridge! They raised the alert level to fix the election!"...even the US News & World Report person had to challenge her on air and say "Uh, no, that's NOT what the quote actually says if you really read it in context. Ridge never says there were open talks about doing such a thing, and he never says he was directly ordered or was even pressured to do such a thing. All he ACTUALLY SAYS is that AS a former Congressman and as a former Governor, he simply felt that politics regarding the nation's safety were in play 3 days out from the Bush-Kerry Presidential election."

The US News & World Report guy also noted -- in a moment of true fairness and in conjunction with a quote issued by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- that raising the alert level was actually NOT even uncommon back at that time. In truth, it had actually been done EVERY SINGLE TIME by the Pentagon whenever a new message was received from Bin Laden. So doing it yet again...even 3 days out from the election...was merely in line with established Pentagon procedures.

So, frankly this story can be summed up with a giant "Well, DUH!!!" It was 3 days out from a Presidential election and politics where in play? Wow! Nice going, MSNBC! That's really some earth-shattering, late-breaking news you got a hold of there! That ought to earn you a Pulitzer!

MSNBC.
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a bunch of maroons."

[CreativeMind]

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

More ramblings about conspiracy theories? Again, back it up with some evidence.

LET'S HAVE A REALITY CHECK HERE!

Here's the problem with THIS particular conspiracy theory. Jen is postulating that Bush purposefully sat on the Bin Laden tape until right before the election and THEN released it, in order to affect the 2004 presidential election (which was him versus Kerry)...

...Yet the ENORMOUS HOLE in that theory is that the tape was released to the world media at the same time. And so THEY all reported on it TOO. So what? Are conspiracists now going to claim that BOTH the White House AND the entire world media -- including arab outlets such as Al Jazeera, which has always been sympathetic to Bin Laden -- worked in cahoots to ALL suppress the tape? I mean, come on. It's one thing to talk politics...it one thing to not like Bush...but let's not go completely nutty here.

Here's the bottom line truth and history completely bears this out...

The whole REASON that Bin Laden released a new tape only 3 days from the November 2004 election is because he was hoping to SCARE Americans into voting one way...he was actually trying to shift the electorate AGAINST Bush...by purposefully trying to bring up the spectre of what had happened EARLIER THAT SAME YEAR....back in March, 2004...with the Madrid, Spain, train bombings.

For those who have already forgotten their history, that was the incident where Islamic terrorists blew up four passenger trains in Spain and killed 191 people and wounded nearly 2,000 others.

The Madrid train bombings occurred 3 days (gee, notice a similarity?) before THEIR presidential election. Basically, with the bombings, the terrorists openly warned the Spanish people that IF they didn't vote a certain way -- that is, if they didn't vote to oust incumbent President Jose Maria Anzar, who actively supported Bush's anti-terrorist views and tactics-- there would be hell to pay and more people would be killed. More civilian sites would be targeted. The result? The Spanish DID shift their votes just enough...out of pure fear...to oust Anzar.

For months afterward...as we raced towards our own presidential election...there was constant tension and talk that Islamic terrorists would try the same trick here. Both Republicans AND Democrats openly worried that as we got closer to the election there would be SOME kind of attack on American soil, in an attempt to sway voters the same way they had successfully nudged the Spanish in a different direction.

In fact, if you'll jar a few memory cells and think back to the 2004 election, maybe you'll start to remember how THAT was even a big campaign issue that was being argued on TV. The question was constantly being posed that IF there was an attack on American soil, WOULD you let it sway your vote and WOULD you vote out of fear (the same way many felt Spain had done)?

So, when Bin Laden released a new tape only a few days out from the election, anyone and everyone with a brain realized he was trying to duplicate the success they had achieved in Spain. The problem was it ultimately BACKFIRED. As news media outlets drew the comparison to Spain, more and more Americans entrenched themselves...got really pissed off...and said two things:

1) If Bin Laden is trying to scare me into voting for Kerry, then that must mean KERRY is the actual pussy that Bin Laden feels he can push around once he's in office.

2) Well, if that's how you think, then FUCK YOU, BIN LADEN! If you're THAT scared of Bush and if you're trying to make me vote the other way, now I'm DEFINITELY voting for Bush just to FUCK YOU RIGHT UP THE ASS, YOU ISLAMIC PIECE OF SHIT!

And sure enough, on election day, Bush not only won the electoral college, but as much as democrats like to conveniently forget this little FACT -- Bush ALSO won the POPULAR vote as well, by well over 3 MILLION votes. And yes, one of the things he definitely trumped Kerry in...in all the exit polls...was the key question "Who do you think will keep you safer for the next four years?"

And love him or hate him, you have to give one thing to Bush.
He DID keep you safe for the next 4 years.

So now let's see how Barry O. does with things on HIS watch...

[TracyCoxx]

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you. :drool::p;):respect:

All together now...

Sit on my face, and tell me that you love me
I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you, too
I love to hear you ORALIZE
When I'm between your thighs
You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you
I'll sit on your face and THEN I'LL LOVE YOU TRULY
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
IF WE sit on our faces in all sorts of places and play
'Till we're blown away

[transjen]

["

And love him or hate him, you have to give one thing to Bush.
He DID keep you safe for the next 4 years.

So now let's see how Barry O. does with things on HIS watch... What a load of total B:censored:S w kept us safe BS he got lucky and nothing more the boarders are still wide open W did nothing , The mighty W my ass he got F:censored:n lucky, GEORGE W BUSH was the biggest diaster ever to hit the USA he should have been impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes

[Jenae LaTorque]

[quote=randolph;102265] For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am not sure precedent is the right word to use here.

Maybe tradition would be more aplicable.

[randolph]

All together now...

Sit on my face, and tell me that you love me
I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you, too
I love to hear you ORALIZE
When I'm between your thighs
You blow me away

Sit on my face and let my lips embrace you
I'll sit on your face and THEN I'LL LOVE YOU TRULY
Life can be fine if we both sixty-nine
IF WE sit on our faces in all sorts of places and play
'Till we're blown away

Hey Hey Hey!
Looks like we have a way to get conservatives and liberals TOGETHER!
SUCH A GOOD WAY TO "FACE" THE ISSUES. :innocent: :inlove::turnon::drool::p;):lol::yes:

[randolph]

[quote=randolph;102265] For the CIA to hire death squads to do their dirty work is a very dangerous precedent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I am not sure precedent is the right word to use here.

Maybe tradition would be more aplicable.

Yes Jenae you have good points, ah er ahem, I mean a good point. ;)

[TracyCoxx]

What a load of total B:censored:S w kept us safe BS he got lucky and nothing more the boarders are still wide open W did nothing , The mighty W my ass he got F:censored:n lucky, GEORGE W BUSH was the biggest diaster ever to hit the USA he should have been impeached and he should stand trial for war crimes

You are so naive. But that's ok. It's leaders like George Bush & Reagan and our military that gives you the luxury to be naive.

[transjen]

You are so naive. But that's ok. It's leaders like George Bush & Reagan and our military that gives you the luxury to be naive. You have a good point on the military but giveing credit to Reagan and W you are wrong, The idea that Reagan ended commieusm is one of the biggest myths from the GOP ever fact is Reagan just happend to be the presdent when Russia could no longer afford there army had they had a few more years then old man Bush would have gotten the credit for bringing them down, Now W really did a lot for the military like getting 4000+ of our soliders killed for his lies on his BS Iraq war, Which done nothing to keep us safe, I also find it funny that the war drum banger W when it was his time to fight for our country his daddy pulled strings to put him in to the AIR NATIONAL GUARD where he never would have to worry about going to Nam but chickin shit W still went AWOL but daddy pulled more strings to protect the little bastard no wonder he feels laws never apply to him


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

The Financial Times reports that the U.S. government "is sitting on a paper profit of almost $11bn on its 34 percent shareholding in Citigroup (NYSE: C), its only direct stake in a large financial institution."

How'd that happen? The Treasury Department converted $25 billion worth of preferred stock into common equity at the end of July. Over the past four weeks, shares of Citi are up a mind-blowing 70%.

According to The Wall Street Journal, it was that conversion that led to the run-up: "Ironically, it is the exchange that made Citi a buy. In short, it solved the bank's chief weakness, a dearth of tangible common equity. Banks lacking TCE are risky stock investments because shareholders stand to be diluted by the capital raises needed to boost equity."

Well, perhaps the bailout was not all that stupid. Lets hope other Gov. investments turn out that well. :yes:

[TracyCoxx]

You have a good point on the military but giveing credit to Reagan and W you are wrong, The idea that Reagan ended commieusm is one of the biggest myths from the GOP ever fact is Reagan just happend to be the presdent when Russia could no longer afford there army had they had a few more years then old man Bush would have gotten the credit for bringing them down,
Yeah, that's what I mean about being naive. Good example. Would you mind describing our military, that you give credit to for keeping us safe, after Carter's term vs. after Reagan's terms?

Now W really did a lot for the military like getting 4000+ of our soliders killed for his lies on his BS Iraq war, Which done nothing to keep us safe,You mean other than killing all those Al Qaeda ass holes and taking out Saddam and "Chemical-ali"? Yeah, that was probably a waste. At least the Iraqi war only cost less than 20% of what Obama spent in his first 2 months :lol:


I also find it funny that the war drum banger W when it was his time to fight for our country his daddy pulled strings to put him in to the AIR NATIONAL GUARD where he never would have to worry about going to Nam but chickin shit W still went AWOL but daddy pulled more strings to protect the little bastard no wonder he feels laws never apply to himIf you were comparing him to McCain, you'd definitely have a point. But you're comparing him to BO LOL!

[transjen]

Lets see Obama was born in 61 or 62 making him way to young to fight or enlist for Nam and by the time he was 18 the draft was done away with Now W was of the draft age during Nam but he didn't get drafted because his daddy pulled string to keep him out of Nam by getting one of the coverted spots in the AIR NATIONAL GUARD and the slap in the face is W couldn't even do that as he went AWOL.
Agian you are giving Reagan way to much credit, When Carter was in the white house there was a bad taste about anything miltary with the youth at the time when Reagan started his second term the attitude started to change and a lot of young adults started to rethink about a career in the miltary and Reagan had little to do with that if anything at all.
Saddam was no real threat and W knew it but he lied and started this BS war and AL-QUEDA was not in Iraq till W started the war funny how you say how cheap W's war was but at cost do you count the over 4000 American soliders who died for nothing the real enemy was hiding in Afgan, Ban-ladin should have been the number one target but W wanted Saddam instead
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[charlietwobeans]

I like what Creative has to say, however, we could take a break once in a while. Perhaps Creative and I could take turns between your thighs while Transjen sits on your face, If that sounds good to you. :drool::p;):respect:

I step away for a few days vacation and come back to find you two muscling in on my slice o' heaven! Find yer own pie!

:D

[charlietwobeans]

...the blame that mysteriously seems to miss Obama's shoulders every time we talk about the finacial collapse? Does everything that happened after 1/20/09 get put on Obama's shoulders by the media? By the man himself?

I think not.

Crises, foreign, economic, natural, take time to manifest themselves. They do not adhere to election cycles.

Whose fiscal policy are we running right now? Bush's! Is it a mess? Yes! Is Obama blameless? No!

Whose foreign policy were we running on 9/11/01? Clinton's! Was it a mess? Yes! Was Bush blameless? No!

Don't find convenient shoulders to place blame on just because you don't like the person.

That doesn't prove anything they could have had the tape since any time in 04, And all the tape does was nothing but to make sure Osama won his war agianst the USA by flush us in to the shitter by 4 more years of W. 9/11 was W ,s get out of jail free card he owes he's second term to fear and the fact no one rembered that he was in charge on 9/11 and blame should fall on his shoulders he was warned and he did nothing
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[CreativeMind]

Crises, foreign, economic, natural, take time to manifest themselves.
They do not adhere to election cycles.

Don't find convenient shoulders to place blame on just because you don't like the person.

Very well said. In truth there is more than enough blame to go around.
And on that note, I now give you the SCARIEST web site you'll ever see...

http://usdebtclock.org/

Of course, the part that should make you crap your pants is at the bottom, where it notes the UNFUNDED liabilities.
Try to take comfort in knowing that (as of now) each of us is on the hook for...oh...about $191,000 !!! :turnoff:

[TracyCoxx]

Since the government has run out of money last April, we're adding a $billion to the debt every week. And they're still talking about an extremely expensive HEALTH CARE plan? WTF?

[randolph]

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

Government sucks! :censored::censored::censored:

[charlietwobeans]

I get confused as to which "political forums within sex forums" I sometimes post things to, so forgive me if this is a repeat.

Political Math does a wonderful job of explaining the deficit spending here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

Since the government has run out of money last April, we're adding a $billion to the debt every week. And they're still talking about an extremely expensive HEALTH CARE plan? WTF?

[TracyCoxx]

Good posts Randolph & Charlie

Check out who five of BO's Czars are:

- Van Jones, green jobs "czar" - a communist

- John Holdren, science "czar" - proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

- Cass Sunstein, regulatory "czar" - proposed bans on hunting and eating meat and proposed that your dog to be allowed to have an attorney in court. And a fairness doctrine for the Internet, which he has since stepped away from

- Carol Browner, global warming "czar" - was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

- Ezekiel Emmanuel, health care adviser - proponent of the Complete Lives System, which puts values on lives based mostly by age

In addition, one of the main authors of the stimulus package was the Apollo Alliance. And you are right Randolph, our congressmen can certainly say no - we will write this ourselves. But they didn't. They didn't even fucking read it! Oh, and by the way, one of the leaders of the Apollo Alliance is Jeff Jones. He was with Bill Ayers in the Weather Underground.

And the Diversity Chief proposed that radio stations pay 100% of their operating budget yearly. Obviously this is meant to sink them. This tax would then of course be transferred to NPR. If you can't pay the tax, you will lose your license and the license will be transferred to a minority group.

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right!

[randolph]

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Well why did Bush surround himself with the Neocons, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, ect,ect? These guys would have been quite happy to turn the USA into totalitarian state.

[randolph]

Very well said. In truth there is more than enough blame to go around.
And on that note, I now give you the SCARIEST web site you'll ever see...

http://usdebtclock.org/

Of course, the part that should make you crap your pants is at the bottom, where it notes the UNFUNDED liabilities.
Try to take comfort in knowing that (as of now) each of us is on the hook for...oh...about $191,000 !!! :turnoff:

It seems we have a fatal flaw in our "representative form of government. We have given our representatives "carte blanc" to load us down with massive liabilities without any approval from us. We are required to "bail out" incompetent banks, insurance companies, car companies and any other corporation the "government" deems in "need". Isn't it time we, the citizens of this country, say enough is enough? :censored:

[TracyCoxx]

You BO supporters, tell me, why does Obama choose to surround himself with these kind of people? Why not the typical democrats we've all come to know? These guys are more like revolutionaries than far leftists.

Well why did Bush surround himself with the Neocons, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, ect,ect? These guys would have been quite happy to turn the USA into totalitarian state.

These are people we've "come to know". Cheney started working with the government in '69, Wolfowitz has been with the government since '72, and Rumsfeld started back in '57. There's nothing new about these guys.

Obama's guys have not been part of this government. They come from radical revolutionary type backgrounds.

[randolph]

Van Jones Biography
Civil Rights Lawyer, Advocate, 1968-

"Dr. King didn't get famous giving a speech that said,"I have a complaint." It's time for us to start dreaming again and invite the country to dream with us. We don't have any "throw away" species, nations, or children. We must birth a global green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty."

Born in rural Tennessee, Jones graduated in 1990 from the University of Tennessee and, in 1993, from Yale Law School. At the age of 27, Jones convinced the California State Bar Association to allow him to begin a program that would provide lawyer referral services for police abuse victims. Jones, a civil-rights lawyer, is founder and executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit agency for justice, opportunities, and peace in urban America. Located in Oakland, California, the Center focuses on campaigning to reform California's abusive and costly youth prison system, creating opportunities in the "green" economy for poor communities and communities of color, supporting victims and survivors of police abuse and their families, and uplifting young people and addressing Bay Area violence with a mix of activism and street culture.

Jones has lead many campaigns including Books Not Bars, an advocacy program for parents/grandparents of incarcerated youth in the United States. It has been credited with a 30% drop in the total number of youth incarcerated in California. Additionally Jones sits on numerous governing boards, and following Hurricane Katrina co-founded the largest online activist community addressing Black issues.

Sounds like a good guy to me. :yes:

[randolph]

Holdren served as chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from February 2007 until February 2008 and as president of the AAAS from February 2006 to February 2007.[2] He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. He was confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19, 2009 by a vote of 61 to 31[3] in the Senate.[4] [5] He testified to the nomination committee that he does not believe that government should have a role in determining optimal population size [6] and that he has never endorsed forced sterilization.[7][8][7][9]

Sounds like a good guy to me. :yes:

[randolph]

After the Clinton Administration, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a "global strategy group" headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.[16] As a Principal in that firm, Browner assists businesses and other organizations with the challenges of operating internationally, including the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change. Coca-Cola and Merck have been among the clients for such international assistance.[11] She also became a founding member and principal of Albright Capital Management, an investment advisory company.[2][16]

Browner was the chair of the Audubon Society; her term expired in 2008.[17] She also joined the board of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization founded by Gore in 2006.[16] In 2008 she joined the board of APX, Inc., which specializes in technology infrastructure for the environmental commodities markets[18], including those for carbon offsets and the CDM Gold Standard.[19] She is or was also on the boards of the Center for American Progress, the Alliance for Climate Protection, the League of Conservation Voters.[18] and the Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Her previous year's income, in a 2009 report, was reported by the The Wall Street Journal to be between $1 million and $5 million from lobbying firm Downey McGrath Group, Inc., where her husband, Thomas Downey, is a principal. She also reported $450,000 in "member distribution" income, plus retirement and other benefits from The Albright Group.[20]

Doesn't sound like a "socialist" to me. :no:

[TracyCoxx]

Van Jones - Communist

Source? Van Jones:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true

"Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.""

In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin.

Now why would anyone think this guy is a communist?

He may be a 'nice' guy. But there's no room for communists in the US government.

[TracyCoxx]

John Holdren, science "czar" - proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

I already talked about him. Here it is again. The references are still there so don't tell me he didn't advocate sterilization.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being," Holdren wrote in "Human Ecology," a 1973 textbook he co-authored with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren heralded a "tightly reasoned essay" by law professor Christopher Stone, who said, "I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers and other so-called 'natural objects' in the environment -- indeed, to the natural environment as a whole." Holdren, writing in 1977's "Ecoscience," which was also co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich

In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote.

Another "coercive fertility control" program floated by Holdren involved "the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired ... The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems," Holdren wrote in "Ecoscience."

To help achieve their goals, Holdren and the Ehrlichs formulated a "world government scheme" they called the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth. They also discussed the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

[TracyCoxx]

Carol Browner, global warming "czar" - was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

Doesn't sound like a "socialist" to me. :no:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
"Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change."

[TracyCoxx]

Randolph, this information was very easy to find and very easy for you to confirm if you looked. Why are you going out of your way to find information about these people that doesn't happen to mention their communist and/or revolutionary ideas?

And seriously, why does Obama surround himself with communists, revolutionaries and world society types? Why do his supporters still claim "oh that may be what the people around him think, but Obama isn't that way". Wake up people!

[randolph]

Randolph, this information was very easy to find and very easy for you to confirm if you looked. Why are you going out of your way to find information about these people that doesn't happen to mention their communist and/or revolutionary ideas?

And seriously, why does Obama surround himself with communists, revolutionaries and world society types? Why do his supporters still claim "oh that may be what the people around him think, but Obama isn't that way". Wake up people!

Its very easy to label people, but what does it mean? I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia that focused on what people do, not what some conservatives accuse them of being. Obama is choosing people based on their performance working in our society. Labeling someone a "communist" is absurd, communism is dead. Like it or not, this country is socialist, that is what the citizens want. All democratic countries are basically socialistic.

[TracyCoxx]

Its very easy to label people, but what does it mean? I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia that focused on what people do, not what some conservatives accuse them of being. Obama is choosing people based on their performance working in our society.

Which excerpt that I posted about these people was from what a conservative accused them of being? I quoted Van Jones own words. I quoted John Holdren's writings. And stated the fact that Carol Browner was a leader of a socialist group. These are facts, not accusations from some conservative.

Labeling someone a "communist" is absurd, communism is dead. Like it or not, this country is socialist, that is what the citizens want. All democratic countries are basically socialistic.Absurd or not, that is what Van Jones said. And I highly doubt the citizens want this country to be socialist.

I grew up as a Republican and I still believe in fiscal conservatism(aka, Eisenhower).
I'm glad you're not one of those who want a socialist country. As a fiscal conservative, I'm sure you are aware that socialism with the quality of life Americans expect is simply unsustainable. This should now be abundantly clear due to BO's policies to all except people like Jen. I think you'll see in 2010 than Americans most definitely do not want socialism. They are projecting that democrats will lose more than 20 seats in the senate. BO was wise not to get into any details when he was campaigning. Just stick to hope and change. Don't tell them that his goal is nothing less than the end of America as we know it.

[tslust]

I chose excerpts from biographies from Wikipedia

Ahh, the all-knowing:rolleyes::rolleyes: Wiki.:lol:

Don't worry, I like to use it too, but it's not always a reliable source.

[randolph]

Which excerpt that I posted about these people was from what a conservative accused them of being? I quoted Van Jones own words. I quoted John Holdren's writings. And stated the fact that Carol Browner was a leader of a socialist group. These are facts, not accusations from some conservative.

Absurd or not, that is what Van Jones said. And I highly doubt the citizens want this country to be socialist.


I'm glad you're not one of those who want a socialist country. As a fiscal conservative, I'm sure you are aware that socialism with the quality of life Americans expect is simply unsustainable. This should now be abundantly clear due to BO's policies to all except people like Jen. I think you'll see in 2010 than Americans most definitely do not want socialism. They are projecting that democrats will lose more than 20 seats in the senate. BO was wise not to get into any details when he was campaigning. Just stick to hope and change. Don't tell them that his goal is nothing less than the end of America as we know it.

Again we are hung up on a label, "socialism". I view "socialism" as a means of equitably distributing the wealth being produced in a country. This can be done by taxes, laws and regulations. I don't believe in the government owning and controlling the means of production. England found out the hard way that it doesn't work. Conservatives seem to have an ego centered idea that the money they earn is entirely the result of their actions. They don't realize or accept that they are enabled to make money because they are in a society that cooperates and controls wealth making. Yes, we are now investing vast amounts of public funds in our private enterprise system. We are not socializing the country in the England sense. We are trying to save our "free enterprise system". Yes it is very scary indeed. :eek:

[TracyCoxx]

Again we are hung up on a label, "socialism".Well that's what we humans do. We come up with a word to describe some concept or thing. That's how communication works.

I view "socialism" as a means of equitably distributing the wealth being produced in a country. This can be done by taxes, laws and regulations.
That's not how America works. It leads to all kinds of problems that this country has avoided.

Conservatives seem to have an ego centered idea that the money they earn is entirely the result of their actions. They don't realize or accept that they are enabled to make money because they are in a society that cooperates and controls wealth making.

It's not an ego centered idea. It's a system based on fairness. You put in the work and you will be rewarded. You don't work, you don't get rewarded. This is a system that encourages its people to become educated and to be a constructive member of society. With socialism, you put in the work and you get squat.

It is the ego of the poor who do not accept capitalism to think they deserve a piece of the pie despite the fact that they contribute little of value.

[randolph]

I like this quote by Nicolas Talib, who wrote "The Black Swan" an excellent review of how smart ass financial bankers have fucked up our system.

"Social Fairness. I spent 13 years fighting bankers bonuses (when nobody else did) and am currently crusading for clawbacks of past compensation as I have shown how regular taxpayers have been financing bonuses of millionaire bankers ("socialism for the losses, capitalism for the profits"). We are financing today those who got us here, with tax hikes on those who do the right thing, and larger tax break for those who blew us up. Companies who made mistakes and fragilized the system are being subsidized by the countercyclical ones who make it more robust."
I couldn't agree more.

[randolph]

A Silly Question: "Is Barack Obama a Progressive?"*

August 29, 2009 By Paul Street
Paul Street's ZSpace Page


Is Barack Obama a progressive? John Wilson says "yes," I say "no." But how much does the question really matter at the end of the day? Obama wasn't selected to head the United Way or the White Sox. He's chief executive of the American Empire. He is a politician above all - one who was selected to sit atop and, I think, to re-brand what the left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin rightly calls "Democracy, Incorporated."



Every four years millions of American voters are induced to put their political hats on, to hope a bit, and then to go back to sleep. To hope that a savior or at least a more effective manager can be installed in the White House to raise wages, roll back war and militarism, provide universal and adequate health care, rebuild infrastructure, fix the environmental crisis, reduce inequality, and generally make life more livable.


The Obama presidency so far is a chilling object lesson in the reach, power, and bipartisan nature of that "unelected dictatorship." Obama is following what David Rothkopf, a former Clinton official, calls "the violin model: you hold power with the left hand and you play the music with the right." In other words, you gain and hold the presidency with populace-pleasing progressive-sounding rhetoric but you govern, you make policy, in service to existing dominant institutions.



So, you lecture Wall Street on the immorality of their bonuses. You visit Elkhart , Indiana to show solidarity with downtrodden working people. And then you give yet more of the public treasury and commons away to the Privileged Few, justifying the handouts as a noble expression of your "sensible," "realistic," and "pragmatic" commitment to rising above ideological divisions to "get things done" for the American people.



Funny how our "pragmatist"-in chief keep getting things done for the rich and powerful. The mind and soul go numb as yet one more populist-, progressive-, and peaceful- sounding campaign promise gets drowned in the icy waters of corporate and military rule. Its been a strange time for many of Obama's progressive fans, what with their "peace" president's blatant escalation of civilian-slaughtering war in South Asia, his indefinite continuation of the Iraq occupation, his increase of the Pentagon budget, his advance dismissal of a peace dividend, his advance approval for an Israel attack on Iran, his refusal to move in any serious way against Israel's occupation of Palestine, his apparent commitment to building a provocative missile shield in Eastern Europe, his embrace of NATO expansion, his ambivalent and tepid response to the right-wing coup in Honduras, his embrace of the War on Drugs in Columbia and Mexico and his continuation of numerous key aspects of George W. Bush's counter-terrorism program. "Obama," Jeremy Scahill notes, "is a brilliant supporter of empire who has figured out a way to trick people into believing they're supporting radical change." The president is "an Orwellian character" who "make[s] people think that war is peace."




"Obama," Noam Chomsky notes, "made sure to staff his economic team with advisors from [the financial] sector." This helps explain both Obama's willingness to expand the Bush policy of transferring trillions to financial parasites and Obama's unwillingness to displease the financial sector lobby with clearly indicated progressive measures like seriously restricting executive compensation, re-instituting the Glass Steagal Acts's separation of commercial and investment banking, closing regulatory exemptions on customized derivatives, banning the notorious credit default swap, and breaking up the "too-big- [and too-powerful]- to fail" banking firms.



As bailouts for oligarchs combined with growing destitution amongst the populace last March, William Greider noted that "People everywhere [have] learned a blunt lesson about power... They [have] watched Washington run to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They [have] learned that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it." But nothing or very little for the lower and working class majority, even with Democrats in power.

And then of course there's Obama's struggle to advance corporate healthcare reform for and by the nation's leading insurance and drug companies - an unpopular private-public mish-mash that is all too consistent with the hundreds of millions of dollars that Obama and other leading blue Cross Blue Shield Democrats like Max Baucus have received from the health sector and the finance and insurance industries in the last few years.



It's not for nothing that Obama's presidential campaign garnered a record-setting $39 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries (10 million better than McCain), $44 million from the legal and lobbyist sector (33 million better than McCain), $25 million from the communications and electronics industries (20 million better than McCain), and more than $19 million from the health sector (12 million better than McCain).



You don't need to be a Marxist to be concerned about Obama's service to economic royalty. Two Sundays ago, the liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich, something of an Obama fan last year, wrote an editorial noting the absurdity of Republican claims that Obama is a socialist and worrying that "Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be for the common guy."







The left-liberal senior black Congressman and single-payer advocate John Conyers recently described Obama's health care plan as "crap," adding that "nobody is more disappointed in Barack Obama than I am."



It's all very consistent with the campaign warnings of a liberal named John Edwards, who said it was a "complete fantasy" to think that meaningful progressive reform could be achieved by sitting down at a big negotiating table with big corporations and Republicans. Only an "epic fight" with corporate power could achieve such reform, Edwards said.




"Every stage of his political career," the liberal journalist Ryan Lizza noted about Obama last year, "has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions." And in a carefully researched New Yorker portrait of Obama based on extensive interviews in May of 2007, Larissa MacFarquhar found that Obama was about as far from being a radical reformer as one could imagine. "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama," MacFarquhar wrote, "is deeply conservative....It's not just that he thinks revolutions are unlikely: he values continuity and stability for their own sake, sometimes even more than he values change for the good. Take health care, for example," MacFarquhar noted, quoting Obama on how the United States ' for-profit health insurance companies were too deeply entrenched for us to evict them from their Mafia-like control of our health-care future.



MacFarquhar's portrait was consistent with how the left black political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. described the 30-something Obama in early 1996, shortly after the future president won his first election to the Illinois legislature. Obama struck Reed as "a smooth Harvard lawyer with ...vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics" including a "fundamentally bootstrap line" that was "softened by...talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program - the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle class reform in favoring form over substance."






I am aware of the standard liberal defense that Obama is doing all he can for progressive values under the existing system of business and imperial power. Corporate Washington, the argument goes, leaves little room for progressive maneuver, Yes, that's true, but leaving aside the fact that the "deeply conservative" Obama often goes farther than required to appease corporate and military masters, there's an obvious response to this defense: "Hey, maybe it isn't about running for president." Maybe it isn't about climbing to the top of this authoritarian system and helping that system re-brand and re-legitimize itself as a "democracy" where "anything is possible." Maybe it's about re-building and expanding social movements and creating a more responsive political culture beneath and beyond these big, business-coordinated corporate-crafted mass-marketed narrow-spectrum and candidate-centered candidate-obsessed electoral extravaganzas the power elite and its dominant media stage for us every four years.



Adolph Reed got it right at the beginning. And as the brilliant black left Obama critic Glen Ford recently put it in regard to Obama's predictable conservative trajectory as president, "what begins badly usually ends badly."



With all due respect for John Conyers, we might also heed the words of the Tarnac Nine, who wrote the following in their 2007 pamphlet The Coming Insurrection: "To be disappointed one must have hoped for something. And we have never hoped for anything from business: we see it for what it is and what it has always been, a fool's game of varying degrees of comfort."



That's how I've felt about the false-pragmatist business liberal Barack Obama since he first leaped on to the national stage in the summer of 2004 and it's no small part of why I picked him as the next president in the fall of 2006.

:frown::censored:

[tslust]

(Just a joke.)A Silly Question: “Is Barack Obama a Progressive?”

No, he hasn't progressed verry far.:lol::lol:

Sorry, I couldn't pass that up.

[TracyCoxx]

Isn't this interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/bestseller/besthardnonfiction.html

Three conservative books in the top 10, and no liberal political books on the list.

And this from the Gallup poll
Bottom Line

Despite the Democratic Party's political strength -- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country -- more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level. Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.

BO is going to find the 2nd half of his term very difficult :yes:

[randolph]

Isn't this interesting...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/bestseller/besthardnonfiction.html

Three conservative books in the top 10, and no liberal political books on the list.

And this from the Gallup poll


BO is going to find the 2nd half of his term very difficult :yes:

It appears Obama is actually a conservative. Tracy you should be pleased. :frown::censored:

[The Conquistador]

It appears Obama is actually a Marxist. Tracy you should be buying more 7.62x54R. :frown::censored:

Fixed it for you.

[randolph]

Fixed it for you.

First of all it is a serious felony, at this site, to alter someone else's post. :lol:
Besides, look at what he is doing;
Selling out to the drug companies.
Selling out health care.
Expanding war in Afghanistan.
Playing footsie with the bankers.
He is looking more like a fucking conservative every day. :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks Postman, I was getting really confused about what Randolph wrote. Must have been a mistake... or he was joking.

[TracyCoxx]

Obama Aide Van Jones Resigns as Environmental Adviser Amid Controversy Over Past Statements

Awesome! :lol: One commie down... many more to go.

[TracyCoxx]

LOL As of this time, CNN still hasn't broken the news about Van Jones and there's already statements from other congressmen/women about it. CNN's probably thinking... if we don't say anything perhaps no one will know :yes:

[The Conquistador]

First of all it is a serious felony, at this site, to alter someone else's post. :lol:
Besides, look at what he is doing;
Selling out to the drug companies.
Selling out health care.
Expanding war in Afghanistan.
Playing footsie with the bankers.
He is looking more like a fucking conservative every day. :frown::censored:

You obviously do not know what conservatism is.

[LadyBoyLive.com]

Went the same High School as Obama, albeit he grad in '79.
He had a disco fro and smoked the herb from what I understand.
He went by the name Barry.

[randolph]

You obviously do not know what conservatism is.

Yes, I think I do know what "real" conservatism is, its Eisenhower conservatism. Its not the Limbaugh, Bush, Reagan, asshole conservatism. I usually vote Democratic because I can't stand whats happened to the Republican party. It's now dominated by mean spirited bigoted self centered lying assholes. The Limbaugh mentality is destroying this country with its distortions and polarization of the public. He encourages the morons in this country to be even more stupid. Eisenhower must be squirming in his grave if he is seeing what is going on. I cry for this country. It's no longer America the beautiful. :broken:

[The Conquistador]

I can't stand whats happened to the Republican party. It's now dominated by mean spirited bigoted self centered lying assholes.

Sorry to break it to you bro, but both parties are like that.

I cry for this country. It's no longer America the beautiful. :broken:

I agree. This country is going down the crapper. You can erode only so much of the foundation of an instution before the whole thing comes crashing down.

[TracyCoxx]

I agree. This country is going down the crapper. You can erode only so much of the foundation of an instution before the whole thing comes crashing down.

Postman, I agree things are bad now. But then when things seem bad I try and get some perspective and remember how bad things were during the 60s. Civil rights movements, Kent State, the Cuban Missile crisis when the world was just minutes away from an all out nuclear war, JFK shot, MLK shot, Veitnam, etc.

Before that there was the Great Depression, and before that was the Civil War when we were literally killing each other. Before that, there was slavery, and taking N. America from the Indians.

So what is so bad about these times Postman that we say NOW our foundation is eroding? Randolph, in light of all these events throughout the history of the US, do you think it ever was America the Beautiful?

I'm trying to quantify what is it that made America great, and ask is that really being threatened now?

[randolph]

Tracy, you ask when America was beautiful?
Well lets see;
In the 1930s the unions established the rights of workers to a living wage.
In the 1940s we beat the shit out of the Japs and Nazis.
In the 1950s a working guy could buy a nice house and a new car on a single modest wage and his wife could stay home and raise the kids.
In the 1960s we learned that social action could stop an evil war.
In the 1970s we learned we could get along on less oil.
In the 1980s we had to pay off the incompetence of the Reagan administration (savings and loan debacle, etc).
In the 1990s the President had blowjobs in the oval office and the tech bubble burst.
In the 2000s the neocons showed what evil is all about. The whole economy collapsed as greed and unethical practices ruled.
Today? Well fuck, I am getting old and I need a hard tranny. :turnon::inlove:

[TracyCoxx]

We all know where the party lines are, but for the moment I would like to put politics aside. I think we can all agree that America is deeply divided now (of course, not as divided as it was during the Civil War), and don't count that among America's great attributes. There was a time when the two sides weren't so far apart right? So think back over the history of America what made America great? It doesn't sound like you think the 80s 90s or 00s display America's beauty, so let's scratch those off your list. In fact, let's all scratch off everything from the 70s on, since that's likely where we are going to be biased and divided again.

I would add to the list:
* America's natural resources
* The way America was created (at least most of how it was created)
* The fact that America was built through exploration and invention and at least until recently in our history has kept its drive for exploration and invention
* The Constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers

This is one I'd like to add to the list:
* That anyone with enough drive can achieve their dreams

This has always been the American dream, so I would LIKE to put it on the list. The potential has been there for much of the population, but not always true for all of America's law-abiding citizens. Past the point of law-abiding citizens I draw a definite line.

p.s. and yes, hard tranny's are among America's Beauties!

[The Conquistador]

So what is so bad about these times Postman that we say NOW our foundation is eroding?

Our foundations have been eroding at an alarming rate since the beginning of the 1900's; I'm just saying that people are starting to take notice now and yet most simply don't give a fuck. Most of the American public are complacent, content or apathetic and even though they see the shit going on, they are unwilling to do anything to change it. People are too dependent on other people today and rather than harnessing our inherent spirit of self reliance and independence, most would rather follow someone else and have another person do what needs to be done if it means making their lives simpler.

This will explain what I am talking about(sort of)

The Eight Steps Of A Democracy

From Bondage to Spiritual Faith

Do we forget how young of a nation we are? Europe had shaped and reshaped itself so many times before we were even put on a map.

England ruled the young America, not with whips and chains, but with taxes. The people weren't allowed to build a strong nation because all the money they made was sent back to England. In the beginning, they were cool with that.

They were running from Europe so they would have the right to serve the God of their choosing and the manner in which they would serve that God. To them, at least in the beginning, the sacrifice was worth it. But that didn't last long because Spiritual Faith is life altering.

From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage

Now, you have spiritual people who fully believe God has their best interest at heart and that translates into the building of courage.

Not in just this case, but in every case. Once you let God into your life, you begin to feel like you can move mountains. When you trust and have faith, fear seems to melt away.

From Courage to Liberty

This may seem funny but the courage you get from God makes you want to fight. O.K. maybe I didn't say that right. The courage you get from God makes it impossible for you to allow someone to block your blessings. There, that's better.

Our founding fathers knew we could not prosper with England at the head of our lives. We had to be a nation that put God first, then country, then family.

So NO! We will not bow to your Queen, we will not allow you to rob our country of it's chance to be great, and no we will not allow you to dictate the lives of our children and grandchildren. We have God on our side and will fight for what we feel is right.

And that's what we did. We fought and won our independence, our freedom, and our Liberty.

From Liberty to Abundance

And once you put your faith in God and walk through the fire without fear, you receive your blessing. And can't we all agree, America has been blessed. We sprouted from a young nation into a world leader in record time.

Industry flourished, businesses developed, and the Economy became the envy and standard of the world. We fought amongst ourselves, defended our friends and allies, and built the strongest military force on the planet. We adjust and change our laws, while still adhering to the basic principles of our Constitution.

But all this comes with a price.

From Abundance to Complacency

Complacency- self-satisfaction, especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers and deficiencies

I think this came around the time of the Great Depression. The New Deal. The belief started to creep in that we had the money to do anything. People were hurting and wanted immediate help, so they turned to the government and the government answered.

We're temporarily going to give out Social Security benefits, just to get people by until things get better. We're going to set up Medicaid and Medicare to help the underprivileged and elderly, who just can't afford healthcare. These are just temporary steps to get us through these hard times.

When did they end Social Security? They didn't. No politician is going to advocate taking services from the poor and the old. Plus, now government has a huge money supply from all the taxes they collect for Social Security. Great way to get money from you to borrow against for other Government projects.

As the government continued to grow, so did it's hold on the mind of the American people.

From Complacency to Apathy

Apathy- lack of interest or concern; indifference

Now, we believe we can not fail. We pushed the Nazi's back and crushed Russia, what could go wrong? The age of drugs spread through America and people stopped caring. It was better to protest than to put yourself into a position to run for office. It was better to make love than resist the up and coming war in our own backyard, the ever growing size of government.

Then, one morning we awoke and realized Government played a role in every aspect of our life. We pay taxes from the moment we get up in the morning to the moment we go to sleep at night. They can tell your teenage daughter it's O.K. to get an abortion without telling a parent. They can even take away your land and cite "eminent domain".

And we threw our hands up and said "F it". It's nothing we can do, the government runs everything. And we stopped listening, we stopped paying attention, and we stopped holding politicians accountable for their actions. We allowed ourselves to be scared of the Government instead of making the Government scared of us.

This is were it gets really scary.

From Apathy to Dependence

This is were we are right now. We were so indifferent and complacent, the first person to come along and promise us the pot at the end of the rainbow, we jumped. This once God loving nation is starting to worship the Government instead.

The same God that gave our forefather's the strength and courage to fight is being contested at every turn. God teaches us to rely on him and then on ourselves and the Government doesn't like that. The now enormous Government, needs to keep feeding itself and it needs your complacency to do it.

They need you to not care they are taking over private industry. They need you to look away while the let the printing press run. They need you to worry about Nancy Pelosi, while the Federal Reserve consolidates power. And there's only one way that could happen, if you are dependent upon them.

If you can't keep your house without the Government, then you don't care how they do it. If you can't eat without the Government, you don't care where your food comes from. If you can't see a doctor without the Government, you don't care how much it will cost future generations.

We have become the nation of ME, Myself, and I and then anyone else that's poor. They got us right were they want us, completely dependent on the Government to make the economy work, to solve our individual financial woes, and to just give us that tingly feeling.

Guess what the last step is?

From Dependence to back into Bondage

This is what I don't understand about America today. There was a time in our history where people were given jobs, houses, food, and healthcare. It was called SLAVERY!

Master controlled everything about the lives of their slaves. They picked the winners and losers, the house nigga and the field nigga. They assualted those that would protest against their actions. They told their slaves when they could and couldn't procreate. They picked which part of the pig the slaves got to eat.

Now, the government is starting to enlist the same tactics. They pick which people can get their homes refinanced or modified. They pick which companies are to big to fail and which one's aren't worth saving. They release terror list for Americans, AMERICANS, that would question the direction of their country. And with Obama's full support of Planned Parenthood and his plans for national healthcare, population control won't be far behind.

And we're letting it happen. We are putting our heads in the sand and all our faith in a Man. A man that came from Chicago politics. A man that has an entire cabinet full of tax cheats and people who at one time or another have been under investigation. A man that down plays Christianity abroad and refuses to pray in front of a nation audience.

We've passed the 200 year mark but we're still progressing straight back to Bondage. The Government never gives up power. All the power the current Government is stacking will now be the norm, how can it get any bigger? It will and they will want more money to make it happen.

But before they come after more money, they will come for our guns. Mark my words. The American people are different from those in the past. We will always believe in our right to protect ourselves.

When the social spending fails and the Government is knocked down a peg, the people at the top will tell us it's in our best interest to let them handle it. The question will be, will we go back to God and develop the Great Courage to bring our country back from the brink or will hold out our arms and allow the government to attach the chains?


We are the sinking ship and yet while the lifeboats are waiting to be used, we would rather go down listening to the violin and its serenade of false security.

[The Conquistador]

Postman, I agree things are bad now. But then when things seem bad I try and get some perspective and remember how bad things were during the 60s. Civil rights movements, Kent State, the Cuban Missile crisis when the world was just minutes away from an all out nuclear war, JFK shot, MLK shot, Veitnam, etc.

Before that there was the Great Depression, and before that was the Civil War when we were literally killing each other. Before that, there was slavery, and taking N. America from the Indians.

I'm trying to quantify what is it that made America great, and ask is that really being threatened now?

I agree with the above, but lest we forget, there were people there who were willing to fight for their causes. We have been so conditioned to having tha' Gubmint in our everyday lives and to believe that fighting back is wrong, that nobody is going to lift a damn finger when shit gets tough.

The most important thing; our spirit of independence and self-reliance is what is being threatened now. That is what made America so beautiful.

[The Conquistador]

This is one I'd like to add to the list:
* That anyone with enough drive can achieve their dreams

That's what I'm talking about. The "elected officials" and bureaucrats have a cynical view of the public being along the lines of "You are too much of an idiot to make basic decisions so we will make them for you." This is why things like Medicare/Universal Healthcare, Social Security, govt' takeover of the private sector is such a stupid idea. The spirit of competition and invention are squashed and replaced with the "lowest bidder" mentality.


p.s. and yes, hard tranny's are among America's Beauties!

Unfortunately, they are being outsourced to Brazil and Thailand. Do your part to help out! Ride American!(tranny's that is!)

[randolph]

Hey!
Great posts! I agree with most of whats been said. I would like to add a word which sums up my view of America.
Patriotism
I remember how my grandfather loved the flag and put it out on Memorial day and forth of July. It also felt good to salute the flag.
We used to have respect for the country and the president even when we didn't agree with everything he did.
Maybe we need a tranny for president, any suggestions?;)

[TracyCoxx]

The Eight Steps Of A Democracy...


Very good post. It would be one thing if these words were written today, but more amazing is that you are summing up what Tytler predicted over 200 years ago about democracy. American history has been the experiment confirming the prediction. What we have here now is a validated theory.

Knowing the pitfalls of democracy, it sounds like it may be time to restart a country like America was with controls built into the constitution against welfare, overspending, over taxing and big government.

As an atheist however, these steps all make sense without having to put so much importance on god. i.e: freedom, self reliance, small government works... that's why we should get back to that.

[The Conquistador]

As an atheist however, these steps all make sense without having to put so much importance on god. i.e: freedom, self reliance, small government works... that's why we should get back to that.

Yeah, I found the god stuff pretty irrevelant although I do understand where he was coming from.

[randolph]

Very good post. It would be one thing if these words were written today, but more amazing is that you are summing up what Tytler predicted over 200 years ago about democracy. American history has been the experiment confirming the prediction. What we have here now is a validated theory.

Knowing the pitfalls of democracy, it sounds like it may be time to restart a country like America was with controls built into the constitution against welfare, overspending, over taxing and big government.

As an atheist however, these steps all make sense without having to put so much importance on god. i.e: freedom, self reliance, small government works... that's why we should get back to that.

So Tracy, as an intelligent person, how do you feel about the "tea party" rally in front of the capital? :frown:

[TracyCoxx]

So Tracy, as an intelligent person, how do you feel about the "tea party" rally in front of the capital? :frown:

The original Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation. There is so much political activity from the right and even from independents and some democrat voters (who didn't really know or care what "Hope and Change" meant) because like King George, this government is completely out of touch with American citizens.

There was the $1 trillion stimulus that wasn't even written, much less even read by our representatives. It was written by the Apollo Alliance (http://apolloalliance.org/).

Did you vote for the Apollo Alliance last November? I sure didn't, and I don't know of anyone who has. There will be an unprecedented tax from this bill. That would be a clear case of taxation without representation.

Also, there's the healthcare crap they want to pass. Congress was all set to pass this bill last summer. A bill that would be irreversible, that would fundamentally change many aspects of our lives, and most of them hadn't even read it! Thankfully many people in town hall meetings started demanding answers to their questions and got the politicians to start listening. That's what representatives should do is listen. Not come to us and tell us what we need. The fact is, the vast majority of Americans don't want nationalized health care, so Obama and the assholes in congress should do their job and drop it.

I'm hoping we can keep them from passing the bill until 2010 when the American citizens enact a health care program on congress and clean it out with an enema.

So, the main message of the Tea Party is that the government is out of control, and to remind them that America has government for the people, by the people. And I completely support their cause.

[randolph]

Our Mission

"The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy."
What's wrong with that?

The stimulus package was approved by Congress regardless of who "wrote" it. Therefore "we" approved it.
Your comments on the "Tea Party" are reasonable. We are all concerned with the massive spending.
What appalls me are the idiotic signs waved around by the mob. Signs calling Obama Hitler and Pelosi a Nazi are absurd. Further absurdity is calling him a socialist! Obama's stimulus package is designed to save capitalism, pure and simple. Capitalists are in full control of the stimulus funds. It seems to be working and the government is starting to get some of it back. :yes:

[ila]

Our Mission

"The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy."


Is the Apollo Alliance trying to say that the Apollo space program "promoted investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training." That's really amazing that a space program that was intended to put a man on the moon instead did all these other things.

[TracyCoxx]

Our Mission

"The Apollo Alliance is a coalition of labor, business, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs. Inspired by the Apollo space program, we promote investments in energy efficiency, clean power, mass transit, next-generation vehicles, and emerging technology, as well as in education and training. Working together, we will reduce carbon emissions and oil imports, spur domestic job growth, and position America to thrive in the 21st century economy."
What's wrong with that?

Well, as usual, when you look into these groups and people surrounding Obama, you come up with criminals (like what ACORN is riddled with), communists and progressives.

Jeff Jones - Co-creator of the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. He was arrested in 1981 for his terrorist acts. Where do you go from there? Adviser to environmental groups, to labor organizations and to the New York state government where he sits on a commission for Governor Paterson of course.

He was also adviser to the Workforce Development Institute in New York, which is advising state and local governments and universities on how to write their grants to get stimulus funds from the stimulus bill that he and his friends at Apollo wrote. What does he do now? He's the head of the Apollo Alliance in NY, and he's also an adviser for the national Apollo Alliance as well.

There are several others, but it's a long boring list of commies and progressivists.

The stimulus package was approved by Congress regardless of who "wrote" it. Therefore "we" approved it.Well that's assuming the people we put in office do their jobs and read it. But they didn't. They weren't given time to, and many of them readily admitted they weren't going to read it because it was too long and they trusted Pelosi and BO to get it right.

Your comments on the "Tea Party" are reasonable. We are all concerned with the massive spending.
What appalls me are the idiotic signs waved around by the mob. Signs calling Obama Hitler and Pelosi a Nazi are absurd.

Yeah, and stuff like this too:
One example; Rush has demonized "liberals" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:
Hitler demonized "Jews" as if they were a dire threat to the country.:frown:


Further absurdity is calling him a socialist! Obama's stimulus package is designed to save capitalism, pure and simple.
He surrounds himself with not only socialists, but communists. He's had communist mentors when growing up. He lived in communist Indonesia. He forms a relationship with the radical-communist Bill Ayers. Many of his advisors are communists. He has or plans to put car companies, banks and even the health care system under government control. He's working out ways to take over the airwaves with something called "Localism", and there's a bill in the senate that would give BO the power to shut down the internet if he ever feels the itch to do so. Are you saying it's absurd to call him socialist because he's actually a communist?

Capitalists are in full control of the stimulus funds. It seems to be working and the government is starting to get some of it back. :yes:Capitalists like Jeff Jones and ACORN? LOL :lol: You made a funny. I noted a while back that the economy seemed to be recovering before the stimulus money had begun being spent - making the $trillion an unnecessary burden on tax payers while funding a bunch of radical left-wing types like ACORN.

[randolph]

"Capitalists like Jeff Jones and ACORN? LOL You made a funny. I noted a while back that the economy seemed to be recovering before the stimulus money had begun being spent - making the $trillion an unnecessary burden on tax payers while funding a bunch of radical left-wing types like ACORN."

OK, Acorn may be a piece of shit, but its not where the big money is going. It is going to bail the big financial institutions that run this capitalist country. That is not socialism by any stretch of the imagination. Also a lot of the money is in the form of an investment which hopefully will become a good capitalist investment. The highly discounted mortgage bonds are likely to recover value in the future.
You seem to be determined to label Obama a communist or at least a socialist based on some tenuous associations in the past. Many young people go through a "radical" period. What counts is what he is doing now and there is no question in my mind he is supporting capitalism and would like to see a humane health care system available to all citizens.:yes:

[The Conquistador]

What counts is what he is doing now and there is no question in my mind he is supporting capitalism and would like to see a humane health care system available to all citizens.:yes:

The definition of capitalism:

Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
Function: noun
Date: 1877
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.


I fail to see how giving the gov't control over a private enterprise is in any way capitalistic. It is more like this:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Pay close attention to the first part of the definition...

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”-Thomas Sowell

[randolph]

From the LA Examiner, Brian Ashamakus

Is anyone else tired of the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric coming from the far right. I sure am and I would like to take this opportunity to define socialism and then to demonstrate why Obama is not a subscriber to this economic theory.

Socialism does not describe a single economic system, however there are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism. 1. The abolition of private property and the implementation of some form of collective ownership. In other words, the people, or their representatives (a government, party, union, guild, etc.) control land, property, and capital as a group instead of it being controlled privately by individuals and companies as in capitalism. 2. The elimination of social and economic classes. Under socialism there is no rich and poor and equality in wealth and power. 3. Production according to ability and distribution according to need. Thus in a socialist society, all produce goods and provide services according to their talents and skills and receive whatever goods and services they need from other producers. Historically, this distribution method has been accomplished through a government bureaucracy, but state control is not a necessary quality of socialism. In other words socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist (supply and demand) form of distribution.

In order to defend my thesis that Obama is not a socialist, I will look at three of his policies as president that have most often resulted in the misuse of that label--the bailout of the auto companies, the economic stimulus, and his current health care proposal. First, the auto bailout. A socialist, as mentioned above, opposes private ownership and would want automobile manufacture to be controlled collectively and for automobiles to be distributed according to need. The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.

The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.

President Obama's health care plan is possibly the policy that most often results in Obama being accused of being a socialist. However, it is also the policy that best demonstrates that he is not. Obama's health care plan has many stipulations, but the primary one is the creation of a public option for health care through which insurance is purchased as a group for a lower premium. This would, however, only be an option. Persons would not be required to drop their existing insurance, nor would private insurance companies be eliminated. The plan also includes several reforms that are meant to reduce health care costs, including subsidies for employers, record-keeping improvements, and regulations of prescription drug companies. These reforms are made without nationalizing any private entities. It even seeks to help small business, by assisting them in paying for their employee health benefits. It doesn't even distribute health care according to need, as persons are still required to pay for the public option. It is therefore quite clear that this bill is not a "socialist" bill, nor is President Obama a socialist.

President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at. So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received. :yes:

[randolph]

Interesting comparison of Glenn Becks logo. :eek:;):lol:

[The Conquistador]

What does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this? :confused:

[randolph]

What does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this? :confused:

From Washington Monthly.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... "The good news is, nearly four-dozen advertisers have now pulled their sponsorship of Glenn Beck's deranged Fox News program. The bad news is, Beck's ratings have gone up, in part because he's acting like an even bigger lunatic than usual, and clowns doing funny dances tend to draw a crowd.

Yesterday was especially astounding. He argued on the air, for example, that President Obama intends to create a "civilian national security force," which will be similar to Hitler's SS and Saddam Hussein. Apparently, this has something to do with AmeriCorps, which Beck initially said has a $500 billion budget. (He corrected himself later in the show, though his guest didn't blink when he originally made the claim.)

Towards the end of the show, after scrawling on a variety of boards and pieces of paper, Beck summarized his key observation. On a chalkboard, Beck had written the words, "Obama," "Left Internationalist," "Graft," "ACORN Style Organizations," "Revolution," and "Hidden Agenda." If you circle some of the first letters of these important words, Beck says, it spells "OLIGARH." Beck told his viewers there's only one letter missing. If you're thinking that letter is "c," you're not medicated enough to understand Beck's show.

The missing letter is "y," because the word he hoped to spell is "OLIGARHY." No, that word doesn't exist in the English language, but that's probably because the dictionary was written by some communist community organizer who wants to keep Glenn Beck and his viewers down. "

He is a total nut case that the far right loves. Naturally he is on Fox news.

[The Conquistador]

Okaaaay.... I still fail to see why you brought up Glenn Beck and his obvious inability to spell the word "oligarchy".

[The Conquistador]

Lets see what John Stossel has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg&

[The Conquistador]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzE5MWFjOTY3NjI4YjAyYjYyZmIzZTI1OTdmNTc5YTM=


Listening to a Liar
Ignore the lofty rhetoric: Obamacare is about the government accumulating power.

By Thomas Sowell

The most important thing about what anyone says is not the words themselves but the credibility of the person saying them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of Pres. Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical-care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's health care before the August recess - for a program that would not take effect until 2013.

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone for years the date when the legislation would go into effect - specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an desperately needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation go into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days - after which it sat on the president's desk for three days while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money - and the power that goes with it - into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen - from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy - would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before - and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing - and how he has been doing it.

[randolph]

Okaaaay.... I still fail to see why you brought up Glenn Beck and his obvious inability to spell the word "oligarchy".

Glenn Beck and other far right wing pundits are trying to cast Obama as a socialist or even worse a communist. They are inflaming their followers into mindless protests that could escalate into violence. Everybody is insecure in this economic environment. To play on fears and worries is demagoguery.
There is plenty of room to discuss and debate Obama's proposals in a civilized manner.

[The Conquistador]

trying to cast Obama as a socialist or even worse a communist.

Sometimes the truth hurts. It seems that only when left wingers protest, it is "patriotic dissent". Anything else is considered "militant extremism". :lol::lol::lol:

[The Conquistador]

To play on fears and worries is demagoguery.

How is that any different than global warming, "gun control" and numerous other crap that liberals spew?

[The Conquistador]

The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.

The government should not be in the business of helping out businesses.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

By accepting bailout money, the "Man" can assume de facto control by saying"We wanna make sure that this money is spent right, so we'll determine how things are spent and/or run."

The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.

The quote,"death by a thousand cuts" is relevant here. Once again, a push by the gov't to gain control of private sector enterprises. Just because they don't try to take control by more forceful means does not mean that they are not trying to take over. Rather than trying to control everything in a Soviet-esque manner, they know that they can achieve the same goals in a more subtle manner. People don't respond kindly to outright attacks, so they've changed tactics and found that you can get people to vote for this shit in times of uncertainty under the guise of "financial stability/security","hope and change" or what ever catchphrase they are using.


President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at.

There is a world outside of Berkeley you know.

So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received. :yes:

I am, yet it seems that if I don't believe in a particular political solution or I'm not fellating Obama like everyone else, I am automatically labeled as a back-asswards, racist/misogynist/bigoted redneck who has a heart of stone and clings bitterly to guns and religion.

[TracyCoxx]

I don't know if the democrats here have been following Obama's favorite community organizer group, ACORN lately, since left-wing news isn't covering it, but it's been hilarious.

Last friday, video was released showing a couple of reporters claiming to be a pimp and his ho. They went to ACORN asking how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage girls from El Salvador. The lady there gave them advice, gained from her community organizing experience, on how to set up a prostitution ring and evade the IRS.

ACORN fired the woman and said this was an isolated incident. BTW, that is the extent of the story if you search CNN's archives.

Then the next day the reporters released another video from another state showing the same thing. ACORN fired that person too and threatened legal action against these two reporters. For what? Do they really think they can defend this? The census bureau broke of ties with ACORN.

Monday another video came out, showing the same thing in yet another state. The senate voted 83-7 to revoke federal funds from ACORN. Which is HUGE since ACORN was scheduled to receive over $8 billion in federal funds (Why they were going to receive these funds after being charged in 14 states with voter fraud is beyond me, but I digress...).

The videos continue... today, video from yet another state shows an ACORN worker who says she ran a prostitution ring herself... oh and by the way... she also admitted to KILLING her husband too. OMG.

The head of ACORN issued a statement praising all the good things ACORN has done, like getting the Community Reinvestment Act passed LOL. Yeah, thanks for that. Thanks for getting the CRA passed so the government is required by law to give loans to unqualified applicants which led to the collapse of Freddie Mac & Fannie May and the financial meltdown last fall.

[The Conquistador]

Heads on pikes!!!

[tslover586]

theres two things i know for sure about america as a veteran. One, its run by lobbysts. not the house or senate or president or the people. LOBBYSTS!!!! do you really want the people with the money decided what meds to give you when your sick. Not this guy. I want the best meds for the right reasons not the wrong political unfunded/overfunded reasons. until we kick lobbysts out of washington, or atleast stop letting them make campiagn controbutions, favors will be owed to rich componies and poor americans will just be sol.
the second thing i know is no matter what side you are the other is always wrong. its been this way since the begginging. so why did, for the second time since the 1860s become divided into sides. the north vs the south. the reps and the dems. FUCK THAT. im american, not liberal, not conservative not republican not demecrate. american. and my american values come before any party affiliation.
until these two problems are solved, america will continue in its downward spiral. no matter who's in office. blame it on reagan, bush, clinton, bush or obama. wich i feel sorry for the last guy, cause we pin all our hopes from the last three decades of fucking over america on this poor inexperienced over talkative young man.
well thats my piece. i had to get it in there. sorry for the intrusion on obama talk.

[TracyCoxx]

No problem, welcome to the thread. And nice cock BTW

the second thing i know is no matter what side you are the other is always wrong. its been this way since the begginging. so why did, for the second time since the 1860s become divided into sides. the north vs the south. the reps and the dems. FUCK THAT. im american, not liberal, not conservative not republican not demecrate. american. and my american values come before any party affiliation.

As an American, do you have an opinion on whether our government should be large and well funded, or small and lean?

[TracyCoxx]

There have been several accusations that we conservatives are racists.

That's right... In the face of growing opposition, scandals and commie-czars Obama and his lackeys are running out of explanations and excuses. So they are using their last resort: The race card.

Forget that this country has been staunchly against Communism & Socialism for over 60 years and BO is now surrounding himself with them. Forget BO's ties with domestic terrorists who have declared war on America. Forget the fact that he's trying to ram nationalized healthcare down our throats when 85% of the people say NO. Forget that he's funding organizations like ACORN that are crookeder than a barrel of snakes. Forget that he's turning our nations heroes into criminals in the war on Terror. Forget that he's outspent the past several presidents in 2 months....

All that is just conservatives trying to hide our racist hate of Obama. That's right, you got us. We actually agree with all those policies and it's just that black president we can't stand. Well half black. Yeah, it's just half of him that we can't stand. :rolleyes:

[transjen]

Well here we go agian, Preeching doom and gloom and only the GOP loves and cares about the USA and our only hope to surive is to have the GOP in total control.
After all look at the great job they did from 01 to 06, Is that the what you are claiming we need back in power? If so no thanks, That bunch made GOP stand for Give Out Poverty
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Well here we go agian, Preeching doom and gloom and only the GOP loves and cares about the USA and our only hope to surive is to have the GOP in total control.
After all look at the great job they did from 01 to 06, Is that the what you are claiming we need back in power? If so no thanks, That bunch made GOP stand for Give Out Poverty
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Laughable! She's not preaching doom and gloom Jen. Just click on the link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/carter_claims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.h tml

[TracyCoxx]

What's up with this? Obama canceled the missile defense shield that the US promised Poland? So now US commitments mean nothing? And it's one thing to go back on this... It's quite another to make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland! Take that Poland!

[randolph]

Laughable! She's not preaching doom and gloom Jen. Just click on the link.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/carter_claims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.h tml

For all you Obama haters, check out the second video on real clear politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/16/rachel_maddow_exposes_right_wing_paranoid_extremis ts.html

[The Conquistador]

What's up with this? Obama canceled the missile defense shield that the US promised Poland? So now US commitments mean nothing? And it's one thing to go back on this... It's quite another to make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland! Take that Poland!

Yes cause as we know, Poland is the real enemy. Poland and the Czech Republic are the only countries that have the balls to tell the EU and Russia to GFY and we just hung em out to dry.

[The Conquistador]

For all you Obama haters, check out the second video on real clear politics.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/16/rachel_maddow_exposes_right_wing_paranoid_extremis ts.html

I guess that means I'm "racist" because I don't like Zeros policies. Extremism my ass. It's seems like it's only extremism when conservatives disagree. :frown::frown::frown:

[randolph]

What's up with this? Obama canceled the missile defense shield that the US promised Poland? So now US commitments mean nothing? And it's one thing to go back on this... It's quite another to make the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland! Take that Poland!


From Foreignpolicy,com

The Obama administration's decision announced today to cancel the deeply flawed antimissile systems in Eastern Europe is sound policy based on the best intelligence and technical assessments. U.S. President Barack Obama replaces a system that did not work against a threat that did not exist with weapons that can defend against the real Iranian missile capability. Better still, he NATO-izes the system to strengthen the alliance, not divide it.

So-- not everybody thinks Obama is stupid. Pragmatism rules! :yes:

[randolph]

I guess that means I'm "racist" because I don't like Zeros policies. Extremism my ass. It's seems like it's only extremism when conservatives disagree. :frown::frown::frown:

Oklahoma, the heartland of conservatism only 3% of high school students could pass the citizenship test. Only a few knew who was the first president of the US.
Its the parents of these kids, yelling and screaming in these idiotic tea parties.

:frown:

[tslover586]

i think i government should be funded enough to represent its people, and to be able to research all sides of any problem..... inform people unbiasedly..... and do the best option for the greater good..... protecting the minoritys rights, but not catering to only their needs.
is any of this going ot happen. no. other than the last part, meaning the minority now controls america. not a racial minority, although very similiar.

[tslover586]

btw way, thanks tracey for the kudohs on the cock. much appreciated.

[The Conquistador]

Oklahoma, the heartland of conservatism only 3% of high school students could pass the citizenship test. Only a few knew who was the first president of the US.
Its the parents of these kids, yelling and screaming in these idiotic tea parties.

:frown:

Wrong again. It's everyday working people who don't want the government telling them how to handle their personal lives.

[transjen]

Wrong again. It's everyday working people who don't want the government telling them how to handle their personal lives. Ok, then why have any goverment at all? If you believe that everyone for themself then why have a president, congress and a senate?
:) Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Ok, then why have any goverment at all? If you believe that everyone for themself then why have a president, congress and a senate?
:) Jerseygirl Jen

I am not talking about anarchy or any nonsense like that. I am talking about social welfare programs and handouts that are incredibly cynical by nature and only serve to make the populace dependent on the government; Universal Healthcare being one of them.

[transjen]

I am not talking about anarchy or any nonsense like that. I am talking about social welfare programs and handouts that are incredibly cynical by nature and only serve to make the populace dependent on the government; Universal Healthcare being one of them.If you want to end social welfare then you need to make all companies pay a living wage which the last time i checked the GOP was agianst any such messure, For there ten years of runing the house and senate min wage didn't raise 1 cent


:no: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Minimum wage is another thing only hurts the people that it was aimed to "help".

[CreativeMind]

Oklahoma, the heartland of conservatism only 3% of high school students could pass the citizenship test.
Only a few knew who was the first president of the US.

Its the parents of these kids, yelling and screaming in these idiotic tea parties. :frown:


You mean in comparison to New York City, heartland of Liberalism and home to their beloved New York Times, where a year or so ago it was revealed that more than HALF of the New York City school systems teachers FAILED the competency tests for the very subjects they were teaching?

Then again, I guess that's what Liberals get for spending too much time bitching ABOUT the people who are out attending tea parties! :lol:

[transjen]

Minimum wage is another thing only hurts the people that it was aimed to "help". Oh spare me the BS on how the workers can trust big business to treat them far if they give them total free rain, What a load of crap every time there is talk about raising the min wage the GOP cries it will hurt bisiness and cause massive job loses then they add that nobody but teenagers get paid min wage, The greedie CEOS should all take a 200% pay cut and give each worker a living wage as trickle down was the biggest FU to the average worker


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Oh spare me the BS on how the workers can trust big business to treat them far if they give them total free rain, What a load of crap every time there is talk about raising the min wage the GOP cries it will hurt bisiness and cause massive job loses then they add that nobody but teenagers get paid min wage, The greedie CEOS should all take a 200% pay cut and give each worker a living wage as trickle down was the biggest FU to the average worker


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

This isn't OCP from Robocop or the Umbrella Corporation! Take a look
around where you are at. While there may be alot of big businesses in certain areas, the majority of businesses are small businesses. And believe it or not, every business, big or small, has what is called "operating costs". That means there are costs that have to be met in order to maintain the company and still make a profit; updating/maintaining machinery and paying workers being some of them. If you overburden a company with exorbitant costs (like minimum wage and mandatory health insurance) they are going to do 1 of 3 things: 1) Try to maintain the current feasibility of the company without changing a thing, resulting in the company going under, 2) they will charge more for their products, or 3) they are going to cut costs by cutting work time or firing/laying off workers. Out of all of those choices, #3 is more than likely going to happen which screws the people that it is supposedly trying to help and also eliminates competition which means less work in general.

If you are so against businesses, there is something called "boycotting" and "voting with your checkbook".

Oh yeah Jen, read Article 1, Sections 7,8 and 9 of the US Constitution for what the role and powers of the Government should be.

[transjen]

This isn't OCP from Robocop or the Umbrella Corporation! Take a look
around where you are at. While there may be alot of big businesses in certain areas, the majority of businesses are small businesses. And believe it or not, every business, big or small, has what is called "operating costs". That means there are costs that have to be met in order to maintain the company and still make a profit; updating/maintaining machinery and paying workers being some of them. If you overburden a company with exorbitant costs (like minimum wage and mandatory health insurance) they are going to do 1 of 3 things: 1) Try to maintain the current feasibility of the company without changing a thing, resulting in the company going under, 2) they will charge more for their products, or 3) they are going to cut costs by cutting work time or firing/laying off workers. Out of all of those choices, #3 is more than likely going to happen which screws the people that it is supposedly trying to help and also eliminates competition which means less work in general.

If you are so against businesses, there is something called "boycotting" and "voting with your checkbook".

Oh yeah Jen, read Article 1, Sections 7,8 and 9 of the US Constitution for what the role and powers of the Government should be. So you think the average worker should get paid even less so the bussiness can make more profit in other words the rich get richer and the worker get the shaft, I hear the post office is runing in to debit so are you going to take a pay cut? Would you work for min or under? And give up you health ins? Some how i don't think you would


:no: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

You mean in comparison to New York City, heartland of Liberalism and home to their beloved New York Times, where a year or so ago it was revealed that more than HALF of the New York City school systems teachers FAILED the competency tests for the very subjects they were teaching?

Then again, I guess that's what Liberals get for spending too much time bitching ABOUT the people who are out attending tea parties! :lol:

Perhaps they are hiring too many teachers from Oklahoma.:lol:
By the way, most people in the South don't believe global warming is happening or that evolution is a fact.:frown:

[The Conquistador]

So you think the average worker should get paid even less so the bussiness can make more profit in other words the rich get richer and the worker get the shaft, I hear the post office is runing in to debit so are you going to take a pay cut? Would you work for min or under? And give up you health ins? Some how i don't think you would


:no: Jerseygirl Jen

Generally pay cuts and cost cutting measures are a sign of how well a business is doing. If they are downsizing, then obviously the "rich aren't getting richer". I don't work for the post office, work is never beneath me and I don't use my company's health ins. plan because it is shitty and I can get better care by shelling out an extra buck.

[randolph]

OK Obama don't get Johnsonized!:frown::eek:

[DSL]

I think obama will give it all he has to offer he will pull thru this...

[transjen]

I find it very amusing to listen to the GOP as they cry about the hugh debit and when W was runing up the tab they remained silent so i know a way to ease the debit but i wonder how willing the GOP is to go along a big part of this debit was caused by W's Iraq war and his tax cuts for the rich so to ease the debit they keep crying about lets do away with all of W's tax cuts right now , If not then shut up and stop crying about the debit your party started
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

For all the haters out there.

[TracyCoxx]

Well it's a good thing that Obama could take time out of his busy schedule of pushing a healthcare system that 80% of the public doesn't want, going on vacation, doing publicity stunts, keeping up with Kanye West and filling in for the Mayor of Chicago in trying to get the Olympics to come to Chicago and finally after 70 days to work General McCrystal into his schedule and talk about strategy in Afghanistan.

To put a war on the backburner for 70 days while our troops are in battle with no direction from the top is inexcusable.

If anyone needs confirmation of Obama's complete and utter ineptitude in foreign policy, the President of France (and for France's list of successes google 'french military victories' and click 'I'm Feeling Lucky') chastises Obama's position on Iran as "utterly immature". And goes on to say "We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

This from a country who allowed the Germans to take over without firing a shot.

[randolph]

I'm feeling in a good mood today so here's some quotes from George Carlin.

"In America, anyone can become president. That's the problem."

"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

"Have you ever wondered why Republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It's because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time."

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment." ;):lol:

[The Conquistador]

Unfortunately randolph, George Carlin has no relevance in the international community, so his thoughts don't apply here.

[transjen]

Well it's a good thing that Obama could take time out of his busy schedule of pushing a healthcare system that 80% of the public doesn't want, going on vacation, doing publicity stunts, keeping up with Kanye West and filling in for the Mayor of Chicago in trying to get the Olympics to come to Chicago and finally after 70 days to work General McCrystal into his schedule and talk about strategy in Afghanistan.

To put a war on the backburner for 70 days while our troops are in battle with no direction from the top is inexcusable.

If anyone needs confirmation of Obama's complete and utter ineptitude in foreign policy, the President of France (and for France's list of successes google 'french military victories' and click 'I'm Feeling Lucky') chastises Obama's position on Iran as "utterly immature". And goes on to say "We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

This from a country who allowed the Germans to take over without firing a shot. Thankyou Tracy or should i call you RushII or perhaps AnnII, Your view that we are doomed because the GOP is not in charge and we are doomed everytime the Dems are in charge never gets tired so by all means keep the GOP flag waving and remind us agian of the wonderful job W did in his eight years tell us of the millions of high paying jobs he created
TELL US THE ECOMIC GOLD MINE EVERYONE HAD tell us about the cheap oil prices tell us how he kept us out of a needless war tell us how he gave us a hugh budget surplus by giving tax cuts to the very rich tell us how he kept the terrorist from there attack on 9/11/01 and tell us how he kept IRAN and NORTH KOREA from going nuclear and tell us how great Wwas, You always bitch and complain about Obama and you always forget that W was the worst president ever, Obama will not be the greatest presdent but he sure as hell won't be the worst as it will be hard to take W out of that spot only JEB or Sarah could do that

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

I'm feeling in a good mood today so here's some quotes from George Carlin.

"In America, anyone can become president. That’s the problem."

"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out."

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

"Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."

"Have you ever wondered why Republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It’s because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time."

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

"The real reason that we can't have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse: You cannot post 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' and 'Thou shalt not lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges, and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment." ;):lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

Unfortunately randolph, George Carlin has no relevance in the international community, so his thoughts don't apply here.

???? He's irrelevant so his thoughts don't apply here. Well lets see, who's thoughts do apply here? How about Bin Laden, doesn't he have relevance in the international community? :frown::censored:

[TracyCoxx]

Thankyou Tracy or should i call you RushII or perhaps AnnII, Your view that we are doomed because the GOP is not in charge and we are doomed everytime the Dems are in charge never gets tired so by all means keep the GOP flag waving and remind us agian of the wonderful job W did in his eight years tell us of the millions of high paying jobs he created.... blah blah blah
I point out how BO is the biggest screwup the whitehouse has ever seen, and you think that applies to all democrats. Why is that? BO isn't like all democrats. I think Clinton did a decent job with foreign affairs. Not a great job, since he didn't take al qaeda seriously enough, but he did a good job. BO's philosophy on foreign affairs is to ignore it.

[transjen]

I point out how BO is the biggest screwup the whitehouse has ever seen, and you think that applies to all democrats. Why is that? BO isn't like all democrats. I think Clinton did a decent job with foreign affairs. Not a great job, since he didn't take al qaeda seriously enough, but he did a good job. BO's philosophy on foreign affairs is to ignore it.Like i said Obama sure as hell will not i repete will go be the greatest president ever and Clinton was a hell of a lot better but calling Obama the biggest screwup ever is going some considring we just had 8 years of W and only Sarah could be a bigger screw up then W oh by the way i rember seeing on CNN that a former Clinton aide who i believe was PaulB i won't even attempt to spell his last name but he's on CNN a lot told how then presdent Clinton tried to warn W about al qaede and Bin Laden is the US's biggest threat and W could care less and paid no attention, Oh fyi i didn't vote for Obama i voted a write in for Ron Paul


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

McCain Palin quotes.

19. "She's a partner and a soul-mate." ―McCain on Palin, whom he had met only once before selecting her to be his running mate, "FOX News Sunday" interview, Aug. 31, 2008 (Source)

20. "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." ―McCain, to his wife, Cindy, after she playfully twirled his hair and said "You're getting a little thin up there," as reported in the book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter (Source)

21. "That's exactly what we're going to do in a Palin and McCain administration." ―Palin, elevating herself to the top of the ticket, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Sept. 18, 2008 (Source)

22. "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity." ―Palin, in her speech at the Republican Convention, quoting the fascist right-wing columnist Westbrook Pegler, an avowed racist and anti-Semite who once lamented that Franklin Roosevelt's would-be assassin hit the wrong man and also expressed his hope that Robert F. Kennedy would be gunned down (Source)

23. "Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States. ... I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us and standing up to those who are not. And that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America and the entire region." ―McCain, after being asked if he would invite Spanish President Jose Rodriguez Louis Zapatero to the White House, casting an ally of the U.S. as a potential enemy while simultaneously confusing Spain for a Latin American country, interview with Radio Caracol Miami, Sept. 17, 2008 (Source)

24. "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?" ―Palin, interview with CNBC's "Kudlow & Co", July 2008 (Source)

25. "Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." ―McCain, Bethlehem, Penn., Oct. 8, 2008 (Source)

Ah yes, if we had only elected the Palin/McCain ticket, everything would be fine. Such fine upstanding intelligent people. cough cough barf. :eek:

[St. Araqiel]

OK Obama don't get Johnsonized!:frown::eek: Here's an idea: how about instead of pumping more troops into Afghanistan or focus on hunting al-Qaeda in Pakistan-killing all-too-replaceable cannon fodder-we start exterminating the firebrands inspiring the bastards in the first place? A mullah goes home from his latest day of hatemongering and gets a good night's sleep, courtesy of a suppressed TT-33! 7.62x25 Tokarev to the brain, you goat-fucking son of a bitch!

[randolph]

Palin, Limbaugh, Beck ... now it's Republicans seeing the downside

Some moderate conservatives see danger in the vociferous right, especially among broadcast pot-stirrers. They want to advance the GOP by changing the tone.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer/ October 3, 2009 edition

"I am not a member of any organized party," Will Rogers famously quipped. "I am a Democrat." Then there were those old jokes about Democrats forming "circular firing squads."

But these days, it seems like Republicans are the ones duking it out with each other ... or at least examining where they are and where they should be headed after recent electoral drubbings.

Mainstream Republicans are looking at the loudest of the conservative voices - Sarah Palin and the most prominent of the talk-show types (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al) - and concluding that the GOP needs to do something different if it's to succeed.

Steve Schmidt, former campaign strategist for John McCain, said Friday that nominating former Alaska governor Sarah Palin for president in 2012 would be "catastrophic" for the party.

"In the year since the election has ended, she has done nothing to expand her appeal beyond the base," Schmidt said at a forum sponsored by The Atlantic magazine and web site.

"The independent vote is going to be up for grabs in 2012," he said. "That middle of the electorate is going to be determinative of the outcome of the elections. I just don't see that if you look at the things she has done over the year ... that she is going to expand that base in the middle."

Meanwhile, Schmidt's old boss "is working behind-the-scenes to reshape the Republican Party in his own center-right image," reports politico.com. That means recruiting candidates, raising money, and campaigning on their behalf.

"Those familiar with McCain's thinking say he has expressed serious concern about the direction of the party and is actively seeking out and supporting candidates who can broaden the party's reach. In McCain's case, that means backing conservative pragmatists and moderates." :yes:

Its about time the Republicans flushed Rush and canned Ann. :yes:

[TracyCoxx]

Like i said Obama sure as hell will not i repete will go be the greatest president ever and Clinton was a hell of a lot better but calling Obama the biggest screwup ever is going some considring we just had 8 years of W and only Sarah could be a bigger screw up then W

As always I will let you back up your claim about W before responding to it.

oh by the way i rember seeing on CNN that a former Clinton aide who i believe was PaulB i won't even attempt to spell his last name but he's on CNN a lot told how then presdent Clinton tried to warn W about al qaede and Bin Laden is the US's biggest threat and W could care less and paid no attention,
Paul Bremer? Yeah, that's a hard one. Bush & Cheney tried to warn BO too. That did little good. BO is dismantling many of the policies that have given us intel we needed to disrupt upcoming attacks. Bush was delayed by idiots in Florida counting chads who were "trying to determine the intentions of the voters", so he was still putting his cabinet together for a few months. Then there was that incident with China. But he wasn't ignoring al Qaeda. By the beginning of September, he had plans to attack al Qaeda. BO hasn't done much better. His commanders are still demanding to know what BO's strategy is.

Oh fyi i didn't vote for Obama i voted a write in for Ron PaulLMAO Ron Paul is the exact opposite of who you support here, and I have used many of Ron Paul's arguments against BO's policies here, which of course, you vehemently argued against. Although, somehow, that doesn't surprise me about you. :lol:

[TracyCoxx]

But these days, it seems like Republicans are the ones duking it out with each other ... or at least examining where they are and where they should be headed after recent electoral drubbings.The losing side always has and always will do soul searching to figure out where they went wrong and how they should stage a comeback. Nothing new here.

[tslust]

Here's an idea: how about instead of pumping more troops into Afghanistan or focus on hunting al-Qaeda in Pakistan-killing all-too-replaceable cannon fodder-we start exterminating the firebrands inspiring the bastards in the first place? A mullah goes home from his latest day of hatemongering and gets a good night's sleep, courtesy of a suppressed TT-33! 7.62x25 Tokarev to the brain, you goat-fucking son of a bitch!

Ouch, a little vicious, but I like it.:respect::lol:

[transjen]

As always I will let you back up your claim about W before responding to it.


Paul Bremer? Yeah, that's a hard one. Bush & Cheney tried to warn BO too. That did little good. BO is dismantling many of the policies that have given us intel we needed to disrupt upcoming attacks. Bush was delayed by idiots in Florida counting chads who were "trying to determine the intentions of the voters", so he was still putting his cabinet together for a few months. Then there was that incident with China. But he wasn't ignoring al Qaeda. By the beginning of September, he had plans to attack al Qaeda. BO hasn't done much better. His commanders are still demanding to know what BO's strategy is.

LMAO Ron Paul is the exact opposite of who you support here, and I have used many of Ron Paul's arguments against BO's policies here, which of course, you vehemently argued against. Although, somehow, that doesn't surprise me about you. :lol:Proof that W is the biggest screw up ever first just look at the mess he made our country his econmic policy's caused the biggest jump of poverty massive job loss the average american family annual income went down for the first time ever workers instead of getting an annual pay raise instead got an annual pay cut his trickle down BS was just that BS and last but not least THE IRAQ WAR the biggest screw up in history and lets not forget the wallstreet mess and the housing mess plus how he did nothing right after hurricane Katrina all this happend from 01 thru 08


As for why i voted for Ron Paul i did not aggree with everything on his aggenda but i liked his common sense ideas on how to stop the illeagel aliens by first doing away with all the freebe's like rent help food stamps health care schooling and so forth and then getting tought on those who employ illeagel aliens and if you do those they well stop coming and those here will leave so that was the main reason i did a write in for him as i didn't like Obama mainly do to him never giving details on all he wanted to do or even tell how he would actually bring these to pass and McCain lost my vote by picking Sarah as his running mate as she is a female George W Bush
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Proof that W is the biggest screw up ever first just look at the mess he made our country his econmic policy's caused the biggest jump of poverty massive job loss the average american family annual income went down for the first time ever
Ah, but in the real world, economic problems can often take decades to come to fruition. I would explain the roots of the economic crisis, but we've been down this road several times. Suffice it to say, it's over your head.

last but not least THE IRAQ WAR the biggest screw up in historyYou wouldn't say Vietnam was a bigger screw up? We lost that one... had 58,000 casualties! And for what?

how he did nothing right after hurricane Katrina allWhat was he supposed to do? What about Louisiana's governor? What about New Orleans' mayor? It was well known that a hurricane would devastate New Orleans before Katrina. Why didn't they have mandatory evacuations? Why were all those hundreds of busses sitting there unused in the flood?

As for why i voted for Ron Paul i did not aggree with everything on his aggenda but i liked his common sense ideas on how to stop the illeagel aliens by first doing away with all the freebe's like rent help food stamps health care schooling and so forth and then getting tought on those who employ illeagel aliens and if you do those they well stop coming and those here will leave so that was the main reason i did a write in for him as i didn't like Obama mainly do to him never giving details on all he wanted to doThat is coming. In his never ending quest to do as much damage to America as he can before he is impeached or his 4 years is up, he will make them all US citizens.

[transjen]

Ah, but in the real world, economic problems can often take decades to come to fruition. I would explain the roots of the economic crisis, but we've been down this road several times. Suffice it to say, it's over your head.

You wouldn't say Vietnam was a bigger screw up? We lost that one... had 58,000 casualties! And for what?

What was he supposed to do? What about Louisiana's governor? What about New Orleans' mayor? It was well known that a hurricane would devastate New Orleans before Katrina. Why didn't they have mandatory evacuations? Why were all those hundreds of busses sitting there unused in the flood?

That is coming. In his never ending quest to do as much damage to America as he can before he is impeached or his 4 years is up, he will make them all US citizens.If it takes decades then i guess you are blaming Ronald Reagan fair enought after all he's the father of trickle down


Same can be said about IRAQ for what trillions of wastes tax dollars and if not for improved med tech the IRAQ war body count would be a lot higher so you excussing W doesn't work yet agian
Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for starters almost bankrupting our country and stealing an election with help from his shit brother Jeb so i dout Obama get impeached unless the GOP takes over both houses and Obama gets a blowjob from an aide
Not only sould W have been impeached he should stand trial for war crimes plus the murder of US TROOPS killed in his BS IRAQ WAR
:eek:Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

If it takes decades then i guess you are blaming Ronald Reagan fair enought after all he's the father of trickle downNo, I've said several times here who's to blame, but that mental block of yours is quite thick.

Same can be said about IRAQ for what trillions of wastes tax dollars and if not for improved med tech the IRAQ war body count would be a lot higher so you excussing W doesn't work yet agianNot just medical technology, but also properly training and equipping the soldiers. Bush gave the military what they needed unlike some other presidents who ranked worse than Bush in this area.

Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for starters
There was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

and stealing an election with help from his shit brother Jeb
Oops, your memory failed you there again. I know you'd like to make the coincidence that the contested state was run by W's brother into a big deal, but he recused himself from the process. And after Bush took office, there were thorough recounts done just to make sure they got it right. You wouldn't happen to know the results of those too would you?

Not only sould W have been impeached he should stand trial for war crimes plus the murder of US TROOPS killed in his BS IRAQ WAROnly in Jen's World. In this world, however, facts matter.

[transjen]

Oh what a bunch of BS the troops were not equiped proper by W at the start of his war it was all over CNN how under equiped the troops were rember the shortage of armor for the Hummers and lack of body armor for the troops my how quickly you Bush nuts forget, Rember chickenshit W went AWOL from the AIR,NATIONAL GUARD when it was him time to serve so tell me how much he cares about the troops, So cut the crap W was no great leader he was a failure for starting the war and not giving a rat's a$$ about the troops the only person W cares about is himself after all his limo was armor plated and he wore a ton of body armor while those fighting and dieing for him had none
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Oh what a bunch of BS the troops were not equiped proper by W at the start of his war it was all over CNN how under equiped the troops were rember the shortage of armor for the Hummers and lack of body armor for the troops
I never said they were perfectly equipped. They were equipped well enough to get the job done though. And well enough not to be ranked the worst president since we did not lose anywhere near 58000 troops like in Vietnam.

Rember chickensh... off-topic irrelevant stuff deleted

Let me draw your attention back to what you were talking about:
Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for starters
There was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

and stealing an election with help from his shit brother JebOops, your memory failed you there again. I know you'd like to make the coincidence that the contested state was run by W's brother into a big deal, but he recused himself from the process. And after Bush took office, there were thorough recounts done just to make sure they got it right. You wouldn't happen to know the results of those too would you?

[transjen]

Yes the recounts showed AL GORE won
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[suebone]

Boy,JEN you get into this . a lot of this is over my head.:lol:
I side more with what you say about this tho.:yes:
keep it up. Sue b
(short & sweet)

[The Conquistador]

i voted a write in for Ron Paul


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

I also went for Ron Paul.

[TracyCoxx]

Yes the recounts showed AL GORE won
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Do you have a link for this earth shattering information?

[The Conquistador]

how under equiped the troops were rember the shortage of armor for the Hummers and lack of body armor for the troops
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

The reason behind the need for armor was:

1) The Active military elements(like the Rangers at Ft. Lewis or 101st Airborne at Ft. Bragg) are supposed to be the ones actually over there kicking ass and whatnot. Reserves are called up in case the Active guys need more people and Nat'l Guard are supposed to take over the active guys position stateside. That never happened and about 75% of the troops over there are Nat'l Guard and the other 25% are Active and Reservists.

2) The pecking order of defense funding goes Active and then Reserves and Guard. The Active guys get all the good shit and the others get the leftovers.

3) The nature of combat changed in a way that was hard to predict. No one ever anticipated that the enemy would start deploying shape charges or a cluster of 155mm Artillery rounds underneath the roads. Humvees were designed as fast insertion troop vehicles, not peace keeping vehicles and weren't designed to hold 700+ pounds of RHA and tempered glass; they were light for a reason. Get in and get out.

4) Mobilizing troops and equipment is a logistical nightmare especially supply. Getting shit over there is especially time-consuming and since most shit is sent by ship, it generally takes 3-6 months to get it into port(provided that the connex that just so happens to have all the body armor and support weapons has not fallen off the ship and ended up at the bottom of the Atlantic; this happens alot more than you'd think) and finally getting it over to the unit that it is supposed to go to(provided that the convoy that these are on have not been hit by an RPG during an ambush).

5) Unit organization: Suppose an Active Duty maintenance company gets sent over to fix vehicles. They don't have enough people so they grab Reservists to fill those slots. The reservists don't have body armor like the Active guys do so should something happen, they're SOL. Now suppose there is a high profile target near them and there are no infantry nearby or available to intercept him. The mission will change and the maintenance are going in. What do you think will happen to a group of people who are sent into the thick of shit that should not be there?



The beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan war was shitty not because the leaders didn't care; it was because the whole operation had so many variables that could fuck up things up royally that you don't see.

[transjen]

Do you have a link for this earth shattering information?What earth shattring infromation?, Everyone knows W didn't win even the GOP know it but they continue the lie that he won which is total BS Jeb and Harris throw a monkey wrench into the election and the unsupreme court ruled in W's favor dooming us to 8 years of W and it will take about 20 years to fix his messes he left behind and yet you and the GOP continue to claim none of it was W's fault What ever happend to a president who says the buck stops here for 8 years W and the GOP tried to shift blame over to Clinton and even Jimmy Carter when it was W who screwed up everything and yet you try to hold him unaccountable for anything, Face it W was the worst president ever and i dare say he was also the most dispised with an approval under 20% only the die hards like Rush,Ann and you still continue to stand up and defend him, He went AWOL, he was a drug user and alcholic, every business he ran was ran in to the ground and he's a cheat and liar and a weasel
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

The beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan war was shitty not because the leaders didn't care; it was because the whole operation had so many variables that could fuck up things up royally that you don't see.The beginning of the Afghanistan war was perfect. Russia couldn't make any headway there after 10 years. We went in and took over the country within 2-3 months.

The beginning of the Iraqi war also went very well. The problem there was that we didn't keep up the pressure after we took over Iraq.

[TracyCoxx]

What earth shattring infromation?, Everyone knows W didn't win even the GOP know it but they continue the lie that he won which is total BS
No, it's only so called common knowledge against you far left-wingers. If it's such widespread information, it should be easy to find a reputable link to verify your claim.

Jeb and Harris throw a monkey wrench into the election and the unsupreme court ruled in W's favor dooming us to 8 years of W blah blah blahAgain, Jeb recused himself from the process. Harris was just doing her job. With each recount Bush came out ahead, and people were holding up the election because they wanted to try and determine the "intentions of the voter". What kind of BS is that? Harris and the supreme court were right to put an end to the BS.... as later thorough recounts showed.

[TracyCoxx]

What earth shattring infromation?, Everyone knows W didn't win even the GOP know it but they continue the lie that he won which is total BS Jeb and Harris throw a monkey wrench into the election and the unsupreme court ruled in W's favor dooming us to 8 years of W and it will take about 20 years to fix his messes he left behind and yet you and the GOP continue to claim none of it was W's fault What ever happend to a president who says the buck stops here for 8 years W and the GOP tried to shift blame over to Clinton and even Jimmy Carter when it was W who screwed up everything and yet you try to hold him unaccountable for anything, Face it W was the worst president ever and i dare say he was also the most dispised with an approval under 20% only the die hards like Rush,Ann and you still continue to stand up and defend him, He went AWOL, he was a drug user and alcholic, every business he ran was ran in to the ground and he's a cheat and liar and a weasel
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Oh, by the way, you forgot to answer this part... again.

Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for startersThere was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

[transjen]

No, it's only so called common knowledge against you far left-wingers. If it's such widespread information, it should be easy to find a reputable link to verify your claim.

Again, Jeb recused himself from the process. Harris was just doing her job. With each recount Bush came out ahead, and people were holding up the election because they wanted to try and determine the "intentions of the voter". What kind of BS is that? Harris and the supreme court were right to put an end to the BS.... as later thorough recounts showed.

BS Harrs was Bush's puppet even before the recounts she was all ready to Declare W the winner plus she tried to stop every attempt on recounts Wake up W didn't win by fair means the GOP shove him up our ASS and we suffered 8 years of bozo ruining this country and only the rightwingers believe W won fair and square well he didn't i beat you also believe W was hand picked by GOD
:rolleyes: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

Tracy! You better not have one of these!

[TracyCoxx]

BS Harrs was Bush's puppet even before the recounts she was all ready to Declare W the winner plus she tried to stop every attempt on recounts Wake up W didn't win by fair means the GOP shove him up our ASS and we suffered 8 years of bozo ruining this country and only the rightwingers believe W won fair and square well he didn't i beat you also believe W was hand picked by GOD
:rolleyes: Jerseygirl Jen

That is how out of touch with reality you are. I've said several times in this thread and others that I'm an atheist. You have some vision of what I am and all the evidence to the contrary goes in one eye and out the other. This is the Jen's World I've brought up. It's all in your head. As are the recounts you think you saw that had Gore ahead. You can't provide any links that show that Gore won the election can you? That's because he didn't.

[randolph]

OH my god, Obama wants our kids to get smart and stop acting like us idiots.

[randolph]

If a man yells "you lie"in a room of politicians, who is he talking to? ;)

[transjen]

That is how out of touch with reality you are. I've said several times in this thread and others that I'm an atheist. You have some vision of what I am and all the evidence to the contrary goes in one eye and out the other. This is the Jen's World I've brought up. It's all in your head. As are the recounts you think you saw that had Gore ahead. You can't provide any links that show that Gore won the election can you? That's because he didn't.Look who's talking, Like Rush and Ann you forget half the facts which is unsupreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was sick of the recounts and wanted them stoped hence making W the president never mind the fact that thousands of votes would not be counted had those votes been counted AL GORE would have been the winner a fact you hate so tell me who's in there own dream world and since you love to point out the Jeb stayed out of the recount gee that was mighty big of him since the election was already fixed Jeb Bush was a weasel just like W but are tied as being the worlds biggest liar's, The fact that you continue to think that W did nothing wrong and nothing was ever W's fault and that he was a wonderful president proves you were off in your own dream world and have no sense of reality


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

OH my god, Obama wants our kids to get smart and stop acting like us idiots.

That's what the speech was after BO removed the assignment for the students to write a paper on what they can do to help the president. Then it gets into that gray area where the kids force-fed BO's policies. It's like prayer in schools. You don't make students pray or feel like they have to because they may be a completely different religion or none at all. But yes, it makes a funny cartoon when you ignore all that stuff and claim that all us idiot right wingers are like the moron in the cartoon.

If a man yells "you lie"in a room of politicians, who is he talking to? ;)

LOL Now that one is funny :)

[TracyCoxx]

Look who's talking, Like Rush and Ann you forget half the facts which is unsupreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was sick of the recounts and wanted them stoped hence making W the president never mind the fact that thousands of votes would not be counted had those votes been counted AL GORE would have been the winner

Proof?

And while you're at it, don't forget this one:
Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for startersThere was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

[randolph]

Aren't photos great? ;):lol:

[randolph]

Article by Paul Krugman

October 7, 2009, 8:58 am
Still chasing shadows?

This article on the continued troubles in credit markets was informative. But it raised a puzzle. Call me naive, but why does Fed policy seem to assume that the only way to repair credit markets is to return to the status quo ante, circa January 2007?

Here's how I think about what has happened these past 2+ years. I think in terms of a sort of flow chart, showing ways that savers can connect with borrowers:

Traditionally - i.e., before the 1980s - the public put its money in banks, and banks made loans to borrowers: thus the diagonal arrow from banks to borrowers represents traditional banking.

By 2007, however, much of this traditional channel had been supplanted by shadow banking: debt was securitized, and the securities sold to the public - the straight arrow across the bottom of the figure.

Then the crisis came. The public rushed for safety, which basically meant guaranteed deposits. One rough indicator is holdings of MZM - money of zero maturity - which is the sum of bank deposits and money-market deposits:

In effect, the public rushed back into the banks. But the banks weren't willing to lend out these excess funds. Instead, they accumulated deposits at the Fed:

To prevent a complete collapse of credit, the Fed in effect recycled these deposits back into private credit via the TALF and other securities-purchase programs. So funds now flow all around the first figure, getting to the public via "Bernanke banking" (my term.)

Everyone agrees that this is a stopgap, and we want to get the Fed out of the business of private lending over time.

But here's my question: why does it have to be a return to shadow banking? The banks don't need to sell securitized debt to make loans - they could start lending out of all those excess reserves they currently hold. Or to put it differently, by the numbers there's no obvious reason we shouldn't be seeking a return to traditional banking, with banks making and holding loans, as the way to restart credit markets. Yet the assumption at the Fed seems to be that this isn't an option - that the only way to go is back to the securitized debt market of the years just before the crisis.

Why? Are we still convinced that securitization is a far superior system to conventional banking, and if so why?

Inquiring minds want to know. :yes:

[new believer]

TracyCoxx, you at least know something that your critics don't. Law, Reality and facts behind rhetoric. The one remark about W being the one above all to be impeached showed their own lack of knowledge of law , their willingness to jump in with the 'ship of fools' and quite possibly could be benefitting from the smae folks who consistently raise our taxes to procure votes from those that don't pay taxes. And that group is getting larger daily.
But aside from W and impeachment, as recent I say EVERY person who knowingly allowed BO (he is NOT a Born American)to not only run but to grant him the office through the voter fraud should be impeached then executed for treason. And with B.Clinton, minimally two felony counts he was fined for by a federal judge of over 1/4 million dollars and barred from practicing and any connection of a law firm for 7 years should have been a automatic removal.(1-He willing lied & withheld information obstructing justice and 2- He tried to get others to alter their testimony. On #1,he could have pled the 5 admendment,but that was embarressing. It's the #2 that was most damaging) Finally, Congress had indeed impeached him. The Senate did not (which would have made gore President.)because by a very slim margin, the senators who voted against impeachment were warned not to. Does that explain the 'missing' FBI files?(Filegate) You know, the files that were taken illegally by a gutter bar bouncer hired by hillary and found a year later,after the hearings were over, with only her fingerprints on them on a table OUT IN THE OPEN. Funny how the media dropped that ball.

PS Tracy your now my 2/3 favorite person on this forum. You have brains and spunk.And if that is your pic on the avatar, beauty.

[transjen]

TracyCoxx, you at least know something that your critics don't. Law, Reality and facts behind rhetoric. The one remark about W being the one above all to be impeached showed their own lack of knowledge of law , their willingness to jump in with the 'ship of fools' and quite possibly could be benefitting from the smae folks who consistently raise our taxes to procure votes from those that don't pay taxes. And that group is getting larger daily.
But aside from W and impeachment, as recent I say EVERY person who knowingly allowed BO (he is NOT a Born American)to not only run but to grant him the office through the voter fraud should be impeached then executed for treason. And with B.Clinton, minimally two felony counts he was fined for by a federal judge of over 1/4 million dollars and barred from practicing and any connection of a law firm for 7 years should have been a automatic removal.(1-He willing lied & withheld information obstructing justice and 2- He tried to get others to alter their testimony. On #1,he could have pled the 5 admendment,but that was embarressing. It's the #2 that was most damaging) Finally, Congress had indeed impeached him. The Senate did not (which would have made gore President.)because by a very slim margin, the senators who voted against impeachment were warned not to. Does that explain the 'missing' FBI files?(Filegate) You know, the files that were taken illegally by a gutter bar bouncer hired by hillary and found a year later,after the hearings were over, with only her fingerprints on them on a table OUT IN THE OPEN. Funny how the media dropped that ball.

PS Tracy your now my 2/3 favorite person on this forum. You have brains and spunk.And if that is your pic on the avatar, beauty. Oh brother another loyal Bush fanactic, So you think lieing to congress and the citizens of the USA not grounds for imoeachment go back and watch W's state of the union where W claims IRAQ is prepareing to go nuclear and he gave congress the same cock and bull story to start the IRAQ war wasting trillions of tax dollars and thousands of US troops there lives for W's lies.
Then you give the standard GOP crap about taxes, What did Reageans trickle down accomplish in the 80s nothing but the rich getting richer and a sea of red ink in which the GOP didn't give a rat's ass about until Clinton became president then lo and behold the GOP wouldn't stop complaining about the sea of red ink Regan and Bush created and now it's the same crap coming from the right and agian this mess was created by trickle down econmics tax cuts only for the rich all from W and what did it accomplish agian the rich got richer and a sea of red ink that only now are you raising a stink, If the GOP really cared then they would call for the Bush tax cuts to be repeeled but we all know that we never happen because they'll say raising taxes on the rich will destory the ecomy So what jobs were created by tax cuts for the rich? Trickle down didn't work in the 80s and it didn't work for W and yet tax cuts for the rich is still the GOP's answer for everything
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

[transjen]

Proof?

And while you're at it, don't forget this one:Guess you mean the BS 9/11 commision spear headed by loyal GOP member Tom Kane the same comis the took testamony from Candi Rice who was never made to take an oath and where W answered while holding hands with the vice pres and agian both didn't take an oath yeah we can trust there findings


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

[CreativeMind]

Yes the recounts showed AL GORE won

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

Do you have a link for this earth shattering information?

Actually, the recounts showed NO such thing.

In fact, what they DID show, is that Bush's margin of victory was actually LARGER than originally recorded. In the end, his total actually went UP. And that's even going by the recount method that Gore and his team wanted to use. And, yes, I have a link...

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows.

The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

[CreativeMind]

Aren't photos great? ;):lol:

LOL that is great.
But videos can be even better AND really tell the truth! :yes::lol:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/saturday-night-live-obama-address

[randolph]

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE???

How do all you Obama bashers feel about that?

Frankly, I am amazed, what has he done other than rejoin the world community.:yes:
We still have the Middle East. It seems to be based on a lot of hope:frown:

[The Conquistador]

I think it was a very bold move by the Nobel Committee to secure their irrelevence. Seriously.......he won the Nobel Prize for calling for calling for a reduction in Nuclear arms and stockpiles.....yet N Korea has the bomb and Iran will soon? Has the world seriously gotten safer and less likely to engage in a nuclear conflict since Obama was elected? THAT is the rationale for giving him the Nobel Peace Prize?

this commenter has it right--
Craig Bills wrote:
The Noble Peace Prize, the Pulitzers, the Academy Awards, have all become politized. They're now just awards from Leftists to Leftists for being Leftists.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 867711.ece

[transjen]

And what did W do to keep the world safe? during his watch both IRAN and NORTH KOREA went nuclear. Yeah W did a lot to more endanger the world and did nothing to keep us safe
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

[The Conquistador]

And what did W do to keep the world safe? during his watch both IRAN and NORTH KOREA went nuclear. Yeah W did a lot to more endanger the world and did nothing to keep us safe
:no: Jerseygirl Jen

Did I mention W? If not, then please stop spouting your contstant "W did this and W did that! King George! King George!" nonsense.

FYI Jen, North Korea and Iran have been obtaining nuclear materials way before "King George"ever assumed command. Obama has done nothing at all except talk and won a prestigious award for it.

Oh well. I guess if Yasser Arafat can win one...

[Excaliborg]

Did I mention W? If not, then please stop spouting your contstant "W did this and W did that! King George! King George!" nonsense.

FYI Jen, North Korea and Iran have been obtaining nuclear materials way before "King George"ever assumed command. Obama has done nothing at all except talk and won a prestigious award for it.

Oh well. I guess if Yasser Arafat can win one...

then i can win one also? i hear theres a nice little stipend that goes along with it.

[randolph]

An Open Letter to Americans Who Are Annoyed at Obama's Nobel Prize

Category: Barack Obama - Politics
Posted on: October 9, 2009 3:28 PM, by Greg Laden

If you are a right wing Republican conservative Yahoo, this letter is NOT for you. If you are a moderate, progressive, liberal, centrist, or anyone associated with the legitimate (i.e., not FOX News) press, this IS for you.

Dear Disgruntled Sisters and Brothers,

Many people are beside themselves, or at least a little annoyed, or in some cases simply bemused, because Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but he "seems to have not done anything yet." There are so many misconceptions behind that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

If you are one of the people who does not like the fact that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, please consider the following.

Some people say that this was a political act. Well, duh. In fact, double duh. The ultimate goal, and perhaps only noble goal, of politics is to find and support peace, within and between nations. Were you thinking there was some other objective, or that politics, ideally and in its most expansive form, was for something else?

The committee awarded this prize to Obama because of his efforts to enhance international diplomacy, but especially because of his vision to have a nuclear free world and his efforts to achieve this. In so doing, the Oslo committee has endorsed nuclear disarmament and probably moved us substantially towards that goal. Is this a problem for you?

President Obama had engendered a new international political climate. He has brought multilateral diplomacy back from George Bush's scrap heap as a a viable strategy, and has reemphasized the role of the United Nations and other international institutions. This underscores and gives much needed credibility to the use of dialogue and negotiation to resolve international conflicts. This is a change from previous American policy of unilateral strong-arming, which as so far been singularly ineffective, and even if sometimes effective is over the long term destructive to our position in this world and generally immoral. In just a few moves, over a short amount of time, Obama has reversed (for the better) American foreign policy. Do you not think this is a good thing?

Real nuclear arms control negotiations are finally happening because of Obama's initiative, with the US playing a salient role. Surely, you must think that is worth something.

For the first time in a decade, the US is seriously involved in the international conversation regarding climate change. Is that a problem for you?

While it is true that every single human rights objective we would like to see met has not yet been addressed, for the first time in years the US is actually positioned to realistically be involved in positive advancement of democracy and human rights, instead of just playing a game to provide cronies of the leadership with more defense contracts. Why does this bother you?

Hardly ever does someone come along, as Obama has done, to capture the world's attention and give everyone real hope for a better future. If, as an American, you are having a problem understanding why Obama was awarded this international award, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you do not have the same large scale and international perspective that the Oslo committee has. As an exercise in self appraisal, try this. Of the following individuals, which ones can you identify as to what country they are affiliated with, what they may have done to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (they all were), or what job they had?

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Albert Lutuli, Albert Schweitzer, Alfonso García Robles, Alfred Hermann Fried, Al Gore, Alva Myrdal, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Aristide Briand, Arthur Henderson, Auguste Marie François Beernaert, Aung San Suu Kyi, Austen Chamberlain, Bertha von Suttner, Betty Williams, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Carl von Ossietzky, Cecil of Chelwood, Charles Albert Gobat, Charles Gates Dawes, Christian Lous Lange, Cordell Hull, Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld, David Trimble, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Eisaku Sato, Élie Ducommun, Elie Wiesel, Elihu Root, Emily Greene Balch, Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Ferdinand Buisson, Frank B. Kellogg, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Fredrik Bajer, Fridtjof Nansen, Friends Service Council, George Catlett Marshall, Georges Pire, Grameen Bank, Gustav Stresemann, Henri La Fontaine, Henry A. Kissinger, Hjalmar Branting, Jane Addams, Jean Henry Dunant, Jimmy Carter, Jody Williams, John Hume, John, Lord Boyd-Orr of Brechin, John Raleigh Mott, Joseph Rotblat, José Ramos-Horta, Kim Dae Jung, Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Kofi Annan, Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) Söderblom, League of Red Cross societies, Lech Wałęsa, Lê Ðức Thọ, Léon Jouhaux, Léon Victor Auguste Bourgeois, Lester Bowles Pearson, Linus Carl Pauling, Louis Renault, Ludwig Quidde, Mairead Corrigan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Martti Ahtisaari, Médecins Sans Frontières, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, Mohamed ElBaradei, Mother Teresa, Muhammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Nicholas Murray Butler, Norman E. Borlaug, Óscar Arias Sánchez, Paul-Henri-Benjamin d'Estournelles de Constant, Philip J. Noel-Baker, Ralph Bunche, René Cassin, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Seán MacBride, Shimon Peres, Shirin Ebadi, Sir Norman Angell (Ralph Lane), Tenzin Gyatso, Theodore Roosevelt, Tobias Michael Carel Asser, Wangari Muta Maathai, William Randal Cremer, Willy Brandt, Woodrow Wilson, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin.

Seriously. Read through that list. The people who awarded this prize can explain who each of these individuals is and why they were given the Nobel. Chance are, as a moderately to very well educated American, you can barely identify one in ten of these individuals. So please consider the possibility that you have, as many of us do, too narrow a perspective to be shooting your mouth off about what kind of job the Oslo committee did.

Obama understands that diplomacy is effective only if based on the concept of finding shared values. Compared to George Bush, he not only knows how to lead in this regard, but clearly thinks it actually matters that the US president DOES lead in these matters. The Oslo committee is pretty much with the rest of the world in wanting to recognize this. Is there some reason that you are against this?

Obama in his policies and actions well represents 108 years of tradition by the Oslo Nobel Committee, working to enhance and reward these policies and attitudes. Obama is the world's leading spokesman for this new international diplomacy. When the Nobel Committee endorsed Obama's statement that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." .... why did that not make you feel proud to be an American? For once?

Your Blogger,

Greg

[The Conquistador]

An Open Letter to Americans Who Are Annoyed at Obama's Nobel Prize

Category: Barack Obama - Politics
Posted on: October 9, 2009 3:28 PM, by Greg Laden

If you are a right wing Republican conservative Yahoo, this letter is NOT for you. If you are a moderate, progressive, liberal, centrist, or anyone associated with the legitimate (i.e., not FOX News) press, this IS for you.

Dear Disgruntled Sisters and Brothers,

Many people are beside themselves, or at least a little annoyed, or in some cases simply bemused, because Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but he "seems to have not done anything yet." There are so many misconceptions behind that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

If you are one of the people who does not like the fact that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, please consider the following.

Some people say that this was a political act. Well, duh. In fact, double duh. The ultimate goal, and perhaps only noble goal, of politics is to find and support peace, within and between nations. Were you thinking there was some other objective, or that politics, ideally and in its most expansive form, was for something else?

The committee awarded this prize to Obama because of his efforts to enhance international diplomacy, but especially because of his vision to have a nuclear free world and his efforts to achieve this. In so doing, the Oslo committee has endorsed nuclear disarmament and probably moved us substantially towards that goal. Is this a problem for you?

President Obama had engendered a new international political climate. He has brought multilateral diplomacy back from George Bush's scrap heap as a a viable strategy, and has reemphasized the role of the United Nations and other international institutions. This underscores and gives much needed credibility to the use of dialogue and negotiation to resolve international conflicts. This is a change from previous American policy of unilateral strong-arming, which as so far been singularly ineffective, and even if sometimes effective is over the long term destructive to our position in this world and generally immoral. In just a few moves, over a short amount of time, Obama has reversed (for the better) American foreign policy. Do you not think this is a good thing?

Real nuclear arms control negotiations are finally happening because of Obama's initiative, with the US playing a salient role. Surely, you must think that is worth something.

For the first time in a decade, the US is seriously involved in the international conversation regarding climate change. Is that a problem for you?

While it is true that every single human rights objective we would like to see met has not yet been addressed, for the first time in years the US is actually positioned to realistically be involved in positive advancement of democracy and human rights, instead of just playing a game to provide cronies of the leadership with more defense contracts. Why does this bother you?

Hardly ever does someone come along, as Obama has done, to capture the world's attention and give everyone real hope for a better future. If, as an American, you are having a problem understanding why Obama was awarded this international award, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you do not have the same large scale and international perspective that the Oslo committee has. As an exercise in self appraisal, try this. Of the following individuals, which ones can you identify as to what country they are affiliated with, what they may have done to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (they all were), or what job they had?

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Albert Lutuli, Albert Schweitzer, Alfonso García Robles, Alfred Hermann Fried, Al Gore, Alva Myrdal, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Aristide Briand, Arthur Henderson, Auguste Marie François Beernaert, Aung San Suu Kyi, Austen Chamberlain, Bertha von Suttner, Betty Williams, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Carl von Ossietzky, Cecil of Chelwood, Charles Albert Gobat, Charles Gates Dawes, Christian Lous Lange, Cordell Hull, Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld, David Trimble, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Eisaku Sato, Élie Ducommun, Elie Wiesel, Elihu Root, Emily Greene Balch, Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Ferdinand Buisson, Frank B. Kellogg, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Fredrik Bajer, Fridtjof Nansen, Friends Service Council, George Catlett Marshall, Georges Pire, Grameen Bank, Gustav Stresemann, Henri La Fontaine, Henry A. Kissinger, Hjalmar Branting, Jane Addams, Jean Henry Dunant, Jimmy Carter, Jody Williams, John Hume, John, Lord Boyd-Orr of Brechin, John Raleigh Mott, Joseph Rotblat, José Ramos-Horta, Kim Dae Jung, Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Kofi Annan, Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) Söderblom, League of Red Cross societies, Lech Wałęsa, Lê Ðức Thọ, Léon Jouhaux, Léon Victor Auguste Bourgeois, Lester Bowles Pearson, Linus Carl Pauling, Louis Renault, Ludwig Quidde, Mairead Corrigan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Martti Ahtisaari, Médecins Sans Frontières, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, Mohamed ElBaradei, Mother Teresa, Muhammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Nicholas Murray Butler, Norman E. Borlaug, Óscar Arias Sánchez, Paul-Henri-Benjamin d'Estournelles de Constant, Philip J. Noel-Baker, Ralph Bunche, René Cassin, Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Seán MacBride, Shimon Peres, Shirin Ebadi, Sir Norman Angell (Ralph Lane), Tenzin Gyatso, Theodore Roosevelt, Tobias Michael Carel Asser, Wangari Muta Maathai, William Randal Cremer, Willy Brandt, Woodrow Wilson, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin.

Seriously. Read through that list. The people who awarded this prize can explain who each of these individuals is and why they were given the Nobel. Chance are, as a moderately to very well educated American, you can barely identify one in ten of these individuals. So please consider the possibility that you have, as many of us do, too narrow a perspective to be shooting your mouth off about what kind of job the Oslo committee did.

Obama understands that diplomacy is effective only if based on the concept of finding shared values. Compared to George Bush, he not only knows how to lead in this regard, but clearly thinks it actually matters that the US president DOES lead in these matters. The Oslo committee is pretty much with the rest of the world in wanting to recognize this. Is there some reason that you are against this?

Obama in his policies and actions well represents 108 years of tradition by the Oslo Nobel Committee, working to enhance and reward these policies and attitudes. Obama is the world's leading spokesman for this new international diplomacy. When the Nobel Committee endorsed Obama's statement that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." .... why did that not make you feel proud to be an American? For once?

Your Blogger,

Greg

Hey randolph! Thanks for the laugh; I needed it! :lol::lol::lol:

[TracyCoxx]

TracyCoxx, you at least know something that your critics don't. Law, Reality and facts behind rhetoric. The one remark about W being the one above all to be impeached showed their own lack of knowledge of law , their willingness to jump in with the 'ship of fools' and quite possibly could be benefitting from the smae folks who consistently raise our taxes to procure votes from those that don't pay taxes. And that group is getting larger daily.

Thanks New Believer. That group that doesn't pay taxes is getting close to 50%. The way things are going they will be more than 50%. Do you know what it's called when a majority votes for a minority to pay all the taxes? Taxation without representation.

And about law... it seems that it's usually the conservatives who know the law, and liberals couldn't give a damn about it. Sure, some right wingers break the law, but they get busted and do their time. If someone on the left breaks the law, people tend to ignore it. Or you're called a racist if you dare bring up the fact that they're breaking the law. How many times did ACORN break the law before their image started to get merely tainted? Literally hundreds. After being charged with voter fraud in a national election in 14 states, after registering people to vote 87 times, after registering Mickey Mouse to vote, they were granted $4 billion and allowed to help do the census. In what world does this make any sense? It wasn't until video after video showing they're an organization filled with criminals that they finally got their money yanked away. And what was their response when they were caught red handed? They threatened to sue the reporters that showed what kind of organization they are. Congress voted to pull their funding, yet somehow money that was supposed to go to firefighters in Louisiana is now going to ACORN.

When BO was accused of not being a naturally born US citizen, his response was 'how dare you accuse me of that' and spent millions on lawyers to keep from showing his birth certificate in court, rather than take 5 minutes to just put the matter to rest. If I'm a janitor at Wal-Mart, I have to show my social security card, but a candidate for President of the United States doesn't have to show his credentials? Bullshit!

Black Panther members were charged with intimidating voters with weapons. They were tried and convicted. BO overturned it.

White Americans are expected to make their mortgage payments. If they can't they lose their house. They are pissed, embarrassed, depressed, etc, but they accept it because that is how the system works. But not if they're black. Then it's those racist bankers taking their house away.

Many liberal politicians and 'community activists' make a career out of telling minorities the law does not apply to them.

These liberals form their own world with versions of facts and rules that are not based on reality. And anything that goes on in the real world simply does not apply in their world. And our society is more and more frequently letting them get away with it.

[TracyCoxx]

Oh brother another loyal Bush fanactic, So you think lieing to congress and the citizens of the USA not grounds for imoeachment go back and watch W's state of the union where W claims IRAQ is prepareing to go nuclear and he gave congress the same cock and bull story to start the IRAQ war wasting trillions of tax dollars and thousands of US troops there lives for W's lies.

Enough Jen. You have zero credibility with this claim until you can answer this question:
Since W didn't get impeached and he was the most deserving to be impeached lieing to start his IRAQ WAR for startersThere was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

I know your world probably doesn't recognize any such commission. Be brave though and take a look at reality.

So what jobs were created by tax cuts for the rich?Well, look at unemployment rates after Reagan became president, and compare them to unemployment rates after he left office. There's your answer.

[TracyCoxx]

Guess you mean the BS 9/11 commision spear headed by loyal GOP member Tom Kane...

Not that commission, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Intelligence_Commission

I'm sure you'll find fault with that one too, but tell me why Jen's commission is better.

[TracyCoxx]

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE???

How do all you Obama bashers feel about that?

Frankly, I am amazed, what has he done other than rejoin the world community.:yes:
We still have the Middle East. It seems to be based on a lot of hope:frown:

It's obviously ridiculous, but I'm honestly not surprised. This is just more of the Obama worship that's been going around were people are drooling over a guy who hasn't actually done anything. He was nominated for the peace prize when he was president for 12 days?? That must have been the one of the most amazing first 12 days of any US president. I somehow can't remember what he did to create world peace in his first 12 days though can you?

I think Michael Steele had a pretty good response:
It was unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights.

This response was even better:
I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran

I've heard that they awarded the prize to Obama because of his potential. So if a guy gets a 4.5 GPA for a PhD in physics are they going to give him the nobel prize in physics because of his potential?

It's obviously a BS award anyways. I mean, come on... Yassir Arafat? LOL

[St. Araqiel]

Ouch, a little vicious, but I like it.:respect::lol:
Not as vicious as taking mentally retarded kids from their parents to be suicide bombers, among plenty of other things! Trust me, we should go Jacques Massu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Massu) on these bastards.

[Naked Freedom]

a nobel peace prize for being quiet.......i suppose...

[The Conquistador]

I should get the Nobel Prize for Excessive Masturbation. By staying home and whacking to trannies, I am not causing problems elsewhere, thereby contributing to the greater peace. Plus I'll get 1 million so I can go to Thailand, Brazil and Denmark and meet lovely transsexuals!;)

[transjen]

look at unemployment rates after Reagan became president, and compare them to unemployment rates after he left office. There's your answer. So you credit trickle down for that ok then why didn't it work for W? More jobs were lost then were created under hiw watch and W with full support of the GOP brought back Reaganomics so where were the jobs? And last i checked none of the Bush tax cuts have been done away with so Reaganomics are still in effect so where are the jobs? Regeanomics = massive debit and nothing else


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

So you credit trickle down for that ok then why didn't it work for W? More jobs were lost then were created under hiw watch and W with full support of the GOP brought back Reaganomics so where were the jobs? And last i checked none of the Bush tax cuts have been done away with so Reaganomics are still in effect so where are the jobs? Regeanomics = massive debit and nothing else


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen
Probably because Bush and/or his democrat congress spent too much. And yes, I've said Bush has over spent before - partially because of good reason. We were at war, and security and intelligence gathering had to be increased. And partially because in some areas they just over spent. But as I've said before, Bush is a rank amateur compared to Obama when it comes to overspending.

[transjen]

Probably because Bush and/or his democrat congress spent too much. And yes, I've said Bush has over spent before - partially because of good reason. We were at war, and security and intelligence gathering had to be increased. And partially because in some areas they just over spent. But as I've said before, Bush is a rank amateur compared to Obama when it comes to overspending. So you are saying W's massive job losses was do to his overspending????At the time Reagan's debit was the biggest in history only topped by the debit created by the first George Bush and yet you credit them for there massive job creation, Sorry i can't blame W's over spending on this one i blame it on 20 years of NAFTA and massive outsourcing of jobs overseas for cheap labor as nothing is made here in the US anymore


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

So you are saying W's massive job losses was do to his overspending????At the time Reagan's debit was the biggest in history only topped by the debit created by the first George Bush and yet you credit them for there massive job creation, Sorry i can't blame W's over spending on this one i blame it on 20 years of NAFTA and massive outsourcing of jobs overseas for cheap labor as nothing is made here in the US anymore


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

W didn't have massive job losses. His unemployment numbers were pretty respectable overall. They could have been better though. And yes, Reagan's debt was the biggest in history. So was Clinton's, and Carter's, and Ford's, and Nixon's. It's been growing the whole time, except I think for Eisenhower.

Jobs are going over seas because it's cheaper to operate there. We need to cut taxes here. Before you dispute that, read this:
Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)
It makes U.S. jobs more expensive. We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.

[randolph]

W didn't have massive job losses. His unemployment numbers were pretty respectable overall. They could have been better though. And yes, Reagan's debt was the biggest in history. So was Clinton's, and Carter's, and Ford's, and Nixon's. It's been growing the whole time, except I think for Eisenhower.

Jobs are going over seas because it's cheaper to operate there. We need to cut taxes here. Before you dispute that, read this:
Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKluP7yIwJY)

Balmers statments are standard Microsoft b--s. Go to Redmond Washington if you don't believe me. the place is swarming with Indians and other Asians working for Microsoft. If their foreign profits were taxed higher, they would bring more Indians into the country to work here.

[violet lightning]

Even though I love politics and lively discussion, I usually shy away on this forum because of people like tj and hhl.
There is no real discussion or give and take. They have their opinion, and its the correct one.
Everyone else is wrong-a Nazi, Bush loving Bozo or a religious nut.
(watch for the counter attack)

It backs up my theory of why liberal-based talk radio never has done well.
Conservatives, moderates, centrists and even open-minded Liberals like discussing politics, like being informed, like to challenge and be challenged and like to think.
Most are generally open to other opinions. Most love America and want to see it do well.

Why has Air America consistently done so poorly? Obviously, liberals (in general) just aren't very interested in talking/discussing/learning the issues.
(thats a fact of ratings-either that or else Liberals just don't listen to radio)) Whereas conservative talk radio has blossomed and grown exponetially, Air America has teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.
Radical Libs love to talk the talk, but the reality is they don't walk the walk. Thats why instead of learning the facts and becoming truly informed, they can become rigidly opinionated, emotional and resort to personal insults and Bush bashing.

To a large degree, I blame the media for polarizing us. We're probably 80% in agreement on most issues, and they make it seem like we're from different planets. They focus on the few things that divide us, not the many things that should unite us.This last election the media went nuts on both sides. Completely biased and unprofessional. Never seen anything like it.
And don't get me wrong--I think Right Wingers like Shawn Hannity on the right can be just as bad. Since the moment BO took office, its been a constant daily drumbeat of what he feels he is doing wrong. I can't see how that kind of negativity can be good for America. Constructive criticism is OK. Destructive criticism is just bad.

:D As for the Nobel Peace Prize - It took me by suprise. (my first thought was: "Was it for the "Cash for Clunkers" Program?!")
And , did you read about the guy the oddsmakers favored 20:1 to win the award?
Amazing accomplishments.

[randolph]

I should get the Nobel Prize for Excessive Masturbation. By staying home and whacking to trannies, I am not causing problems elsewhere, thereby contributing to the greater peace. Plus I'll get 1 million so I can go to Thailand, Brazil and Denmark and meet lovely transsexuals!;)

Here is an idea. I think a-rab males are highly frustrated sexually because of Islamic laws. Instead of spending trillions fighting them why don't we pass out internet cell phones prewired to log into transladyboy. They would be so busy fapping they would forget about blowing up innocent people. ;):lol:

[randolph]

Even though I love politics and lively discussion, I usually shy away on this forum because of people like tj and hhl.
There is no real discussion or give and take. They have their opinion, and its the correct one.
Everyone else is wrong-a Nazi, Bush loving Bozo or a religious nut.
(watch for the counter attack)

It backs up my theory of why liberal-based talk radio never has done well.
Conservatives, moderates, centrists and even open-minded Liberals like discussing politics, like being informed, like to challenge and be challenged and like to think.
Most are generally open to other opinions. Most love America and want to see it do well.

Why has Air America consistently done so poorly? Obviously, liberals (in general) just aren't very interested in talking/discussing/learning the issues.
(thats a fact of ratings-either that or else Liberals just don't listen to radio)) Whereas conservative talk radio has blossomed and grown exponetially, Air America has teetered on the brink of bankruptcy.
Radical Libs love to talk the talk, but the reality is they don't walk the walk. Thats why instead of learning the facts and becoming truly informed, they can become rigidly opinionated, emotional and resort to personal insults and Bush bashing.

To a large degree, I blame the media for polarizing us. We're probably 80% in agreement on most issues, and they make it seem like we're from different planets. They focus on the few things that divide us, not the many things that should unite us.This last election the media went nuts on both sides. Completely biased and unprofessional. Never seen anything like it.
And don't get me wrong--I think Right Wingers like Shawn Hannity on the right can be just as bad. Since the moment BO took office, its been a constant daily drumbeat of what he feels he is doing wrong. I can't see how that kind of negativity can be good for America. Constructive criticism is OK. Destructive criticism is just bad.

:D As for the Nobel Peace Prize - It took me by suprise. (my first thought was: "Was it for the "Cash for Clunkers" Program?!")
And , did you read about the guy the oddsmakers favored 20:1 to win the award?
Amazing accomplishments.

A very good post, cheers. :hug::respect:

[tslust]

Here is an idea. I think a-rab males are highly frustrated sexually because of Islamic laws. Instead of spending trillions fighting them why don't we pass out internet cell phones prewired to log into transladyboy. They would be so busy fapping they would forget about blowing up innocent people. ;):lol:

I love that idea.:respect::lol::lol:

[raconteur]

Well ... :lol:

W didn't win the election, our Founding Fathers did! That's why they created the Electoral System ... to prevent morons from being President!

Bussein is the biggest B.S. artist since Judas! Acorn stuffed the ballot boxes! I say, no ID, no vote ... comprende? !!!

George Soros bought Bussein the NBP. They should rename it now to the NWC (not worth crap) !!!

The inmates have taken over the asylum and they will make us all crazy, and broke!

All illegal aliens should get is a bill or a one-way ticket home!

The financial meltdown was hatched in the Carter and Billary administrations! Don't believe it ... then watch the documentary on MSNBC! Even the liberal MSNBC couldn't gloss over the facts!

We need to support our very brave young men and women in Afghanistan! Please call your Senators and Congressperson (please excuse the PC lapse) and instruct them to tell Bussein to get off his fat ass and give the Generals, and our great troops, whatever they want, to win!

Were it not for that coward, CPowell, Bush 41 would have laid waste to Iraq and Iwar no. 2 could have been avoided!

Have you calculated your share of our quickly rising national debt lately?

Take a chance and watch Fox News!

I am not PC oriented, so I don't care what PCpeople think!
Please spare me the liberal diatribe, I heard it all in the sixties. It didn't make sense then, and it makes no sense now! Sarah for President in 2012! :respect:

[The Conquistador]

Here is an idea. I think a-rab males are highly frustrated sexually because of Islamic laws. Instead of spending trillions fighting them why don't we pass out internet cell phones prewired to log into transladyboy. They would be so busy fapping they would forget about blowing up innocent people. ;):lol:

I've been over there. They have sex with women only for procreation. Any pleasure/recreational sex is either done with another man or a farm animal. I once caught 2 Iraqi nationals working on the base hugging in a bathroom with their pants down and in a very sexual manner.

Another time, I was in the TOC and I heard over the radio from a group of infantry guys that they saw an Iraqi dude doing something suspicious near a concrete barrier and they were requesting permission to engage him. A couple minutes later, they burst out laughing; turns out the Iraqi dude was not fiddling with a bomb or anything. He was fucking a goat behind a concrete traffic divider!

I don't know how tolerant they'd be towards transsexuals. However, if we invade Iran, I'm sure there would be lots of beautiful transsexuals just waiting to get the hell out of there. Persian chicks are smoking hot and it would make sense that their trannies would be just as goregeous, if not more.

[randolph]

Well ... :lol:

W didn't win the election, our Founding Fathers did! That's why they created the Electoral System ... to prevent morons from being President!

Bussein is the biggest B.S. artist since Judas! Acorn stuffed the ballot boxes! I say, no ID, no vote ... comprende? !!!

George Soros bought Bussein the NBP. They should rename it now to the NWC (not worth crap) !!!

The inmates have taken over the asylum and they will make us all crazy, and broke!

All illegal aliens should get is a bill or a one-way ticket home!

The financial meltdown was hatched in the Carter and Billary administrations! Don't believe it ... then watch the documentary on MSNBC! Even the liberal MSNBC couldn't gloss over the facts!

We need to support our very brave young men and women in Afghanistan! Please call your Senators and Congressperson (please excuse the PC lapse) and instruct them to tell Bussein to get off his fat ass and give the Generals, and our great troops, whatever they want, to win!

Were it not for that coward, CPowell, Bush 41 would have laid waste to Iraq and Iwar no. 2 could have been avoided!

Have you calculated your share of our quickly rising national debt lately?

Take a chance and watch Fox News!

I am not PC oriented, so I don't care what PCpeople think!
Please spare me the liberal diatribe, I heard it all in the sixties. It didn't make sense then, and it makes no sense now! Sarah for President in 2012! :respect:


I hope this post is a put on, either way, it is laughable. :lol:

[raconteur]

I hope this post is a put on, either way, it is laughable. :lol:


Trying to insult a poster is not polite! Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, like it or not.

While there are some nuggets of truth in what I said, you caught me stirring the pot!

I know better than to discuss either religion or politics!

Carry on with the political humor ... sorry to interrupt!

[randolph]

I guess that's the main reason.;)

[petreski]

I dont respeact Obama at all

[raconteur]

I dont respeact Obama at all

In the spirit of dry humor ...

OIC ... IMHO, I suspect you meant that you don't respect him.

OK then, you probably need to get some Oust Obammer gear:

http://tinyurl.com/CPOOGear


That way you can let the world know how you feel about Busein! :rolleyes:

Party on ...

[BananaBanana]

I think Obama is a fucking liar, like almost all american presidents.
so crew him too.

[randolph]

In the spirit of dry humor ...

OIC ... IMHO, I suspect you meant that you don't respect him.

OK then, you probably need to get some Oust Obammer gear:

http://tinyurl.com/CPOOGear


That way you can let the world know how you feel about Busein! :rolleyes:

Party on ...

Obama is a well educated intelligent black Democrat.
This drives conservatives completely bonkers. They like third rate movie stars (Reagen) and business losers (Bush) and complete idiots (Palin). Apparently they like someone who matches there own capabilities to be our president.:censored:

[The Conquistador]

Obama is a well educated intelligent black Democrat.
This drives conservatives completely bonkers. They like third rate movie stars (Reagen) and business losers (Bush) and complete idiots (Palin). Apparently they like someone who matches there own capabilities to be our president.:censored:

No. Obama is a smooth talking narcissist who hasn't done jack squat since he got in office except talk. I say give Zero the boot and elect Thomas Sowell in his place.

[randolph]

No. Obama is a smooth talking narcissist who hasn't done jack squat since he got in office except talk. I say give Zero the boot and elect Thomas Sowell in his place.

Sowell was born in North Carolina. His father died before he was born. In his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, he recalled that his encounters with whites were so limited he didn't believe that "yellow" was a hair color. He moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (who, at the time, he believed was his mother). Sowell attended Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment.[2] To support himself he worked at various jobs, including in a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union. He applied to enter the Civil Service and was eventually accepted, which prompted a move to Washington DC. He was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the US Marine Corps. Due to prior experience in photography, he worked in a photography unit.


Bio on Thomas Sowell
After discharge, Sowell passed the GED examination and enrolled at Howard University. He transferred to Harvard University, where in 1958 he graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. Sowell initially chose Columbia University because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and learning that Stigler had moved to Chicago, he followed him there.[3]

Sowell has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.[4]

If the Republican party can get its act together and nominate an intelligent guy like Sowell, that would be good for the country.

[ila]

Obama is a well educated intelligent black Democrat.
This drives conservatives completely bonkers. They like third rate movie stars (Reagen) and business losers (Bush) and complete idiots (Palin). Apparently they like someone who matches there own capabilities to be our president.:censored:

Randolph, are you trying to say that you're a conservative? (note the text in bold)

[randolph]

Randolph, are you trying to say that you're a conservative? (note the text in bold)

Yeah, I gues I have a consurvatev gene when it cums to spellig.:lol:

Actually it's my liberal genes that give me the most trouble. I believe when politicians go to Washington they will be honest and do what is best for the citizens of this country. They will not be bought off by the military/industrial complex. They will not be bought off by the drug companies. The Republicans and Democrats will band together in times of crisis to solve the countries problems. They will avoid backbiting and petty lies to further personal political advantage. So you see my problem, how naive can you get?:broken:

[The Conquistador]

Actually it's my liberal genes that give me the most trouble. I believe when politicians go to Washington they will be honest and do what is best for the citizens of this country. They will not be bought off by the military/industrial complex. They will not be bought off by the drug companies. The Republicans and Democrats will band together in times of crisis to solve the countries problems. They will avoid backbiting and petty lies to further personal political advantage. So you see my problem, how naive can you get?:broken:

Unfortunately, our elected representatives and legslators, Democrat or Republican, do not give a damn about the rest of the populace.

These 2 quotes sum up America today:

"Only a few prefer liberty;the majority seek nothing more than fair masters"-Sallust

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"- Alexis de Tocqueville (economic "stimulus" plan anyone?)

[raconteur]

Bingo ... !!!