Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[CCC]

So far 52-47 she has called Scott Brown and conceded. Now watch what the Obama regime comes up with.

[randolph]

Oh Shit!!!

[local]

Just when things were looking good. Now this! I don't know whats worse -- the result or the self righteous gloating of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Jon Stewart don't fail the US now!

[TracyCoxx]

Just when things were looking good. Now this! I don't know whats worse -- the result or the self righteous gloating of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Jon Stewart don't fail the US now!

Yeah, it really sucks when the American people finally get their say after a year of being shut out of backroom deals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

[Talvenada]

Yeah, it really sucks when the American people finally get their say after a year of being shut out of backroom deals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ



TRACY:

Where are you from? UK?


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

Where are you from? UK?


TAL

Nope, USA.

[jimnaseum]

Sometimes change isn't a good thing.

[randolph]

Sometimes change isn't a good thing.

Then
"Ask not what your country can do for you"
"Ask what you can do for your country"

Now
"We can keep screwing the American people because we control their pathetic government"

[TracyCoxx]

Now
"We can keep screwing the American people because we control their pathetic government"

No, the dems don't have a super majority anymore.

[jimnaseum]

God, Guts, and Guns.

[local]

Yeah, it really sucks when the American people finally get their say after a year of being shut out of backroom deals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

As opposed to the decades where 50 million people have been shut out of proper medical care? Puhleeze!

[CCC]

As opposed to the decades where 50 million people have been shut out of proper medical care? Puhleeze!

I get the funny feeling that you are a flaming liberal that approves of what Obama and the Liberal Dems have done for the last year. Neber has a party done so many back room deal and blatantly come right out and tell us to go fuck ourselves. I was listening to a dem senator last night that said being held in Washington for the last 20 weekends and not being able to go home and listen to our people was a huge mistake.

I really think that you should relisten to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ

This is only January and look at the changes. Stay tuned............

[TracyCoxx]

As opposed to the decades where 50 million people have been shut out of proper medical care? Puhleeze!

So make health insurance more affordable. How bout Tort reform? No?? Why is that off the table? You're not going to have proper medical health care if you hand the operation over to the government. Do you know of anything the government has managed well? This is not something you just go change without taking a damn good look at it. Because it cannot be undone.

Understand this. No matter what form health care takes, there will be at least 50 million people who are unhappy with it. If we have to use the health care the dems want to force on us then the 85% of the people who are currently happy with health care will be pissed.

[TracyCoxx]

Never has a party done so many back room deal and blatantly come right out and tell us to go fuck ourselves.

You mean like this?

[The Conquistador]

Never has a party done so many back room deal and blatantly come right out and tell us to go fuck ourselves.

Or this....

[jimnaseum]

EAT THIS!!!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[local]

So make health insurance more affordable. How bout Tort reform? No?? Why is that off the table? You're not going to have proper medical health care if you hand the operation over to the government. Do you know of anything the government has managed well? This is not something you just go change without taking a damn good look at it. Because it cannot be undone.

Understand this. No matter what form health care takes, there will be at least 50 million people who are unhappy with it. If we have to use the health care the dems want to force on us then the 85% of the people who are currently happy with health care will be pissed.

This is where the hyperbole makes me role my eyes. Having lived and worked in 3 countries and continents where public health-care is the norm, the McCarthy era tactics coupled with "Reefer Madness" hystria is laughable. NO system is perfect, but the experience I've had in Australia, England and Canada has been the same -- walk in, see a doctor, get treated and leave. When I needed specialists I saw them. It's that simple.

[TracyCoxx]

This is where the hyperbole makes me role my eyes. Having lived and worked in 3 countries and continents where public health-care is the norm, the McCarthy era tactics coupled with "Reefer Madness" hystria is laughable. NO system is perfect, but the experience I've had in Australia, England and Canada has been the same -- walk in, see a doctor, get treated and leave. When I needed specialists I saw them. It's that simple.

All it takes is money. And guess what? Right now we're in the hole $12 trillion. As I said, the first place to start is by cutting costs, like tort reform.

When republicans see a deficit, they cut costs. When democrats see a deficit they raise taxes and add costs.

[jimnaseum]

Yeah! And who will lead us in these tough times? How about....Ken and Barbie!!!!!!

[mark5090]

Just when things were looking good. Now this! I don't know whats worse -- the result or the self righteous gloating of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Jon Stewart don't fail the US now!


well i hope our ruler in the white house sees hes a 1 term idiot

time to take america back

[CCC]

well i hope our ruler in the white house sees hes a 1 term idiot

time to take america back

He's too much of an idiot--he thinks that Brown and Him got elected for the same reasons--that people wanted change from the last 8 years. WRONG WRONG WRONG YOU IDIOT People are sick of Obama and all the idiot liberals and the closed doors.

[Talvenada]

All it takes is money. And guess what? Right now we're in the hole $12 trillion. As I said, the first place to start is by cutting costs, like tort reform.

When republicans see a deficit, they cut costs. When democrats see a deficit they raise taxes and add costs.

TRACY:

Good point!! Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge? AHHHHHHHHH!!!!


TAL, a Mod Dem--left of center

[Talvenada]

He's too much of an idiot--he thinks that Brown and Him got elected for the same reasons--that people wanted change from the last 8 years. WRONG WRONG WRONG YOU IDIOT People are sick of Obama and all the idiot liberals and the closed doors.



CCC:

You didn't say why Obama got elected?


TAL, a Mod Dem

[Bionca]

Republican tranny chasers make me laugh...

What an awesome party you support:

http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state

[randolph]

Republican tranny chasers make me laugh...

What an awesome party you support:

http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state

Yep, hypocrisy rules :frown:

[Talvenada]

Republican tranny chasers make me laugh...

What an awesome party you support:

http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state

BIONCA:

Those are the ones in the corner of their closets: like that Craig guy, that coked-out preacher with a male prostitute, like that congressman with DC pages, and that GOP.com gay reporter at The WH.

Piece,

TAL

[Talvenada]

Republican tranny chasers make me laugh...

What an awesome party you support:

http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state


BIONCA:

Maybe, they're the only straight guys here? What say you?


Piece,


TAL

[smc]

Hey, everyone, just a general reminder: you can insult the politicians all you want (so long as no inappropriate racial language is used), but not other members of the forum. And by "insult" I mean inappropriate name-calling. You're all adults, so I don't think you need more of an explanation than that. Just please, give us moderators a break and keep your posts to the issues when responding to others' posts.

[Talvenada]

Republican tranny chasers make me laugh...

What an awesome party you support:

http://michiganmessenger.com/33506/paul-scott-targets-transgendered-people-in-race-for-secretary-of-state

BIONCA:

Do you think they're from the south?


Piece,


TAL

[mark5090]

As opposed to the decades where 50 million people have been shut out of proper medical care? Puhleeze!


where were any people in america shut out?
the last time i look theres a law that ers cant refuse treatment!
if you have proof please provide it as the democrat line is bs

[Bionca]

where were any people in america shut out?
the last time i look theres a law that ers cant refuse treatment!
if you have proof please provide it as the democrat line is bs

Drs have an oath, not a law. They can (and do) break it if they can get away with it. Google Tyra Hunter.

[Bionca]

BIONCA:

Do you think they're from the south?


Piece,


TAL

I'll not bait the connies here, and won't imply being gay is an insult by dragging Mr Haggard, Craig, and Gannon (?) into this.

For the record, I'm not overly fond of the Dems, and I think they threw this race by running the worst candidate with a shady history. If they don't have the magic 60 in the Senate, they can blame the Republicans for stalling on the things they promised (and had no intention of moving on). The Dems are cowards and have been moving more and more right since I started voting.

I'll give the Republicans credit in holding to their base and playing on their fears of teh commiez and teh kweerz... and actually giving them results with regressive laws, pointless social legislation, and culture war of their own making and perpetuation.

[mark5090]

the ers cant refuse treatment
and thats the bottom line

[randolph]

All it takes is money. And guess what? Right now we're in the hole $12 trillion. As I said, the first place to start is by cutting costs, like tort reform.

When republicans see a deficit, they cut costs. When democrats see a deficit they raise taxes and add costs.

Yeah right, Bush cut taxes and spent like crazy. Going from a surplus to a big deficit. :frown:

[Bionca]

the ers cant refuse treatment
and thats the bottom line

Tyra Hunter refused treatment by an EMT in DC because she was a pre-op trans woman after a car accident. She was further refused treatment by the Drs in the ER. - She died due to lack of care.

Insurance in the US does not have to cover transition related care, so they largely expressly exclude such care. This extends to covering anything even remotely related to transition. If I get breast cancer.. guess who doesn't have to pay - and guess who won't pay because they don't have to.

Trans people are regularly shut out of basic medical care either because Drs view them as far to exotic to treat, mis-diagnose their problems as the results of hormone treatment, or because they can't afford the treatments.

[TracyCoxx]

If they don't have the magic 60 in the Senate, they can blame the Republicans for stalling on the things they promised (and had no intention of moving on).I doubt that. They've been pushing this since last summer and all this time until now they've had a super majority. The dems couldn't even get their own party to accept that trash. And the country certainly didn't want it.

[TracyCoxx]

Yeah right, Bush cut taxes and spent like crazy. Going from a surplus to a big deficit. :frown:
News flash: Bush isn't a textbook conservative. And it was while congress was controlled by Dems under Bush that they spent the most.

Complete this sentence: If Bush spent like crazy, Obama spent like _____

[Talvenada]

I'll not bait the connies here, and won't imply being gay is an insult by dragging Mr Haggard, Craig, and Gannon (?) into this.

For the record, I'm not overly fond of the Dems, and I think they threw this race by running the worst candidate with a shady history. If they don't have the magic 60 in the Senate, they can blame the Republicans for stalling on the things they promised (and had no intention of moving on). The Dems are cowards and have been moving more and more right since I started voting.

I'll give the Republicans credit in holding to their base and playing on their fears of teh commiez and teh kweerz... and actually giving them results with regressive laws, pointless social legislation, and culture war of their own making and perpetuation.

BIONCA:

The Connies? As in Connie Mack? Or as in Connie Chung? LOL!!

This is not an insult, but the ones that hide behind conservative republican values are in a doorless closet.


Piece,


TAL

[randolph]

News flash: Bush isn't a textbook conservative. And it was while congress was controlled by Dems under Bush that they spent the most.

Complete this sentence: If Bush spent like crazy, Obama spent like _____

Oh, I see. The deficit under Bush was not his fault but the deficit under Obama is his fault. :innocent:

[local]

where were any people in america shut out?
the last time i look theres a law that ers cant refuse treatment!
if you have proof please provide it as the democrat line is bs

(sigh) The people who are shut out are the ones who can't afford or put off preventative visits that are NOT emergencies but often lead to one. Treatable infections, heart murmurs, type one diabetes, hypertension... where shall I stop? Or how about the people who opt for the treatment they can afford which is second rate at best and at it's worst is ineffective and leads to an early death. The proof is not in the ER -- it's in a neighborhood near you.

[Talvenada]

(sigh) The people who are shut out are the ones who can't afford or put off preventative visits that are NOT emergencies but often lead to one. Treatable infections, heart murmurs, type one diabetes, hypertension... where shall I stop? Or how about the people who opt for the treatment they can afford which is second rate at best and at it's worst is ineffective and leads to an early death. The proof is not in the ER -- it's in a neighborhood near you.

LOCAL:

Nice try! But to Conse 'Pubs those people are only talking points and/or lies, and not a reality, because if they were real it would injure their POV.

It's seeing with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Oh, I see. The deficit under Bush was not his fault but the deficit under Obama is his fault. :innocent:

This has been posted a few times, but here it is yet again:
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit

Obama with democrat congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit

I'm blaming Bush and the republican congress for the $339B deficit. The $704B deficit with the democratic congress, not so much. And I'm definitely blaming BO and the democratic congress for the $2.7 trillion deficit.

Tell me where I am wrong?

[randolph]

This has been posted a few times, but here it is yet again:
Bush with mixed congress: $11B deficit
Bush with republican congress: $339B deficit
Bush with democrat congress: $704B deficit

Obama with democrat congress: $2.7 Trillion deficit

I'm blaming Bush and the republican congress for the $339B deficit. The $704B deficit with the democratic congress, not so much. And I'm definitely blaming BO and the democratic congress for the $2.7 trillion deficit.

Tell me where I am wrong?

Ah cum on Tracy, it all has to do with inflation. :turnon::inlove::lol:

[TracyCoxx]

(sigh) The people who are shut out are the ones who can't afford or put off preventative visits that are NOT emergencies but often lead to one. Treatable infections, heart murmurs, type one diabetes, hypertension... where shall I stop? Or how about the people who opt for the treatment they can afford which is second rate at best and at it's worst is ineffective and leads to an early death. The proof is not in the ER -- it's in a neighborhood near you.

Let this be a lesson to you kids. Study hard. Get whatever scholarships you can and get into college. Make yourself marketable and get a job that pays for your health insurance. What... do you want me to pay for your laziness?

[TracyCoxx]

Ah cum on Tracy, it all has to do with inflation. :turnon::inlove::lol:

haha... keep trying ;)

[randolph]

haha... keep trying ;)

Well, you see Tracy, in the old days Republicans believed that the government should be thrifty. Then they watched the popularity of the Democrats increase as they spent more money. So the Republicans began to spend more money and the public liked that so they spent even more money. Well, not to be outdone by the Republicans, the Democrats spent even more money. As Cheney once said, the deficit is meaningless. So now we are in a race to see who can spend the most money.
So you know the result of all this -INFLATION!!!!!! :eek:

[CreativeMind]

I'll not bait the connies here...

Oh, good! :yes:
Bionca's my friend, so now I won't have to argue with her and--

... and won't imply being gay is an insult by dragging Mr Haggard, Craig, and Gannon into this. For the record, I'm not overly fond of the Dems, and I think they threw this race by running the worst candidate with a shady history. If they don't have the magic 60 in the Senate, they can blame the Republicans for stalling on the things they promised (and had no intention of moving on). The Dems are cowards and have been moving more and more right since I started voting.

HEY! What happened to the whole "I'll not bait the connies" part??? :eek:

I'll give the Republicans credit in holding to their base and playing on their fears of teh commiez and teh kweerz...and actually giving them results with regressive laws, pointless social legislation, and culture war of their own making and perpetuation.

Well, first of all, I think it's a GOOD thing to be against "commiez" and communism, as a political line of thought, in general. In fact, I think most Americans would pretty much agree with that one.

As for "teh kweerz", correct me if I'm wrong -- but isn't it the Democrats who always say they're in favor of Gay rights... who campaign on "gay friendly" issues every election season, in order to lock up the voting block... but who THEN conveniently get amnesia AFTER they've won and are put into office?

Last I checked, Obama -- yes, Democrat -- as well as BOTH the House and Senate, which are controlled by -- yes, Democrats -- have spent an entire year conveniently NOT addressing the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which they likewise said they'd repeal IF they were elected into office as a majority. Hmm...and come to think of it, they've run as fast as possible from any gay marriage initiatives too, haven't they? Speaking as a California resident, I don't recall the Democratic party REALLY extending themselves very much to defeat Prop 8 (the gay marriage amendment) or even throwing much effort into the fight.

Look, the Republicans aren't saints here. There's no question the FAR right -- the so-called "religious right" -- is always going to strike an adversarial tone. On the other hand, when polled most moderate Republicans actually in favor of things that would help the gay community, and now you even have people like Cindy McCain lending her image and voice in ads towards repealing Prop 8 and fighting FOR gay marriage in California. Tell you what, get back to me when Michelle Obama puts it on the line as much.

All I'm saying is this -- I just wish the gay community wouldn't be so quick, as a voting block, to continually throw themselves in automatically with the Democrats just because they are continually led to believe that THIS is the time that they'll finally get what they want...only then they don't. For that matter, I feel the same way about the African-American community too. At some point, much like the Martha Coakley upset, people simply need to vote for the person they actually BELIEVE is going to bring about the political changes they believe in, rather than just mindlessly voting a party line. :)

[CCC]

************************************************
All I'm saying is this -- I just wish the gay community wouldn't be so quick, as a voting block, to continually throw themselves in automatically with the Democrats just because they are continually led to believe that THIS is the time that they'll finally get what they want...only then they don't. For that matter, I feel the same way about the African-American community too. At some point, much like the Martha Coakley upset, people simply need to vote for the person they actually BELIEVE is going to bring about the political changes they believe in, rather than just mindlessly voting a party line.
*************************************************

Well we all know the Dems are going to promise you everything and give you nothing SO wouldn't you be better off at least working with the Republicans who at least tell you how they feel about the matter and stick with it???

I would much rather deal with someone that didn't agree with all of my thinking but didn't continually lie to my face to get in my ass. And that is what the Dems have done better than anyone else.

Remember the definition of STUPID is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. I would much rather be IGNORANT which is simply not having been educated one a subject.

Now the "welfare class" know that they need the Liberal Dems for subsistance like a leach needs a warm body for blood. But the people in the "working class" that go along with the Liberal Dems are either ignorant or stupid. The members of the "upper class" that are Liberal Dems are simply there to make more money, Ever see a "upper class" Liberal Dem give a huge chunk percentage wise away to the "welfare Class" or charities. Hell no--they are the cheapest characters going. They want the "working class" to support the "welfare class".

[jimnaseum]

Neither Democrat or Republicans are going to PULL anyone up the ladder, that's up to each individual. But if you think the Republicans aren't stepping on the hands of the common working man, you're out of your mind.

[jimnaseum]

Tell me where I am wrong?

You were wrong the first time you turned on Fox News!!!! ha ha ha

Obama has introduced a plan for a non-partisan panel to investigate the truth behind these outrageous deficits, the vote comes up this tuesday and the Republicans are going to vote it down! They don't want you to know where the money went. They don't want to fix it because that means raising taxes, and this whole fucked up mess happened because Bush attacked IRAQ and didn't want to pay for it! He asked the American People to GO SHOPPING!!!

Bush's spend spend spend policies are DIRECTLY responsible for the mess we're in now. Watch the spin on tueday.

[The Conquistador]

You were wrong the first time you turned on Fox News!!!! ha ha ha

Obama has introduced a plan for a non-partisan panel to investigate the truth behind these outrageous deficits, the vote comes up this tuesday and the Republicans are going to vote it down! They don't want you to know where the money went. They don't want to fix it because that means raising taxes, and this whole fucked up mess happened because Bush attacked IRAQ and didn't want to pay for it! He asked the American People to GO SHOPPING!!!

Bush's spend spend spend policies are DIRECTLY responsible for the mess we're in now. Watch the spin on tueday.

Close but no cigar. An Obama led panel of "non-partisan" experts are only going to provide "expertly" fudged numbers that will probably favor Lord Zero and whatever he wants.

And last I checked, Obama spent more than Bush. Zero had the chance to change things, but spent more money instead.

[local]

Let this be a lesson to you kids. Study hard. Get whatever scholarships you can and get into college. Make yourself marketable and get a job that pays for your health insurance. What... do you want me to pay for your laziness?

(sigh -- again) And the guy who gets laid off at 55 who is having trouble finding a job with benefits is screwed. Or how about the person in between jobs through no fault of their own who needs major medical assistance. Hardworking people who contribute to society should not be penalized with their life hanging in the balance by a health system tied to the "strength" of a company. Go tell the child of a laid off Chrysler employee why their father can't get a proper assessment of his heart condition. A downturn in the economy shouldn't be a death sentence. Extreme statement yes -- but for some, sadly true.

[Talvenada]

(sigh -- again) And the guy who gets laid off at 55 who is having trouble finding a job with benefits is screwed. Or how about the person in between jobs through no fault of their own who needs major medical assistance. Hardworking people who contribute to society should not be penalized with their life hanging in the balance by a health system tied to the "strength" of a company. Go tell the child of a laid off Chrysler employee why their father can't get a proper assessment of his heart condition. A downturn in the economy shouldn't be a death sentence. Extreme statement yes -- but for some, sadly true.


LOCAL:

To Conse 'Pubs those people either don't exist, are at fault, or are a handful of people out of millions. They feel neighbors, relatives, friends or charities should foot the bill, and not the ONLY people who work and pay taxes: THEM. Of course, I wouldn't count on them if I needed help, because they'd plead poverty to go with a lecture.


TAL

[randolph]

LOCAL:

To Conse 'Pubs those people either don't exist, are at fault, or are a handful of people out of millions. They feel neighbors, relatives, friends or charities should foot the bill, and not the ONLY people who work and pay taxes: THEM. Of course, I wouldn't count on them if I needed help, because they'd plead poverty to go with a lecture.


TAL

As the French Princess Marie Antoinette supposedly said when told the peasants were starving "let them eat cake"

[jimnaseum]

As the French Princess Marie Antoinette supposedly said when told the peasants were starving "let them eat cake"

""THE ARISTOCRATS"" have their eyes wide open, it's the people that are blind. THE ARISTOCRATS are bypassing unpredictable politics and media and flexing their muscles in the Supreme Court. No one is above the Law. Except THE ARISTOCRATS.

[TracyCoxx]

(sigh -- again) And the guy who gets laid off at 55 who is having trouble finding a job with benefits is screwed.
He's 55 and he hasn't built up any savings? Seriously?? That's what my dad had to use when he was laid off at 55. And no, he's not rich. It took him about a year but he got back into work. He's 67 now and is now making good money.

Or how about the person in between jobs through no fault of their own who needs major medical assistance.
You show up in an ER, they have to treat you. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor (EMTALA) Act mandates that everybody must be seen without regard for ability to pay.

Hardworking people who contribute to society should not be penalized with their life hanging in the balance by a health system tied to the "strength" of a company. Go tell the child of a laid off Chrysler employee why their father can't get a proper assessment of his heart condition.I don't know. Cobra is supposed to maintain whatever benefits you had on the job.

A downturn in the economy shouldn't be a death sentence. Extreme statement yes -- but for some, sadly true.

Here's an idea. Why doesn't BO work on what Americans REALLY want him to work on? Jobs. BO said his stimulus plan would stop unemployment at 8% last February. So much for that. He should stop screwing this economy by putting us into huge debt and work on making our economy strong again so people aren't out of a job needing health benefits!

After reading your post I think it's pretty clear that it's in democrats best interest to keep the public dependent on government. That way all their big government plans are justified. And it's a self fulfilling prophecy. Grow government, and screw the public so the public becomes dependent on big government.

Conservatives are for small government and allowing people to control their own lives.

Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem!

[ila]

As the French Princess Marie Antoinette supposedly said when told the peasants were starving "let them eat cake"

The operative word here being "supposedly." According to the following sources Marie Antoinette never did say this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

If you don't like wikipedia then how about the following two sources

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021122.html

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/let-them-eat-cake.html

Or should anyone so desire just do an internet search on the phrase "let them eat cake."

[Talvenada]

He's 55 and he hasn't built up any savings? Seriously?? That's what my dad had to use when he was laid off at 55. And no, he's not rich. It took him about a year but he got back into work. He's 67 now and is now making good money.


IT'S HIS OWN FAULT.



I don't know. Cobra is supposed to maintain whatever benefits you had on the job.


COBRA IS EXPENSIVE EVEN IF YOU HAVE A JOB.

[jimnaseum]

My dad was laid off at 55. And no, he's not rich. It took him about a year but he got back into work. He's 67 now and is now making good money.


I think we're getting to the mystery of why Tracy is such a rabid Republican. Your Dad's a lifelong member of the GOP, right? And you love your Dad unconditionally, Right?

[randolph]

The operative word here being "supposedly." According to the following sources Marie Antoinette never did say this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

If you don't like wikipedia then how about the following two sources

http://ask.yahoo.com/20021122.html

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/let-them-eat-cake.html

Or should anyone so desire just do an internet search on the phrase "let them eat cake."

Yes, that's why I put "supposedly" nobody really knows who first said it.

[TracyCoxx]

I think we're getting to the mystery of why Tracy is such a rabid Republican. Your Dad's a lifelong member of the GOP, right? And you love your Dad unconditionally, Right?
Do all rabid republicans such as myself struggle for weeks to decide if they're going to vote for Bush Sr or Clinton? Do they defend some of Clinton's policies against republicans? I even had to think about Gore vs Bush Jr, though now that I know Gore better... whew. Dodged that bullet. How many rabid republicans do you know that are atheists, or who are fine with gays and obviously fine with transladyboys? How many republicans criticize Bush Jr as anti-science? Too religious? For his stem-cell policy? For saying the constitution is just a piece of paper?

There are many subjects we have not talked about other than the narrow focus of Obama's economics and terrorism. So really Dr. Jim, I think that's all you know about me and I doubt you know anything about my dad.

[jimnaseum]

Hmm, sounds like I hit a nerve!

[TracyCoxx]

Hmm, sounds like I hit a nerve!

Or you were mistaken, one of the two.

[randolph]

Everybody has their own reality. Conservatives have their reality. Liberals have their reality. As humans we naturally gravitate to groups and news that matches our reality. For example, almost 50% of the people in the country watch Fox news and believe it is reliable and honest. Fox News fits their perception of reality therefore it is reliable and honest. The facts are otherwise, Fox News obviously caters to the conservatives in the country. They say what conservatives want to here. The same is true of liberal media. I listen to PBS's Bill Moyer's. I believe what he says and think he is a really good guy, that's my reality. Perhaps we are genetically endowed to "fit" into certain political/ideological categories. Tracy and I are poles apart politically but we both love this country. That's the way its always been since the first George.;)

[The Conquistador]

Everybody has their own reality. Conservatives have their reality. Liberals have their reality. As humans we naturally gravitate to groups and news that matches our reality. For example, almost 50% of the people in the country watch Fox news and believe it is reliable and honest. Fox News fits their perception of reality therefore it is reliable and honest. The facts are otherwise, Fox News obviously caters to the conservatives in the country. They say what conservatives want to here. The same is true of liberal media. I listen to PBS's Bill Moyer's. I believe what he says and think he is a really good guy, that's my reality. Perhaps we are genetically endowed to "fit" into certain political/ideological categories. Tracy and I are poles apart politically but we both love this country. That's the way its always been since the first George.;)

Yes. Both parties and sides obviously cater their "respective" groups. The problem is when people focus on the whole "this vs. that" instead of what each side is proposing. If people took the time to look at a problem objectively and not what "feels good" and actually look at what both parties propose (expanse of government powers, diminishing individual liberties) they would be actually disgusted with what is going on.



"All those who offer an opinion on any doubtful point should first clear their minds of every sentiment of dislike, friendship, anger or pity."-Sallust

"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."-Thomas Sowell

“One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them”-Thomas Sowell

“If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves”-Thomas Sowell

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus

[Talvenada]

Everybody has their own reality. Conservatives have their reality. Liberals have their reality. As humans we naturally gravitate to groups and news that matches our reality. For example, almost 50% of the people in the country watch Fox news and believe it is reliable and honest. Fox News fits their perception of reality therefore it is reliable and honest. The facts are otherwise, Fox News obviously caters to the conservatives in the country. They say what conservatives want to here. The same is true of liberal media. I listen to PBS's Bill Moyer's. I believe what he says and think he is a really good guy, that's my reality. Perhaps we are genetically endowed to "fit" into certain political/ideological categories. Tracy and I are poles apart politically but we both love this country. That's the way its always been since the first George.;)


RANDY:

My gripe isn't with perception based on ideology; it's that there are 2 types of debate: honest and political. Political debate is what allows Conse 'Pubs to say: It's only my opinion that Obama is an American, and others don't feel that way.

Then there is the wordplay trickery. Chicago pols are crooks and Obama is from Chicago, which proves Obama is a crook. Bill Ayers was a terrorist and Obama met Ayers, which prove Obama is a terrorist. Guilt by association, guilt by geography. Of course, it is worded to look like something else.

TAL

[jimnaseum]

Truth is free, power costs money. If the house and senate had to vote on what color purple is, the results would be divided along party lines. Reddish blue or bluish red.
If a reliable voice-stress lie-detector were ever invented, you'd find out all our leaders are lying, and all the people know nothing. How could they?

[Talvenada]

Truth is free, power costs money. If the house and senate had to vote on what color purple is, the results would be divided along party lines. Reddish blue or bluish red.
If a reliable voice-stress lie-detector were ever invented, you'd find out all our leaders are lying, and all the people know nothing. How could they?


JIM:

The first liar was the first pharaoh.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Brown's win forced a complete rewrite of TMF's speech. Instead of health care he's forced to listen to what the people want - Jobs. So he'll talk about jobs tonight, not because he wants to. Because he has to. And because he failed at his promise of creating jobs by last February so the issue is still here.

[randolph]

Brown's win forced a complete rewrite of TMF's speech. Instead of health care he's forced to listen to what the people want - Jobs. So he'll talk about jobs tonight, not because he wants to. Because he has to. And because he failed at his promise of creating jobs by last February so the issue is still here.

Create jobs a year ago? The economy was spiraling into a black hole! Surely, he should have focused as much on saving jobs as he focused on saving the banks. But even for God things take time and Obama is not God, right?
And politicians regardless of political persuasion never get things done properly, anyway.
They are too busy counting the money from lobbyists. Six hundred million form the drug/health industry for example.
Yes, he lost touch with his base after getting elected. He is no FDR that's for sure.:frown:

[Talvenada]

Brown's win forced a complete rewrite of TMF's speech. Instead of health care he's forced to listen to what the people want - Jobs. So he'll talk about jobs tonight, not because he wants to. Because he has to. And because he failed at his promise of creating jobs by last February so the issue is still here.

TRACY:

Bush 43 wasn't a true Conse 'Pub: end of story?

Obama had how long to fix everything to your satisfaction?

Replace him now with a true Conse 'Pub?

How long does 45 get to fix things?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

He is no FDR that's for sure.:frown:

FDR was a shithead who didn't care for the "working man", the person he was supposedly trying to help. I'd say they're in the same boat.

[jimnaseum]

FDR was a shithead.

WHOOOOAH, there, pardner!!!

FDR took the United States from the Depression to SUPERPOWER status!
Your Republican buddies took us from SUPERPOWER status to the Depression!!! Read a book, Man!!!

[Talvenada]

WHOOOOAH, there, pardner!!!

FDR took the United States from the Depression to SUPERPOWER status!
Your Republican buddies took us from SUPERPOWER status to the Depression!!! Read a book, Man!!!

JIM:

According to Conse 'Pubs, this is the Obama Depression, and did not involve BUSH.

The Great Depression lasted so long because of FDR, according to Conse 'Pubs.

FDR & Obama failed, while Hoover and Bush were just average residents in The WH.

TAL

[randolph]

JIM:

According to Conse 'Pubs, this is the Obama Depression, and did not involve BUSH.

The Great Depression lasted so long because of FDR, according to Conse 'Pubs.

FDR & Obama failed, while Hoover and Bush were just average residents in The WH.

TAL

Did not involve Bush?:innocent:

OK Tal, you are putting us on, Right?;)

[TracyCoxx]

Create jobs a year ago? The economy was spiraling into a black hole! Surely, he should have focused as much on saving jobs as he focused on saving the banks. But even for God things take time and Obama is not God, right?
Yeah, last year TMF said unemployment would go no higher than 8.5% because of his stimulus package. It busted that in february.

And politicians regardless of political persuasion never get things done properly, anyway.
They are too busy counting the money from lobbyists. Six hundred million form the drug/health industry for example.
Yes, he lost touch with his base after getting elected. He is no FDR that's for sure.:frown:Well he'll burden generations to come as FDR did at least.

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

Bush 43 wasn't a true Conse 'Pub: end of story?

Obama had how long to fix everything to your satisfaction?

Replace him now with a true Conse 'Pub?

How long does 45 get to fix things?

TAL

Don't blame me. I'm using the timetable Obama promised.

[randolph]

Yeah, last year TMF said unemployment would go no higher than 8.5% because of his stimulus package. It busted that in february.

Well he'll burden generations to come as FDR did at least.

Hey, don't knock Jimmy, my savings were paying 10% in those days.:yes:

[ila]

Hey, don't knock Jimmy, my savings were paying 10% in those days.:yes:

And I'll bet your mortgage rates were close to 20%.

[Talvenada]

Don't blame me. I'm using the timetable Obama promised.


TRACY:

Can you be a bit more specific?

What was he suppose to do by when?

Sorry, Conse 'Pubs tend to make promises for opponents, yell that said promises were broken, and your evasiveness doesn't inspire confidence.

TAL

[randolph]

And I'll bet your mortgage rates were close to 20%.

My mortgage, at that time, was from the 1960s at 5%, fortunately.
You recall, that when Reagan came in the rates came down and so did the Saving and Loan industry. Some of the Bush boys were involved in that fiasco.

[The Conquistador]

WHOOOOAH, there, pardner!!!

FDR took the United States from the Depression to SUPERPOWER status!
Your Republican buddies took us from SUPERPOWER status to the Depression!!! Read a book, Man!!!

And you obviously need to research Executive Order 9066.

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

Can you be a bit more specific?

What was he suppose to do by when?

Sorry, Conse 'Pubs tend to make promises for opponents, yell that said promises were broken, and your evasiveness doesn't inspire confidence.

TAL
Sorry, I meant he said he would stop unemployment from rising above 8.5%. That's what he said his stimulus package would do. And by February of 09 it wizzed past that number.

The first stimulus was completely ineffective in creating jobs. So why should we allow the government to print another several hundred billion$ or even a trillion$ for another BS jobs bill?

[Talvenada]

Sorry, I meant he said he would stop unemployment from rising above 8.5%. That's what he said his stimulus package would do. And by February of 09 it wizzed past that number.

The first stimulus was completely ineffective in creating jobs. So why should we allow the government to print another several hundred billion$ or even a trillion$ for another BS jobs bill?

TRACY:

So, counting 1/20 for 13 days in January to go with 28 days in February, you are ready to stamp failure on his presidency after 41 days?

TAL

[jimnaseum]

And you obviously need to research Executive Order 9066.

I don't need to research nothin'!! We WON WWII. We LOST IRAQ II. I don't need a cherry picker to figure that out. Who's your lawyer? Alito?

[The Conquistador]

I don't need to research nothin'!! We WON WWII. We LOST IRAQ II. I don't need a cherry picker to figure that out. Who's your lawyer? Alito?

Jimbo, I believe that it is you who needs to read a book.

I'm not contesting about which wars we won. If you had actually bothered to look up 9066, you would have found out that your homeboy FDR had imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, held them in internment camps, suspended their rights and had them arrested without grounds for due cause and seized their property and assets simply because they were Japanese. That today is known as "racial profiling"...

As I said before, FDR was a shithead and he shit on the Constitution the entire time he was in office.

Click on the links if you don't believe me.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/eo9066.html

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066


What do you think of him now?

[Talvenada]

Jimbo, I believe that it is you who needs to read a book.

I'm not contesting about which wars we won. If you had actually bothered to look up 9066, you would have found out that your homeboy FDR had imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens, held them in internment camps, suspended their rights and had them arrested without grounds for due cause and seized their property and assets simply because they were Japanese. That today is known as "racial profiling"...

As I said before, FDR was a shithead and he shit on the Constitution the entire time he was in office.

Click on the links if you don't believe me.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/eo9066.html

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066


What do you think of him now?


ANGRY:

You're judging FDR's 4 terms based on one HUGH mistake in the 40's, and judging it by standards 60-70 years later, like the founders having slaves and growing pot. Or do they get a pass?

You condemn FDR for ONE thing for 12 years? Hoover did nothing for The Great Depression, and Bush 43 has 116 questionable acts in 8 years. What about them?

Are you saying Obama & FDR are crap, while you say little or nothing on Hoover & Bush 43? Or am I taking you wrong?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

You're judging FDR's 4 terms based on one HUGH mistake in the 40's, and judging it by standards 60-70 years later, like the founders having slaves and growing pot. Or do they get a pass?

You condemn FDR for ONE thing for 12 years? Hoover did nothing for The Great Depression, and Bush 43 has 116 questionable acts in 8 years. What about them?

Are you saying Obama & FDR are crap, while you say little or nothing on Hoover & Bush 43? Or am I taking you wrong?

TAL

The principles remain the same even if we are judging it 60-70 years later.

You are taking me wrong. FDR did a hell of alot more damage than just 9066.

How about we start from the beginning, the gold confiscation.

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
http://www.fgmr.com/the-confiscation-threat.html

And some more:

FICA (Bankrupting us today)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_In ... ns_Act_tax

National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act (AFL-CIO circle jerk) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Act

Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

Agricultural Adjustment Administration (Farmaid) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

United States Housing Authority (Affordable Housing!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _Authority

Note that all of the above listed policies have come and bitten us in the ass at some point since their inception.

Social Security has trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities on its balance sheet.

The Wagner Act is the basis for the Democrats' new push for Card Check.

The federal minimum wage has succeeded in accomplishing nothing and keeping the youngest American workers out of the work force and underemployed.

Farmaid has succeeded in not only redistributing massive amounts of wealth, but also by lowering the productivity of farmers (which brings about other unforeseen losses to our economy), while also subsidizing American farmers to put farmers in third world countries at an economic disadvantage, thus putting them out of business. We used to import large quantities of crops from farmers in north and central Africa, but now that we have successfully put them out of business through our farm subsidies, we now feel the need to send billions dollars more to them every year to help them in their economic suffering (induced by us). So let's keep a tally of the financial and economic costs of Farmaid: (1) Billions of tax dollars removed from the private sector (2) to pay farmers (3) to be unproductive. (4) Putting third world farmers out of business and then feeling sorry for them, so we (5) send them billions more dollars in foreign aid to help ease the problem that we created. There's five prices we pay just so we can say we "buy American."

And here we are getting pissed at China for subsidizing their tire manufacturers and undercutting US companies... Well fuck us, we're no better! We do it every day!

And, of course, the venerable AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE. I'm not going to delve too deeply into this one... but as we all know it's the root cause of the current recession. So, enough about that.

Obama is trying to tread down the same disasterous path of FDR.

[Talvenada]

The principles remain the same even if we are judging it 60-70 years later.

You are taking me wrong. FDR did a hell of alot more damage than just 9066.

How about we start from the beginning, the gold confiscation.

http://www.the-privateer.com/1933-gold-confiscation.html
http://www.fgmr.com/the-confiscation-threat.html

And some more:

FICA (Bankrupting us today)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_In ... ns_Act_tax

National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act (AFL-CIO circle jerk) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Act

Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wage) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

Agricultural Adjustment Administration (Farmaid) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act

United States Housing Authority (Affordable Housing!) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... _Authority

Note that all of the above listed policies have come and bitten us in the ass at some point since their inception.

Social Security has trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities on its balance sheet.

The Wagner Act is the basis for the Democrats' new push for Card Check.

The federal minimum wage has succeeded in accomplishing nothing and keeping the youngest American workers out of the work force and underemployed.

Farmaid has succeeded in not only redistributing massive amounts of wealth, but also by lowering the productivity of farmers (which brings about other unforeseen losses to our economy), while also subsidizing American farmers to put farmers in third world countries at an economic disadvantage, thus putting them out of business. We used to import large quantities of crops from farmers in north and central Africa, but now that we have successfully put them out of business through our farm subsidies, we now feel the need to send billions dollars more to them every year to help them in their economic suffering (induced by us). So let's keep a tally of the financial and economic costs of Farmaid: (1) Billions of tax dollars removed from the private sector (2) to pay farmers (3) to be unproductive. (4) Putting third world farmers out of business and then feeling sorry for them, so we (5) send them billions more dollars in foreign aid to help ease the problem that we created. There's five prices we pay just so we can say we "buy American."

And here we are getting pissed at China for subsidizing their tire manufacturers and undercutting US companies... Well fuck us, we're no better! We do it every day!

And, of course, the venerable AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE. I'm not going to delve too deeply into this one... but as we all know it's the root cause of the current recession. So, enough about that.

Obama is trying to tread down the same disasterous path of FDR.



ANGRY:

Are you a Libertarian who wants to go back before and get rid of social security, Medicare, Welfare, and all other government programs with no restrictions on a free-market system? No wonder you're angry.

Only Obama & FDR are the criminals? Hoover and Bush must have done a lot of good things you'd like to spout off about?


TAL

[The Conquistador]

I am not saying that Bush and Hoover are exempt from anything either. However, Bush did not spend roughly 2trillion dollars his first year in office and drive this country as deeply into debt as Obama did. I don't like alot of Bush's policies and I think he dropped the ball on quite a many things. But he did not fuck us over as badly as Obama did with his "stimulus".

Hoover was another shithead that started the same type of crap that FDR took further. Wilson, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and the Bush's are also on my presidential shitlist.

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

If your argument is that FDR is a socialist, save the links; I won't go there.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Are you a Libertarian who wants to go back before and get rid of social security, Medicare, Welfare, and all other government programs with no restrictions on a free-market system? No wonder you're angry.

Only Obama & FDR are the criminals? Hoover and Bush must have done a lot of good things you'd like to spout off about?


TAL

Government programs are why we are in the shit we are in.

That's the kicker. Politically, how do you end Social Security without it simply collapsing under its own weight? We can't just end it. Ignorant people will claim that "their money" is in the fund and they deserve to have it back... little do they realize "their money" was spent as soon as it was taken from their pay check. And politicians won't have the heart to tell them that, particularly the leftists that are in power at the time. Admitting this would force them to realize their ideology is a failure... and they are intellectually incapable of doing that. Either way, whether it is ended politically, or collapses financially, the result will be detrimental to whichever retired generation it disappears under. There's just no way to fix it without committing political suicide, so they aren't going to touch it.

Reserving judgment on the potential this current administration has, FDR was by and large the worst president in US history, followed very closely by Wilson and H Hoover. Bad presidents would follow, but it's FDR's policies that will be our financial ruin.



“No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with”-Thomas Sowell

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

If your argument is that FDR is a socialist, save the links; I won't go there.

TAL

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Besides, the links are from everyones favorite site for info: wikipedia.

The clarity! It burns huh?

[Talvenada]

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. Besides, the links are from everyones favorite site for info: wikipedia.

The clarity! It burns huh?


ANGRY:

I was asking a question in order for both of us to save time on a fruitless argument. Why would the clarity burn?

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TRACY:

So, counting 1/20 for 13 days in January to go with 28 days in February, you are ready to stamp failure on his presidency after 41 days?

TAL

Yes, see what I wrote in the Obama thread. By the end of February, BO overspent what it would have taken Bush 20 years to overspend. I know it's hard to grasp how monumentally he screwed us, but it's true.

[Talvenada]

Yes, see what I wrote in the Obama thread. By the end of February, BO overspent what it would have taken Bush 20 years to overspend. I know it's hard to grasp how monumentally he screwed us, but it's true.


TRACY:

41 days? You were so positive?



So, you don't believe Cheney when he said they had to do the bailout to avoid a Great Depression?


TAL

[jimnaseum]

You really think THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is going to fail? Oh, Hell No! He's not doing what's right, he's doing what's necessary. Bush handed Obama an empty wallet and a trillion IOUs. What do you think he's going to do, INVENT some money?

[The Conquistador]

You really think THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is going to fail? Oh, Hell No! He's not doing what's right, he's doing what's necessary. Bush handed Obama an empty wallet and a trillion IOUs. What do you think he's going to do, INVENT some money?

What does him being black have to do with any of it?

[jimnaseum]

What does him being black have to do with any of it?

he he, nothing and everything.

[CCC]

You really think THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT is going to fail? Oh, Hell No! He's not doing what's right, he's doing what's necessary. Bush handed Obama an empty wallet and a trillion IOUs. What do you think he's going to do, INVENT some money?

FAIL ?? He is failing now.

INVENT MONEY ?? If that is the same as printing money--that he's doing.

FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT ??? He can't even get that right--he only part BUT he has set back real blacks tyerribly by his on going failures.

[jimnaseum]

FAIL ?? He is failing now. EVERYBODY'S FAILING
INVENT MONEY ?? If that is the same as printing money--that he's doing.
REAGANOMICS!!!
FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT ??? he has set back real blacks terribly by his on going failures.

THE ONLY PEOPLE GOING BACKWARD ARE THE HICK RACISTS

[CCC]

Why is it everytime I get some good facts typed in this damn computer is crashes---I think I have the OBAMA VIRUS


OKAY which one of you libs sent it??:no:

[Talvenada]

THE ONLY PEOPLE GOING BACKWARD ARE THE HICK RACISTS



JIM:

Don't you know that according to Conservative Glenn Beck that Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people, and that Conse 'Pubs proved that Sotomayor is a racist?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

[Talvenada]

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

ANGRY:

Most hate him because he's not a Conse 'Pub, and that goes back to 2 mos. before the election.

TAL

[jimnaseum]

Saying that race has anything to do with someone's achievements or failings is inherently racist.

Most don't hate Obama because he's black; they hate him because he's fuckin up big time. This isn't rocket surgery...

I've got news for you, buddy, we live in a racist country. The Obama I saw in Baltimore today seemed to be handling himself pretty well, for a racist, communist, {CENSORED} radical.

[The Conquistador]

No. If he had shown some restraint with the nations funds instead of spending money like a stereotypical suburbanite popping Prozacs like they were Bon-Bons, most people would not be so hostile towards him. Some would still be wary of him but most would have a so-so attitude. Not good, but not bad. Think like Clinton. Sure he was a Democrat and enacted some stupid policies but he was fiscally responsible and didn't jack up the economy. Overall, he was an OK president. Obama could have been that way but completely dropped the ball on this.

If we start seeing hyperinflation, he will have gone from Jimmy Carter status(at best) to antichrist status(at worst).

[The Conquistador]

I've got news for you, buddy, we live in a racist country. The Obama I saw in Baltimore today seemed to be handling himself pretty well, for a racist, communist, {CENSORED} radical.

You think America is racist? Xenophobic is more like it but racist? People throw that word around so much, it's lost it's meaning. Just like when people disagree with libtards, the common response is to call someone racist. Believe me, I've been called that many times for being openly opposed to the stimulus bill that was passed. Logic dictates that if you are in debt, you do not keep spending money; you cut back and save. Is that racist?

I saw a documentary about German citizens getting their asses whooped by Arab and African immigrants in Germany simply because they were not Arab or African. That my friend IS racist.

[jimnaseum]

Rock and Rahmbo are going to rebuild this country from the ashes up, and there's a whole lotta things gonna happen people won't like. Or know about. So y'all make sure your teaparty dues are paid up. You'll have lots to whine about in the future.

[jimnaseum]

You think America is racist? I've been called that many times

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I think you called me racist a couple posts ago.

If you want to know your enemy read some Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. Don't get angry, get even.

[The Conquistador]

Don't worry about me. I am self-sufficient and can handle my own.

And no. I did not call you racist a couple posts ago. I said that the idea that race has anything to do with accomplishment or failure is in and of itself racist. Whether or not you took it as a personal attack is all dependent on you.

[jimnaseum]

Logic dictates that if you are in debt, you do not keep spending money; you cut back and save.

There's nothing to cut back! There's not enough money to pay the rent! Everything is gone! Where was this advice eight years ago?

[The Conquistador]

Sounds like a personal problem to me. I think you called me racist a couple posts ago.

If you want to know your enemy read some Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals. Don't get angry, get even.

I've been called that simply because I did not agree with someone's train of thought. Like I said, it is a last resort in a debate when liberal types cannot find fault with a well reasoned arguement.

[The Conquistador]

There's nothing to cut back! There's not enough money to pay the rent! Everything is gone! Where was this advice eight years ago?

So does that give Obama free reign to keep spending money? A very nihilistic "Why not? Everyone else is doing it!" attitude coupled with emotion rather than rational thought is not a recipie for success.

Obama could have actually staunched our monetary problem but in fact made it worse.

[jimnaseum]

Your average American makes just under 30k/yr. When someone steals a candybar at 7-11, HE pays for it. When someone makes a million on Wall St, HE pays for it. When someone invades Iraq, HE pays for it. The Stimulus was not Obama's idea. When every cent that comes into the treasury is used to pay debt, that really doesn't leave many options, does it? There is more money going out than coming in, how do you cut down spending, when you have no money to spend?
The Stimulus package goes straight to that guy that makes 30K/yr. Infastructure jobs. At least that's the idea. Give the money to the middle class first, they are the ones who worked for it. Then the poor can steal from them, and the rich can steal from them, as usual.
America came to Obama when it was on it's knees and handed him a Dead Economy. Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.

[Talvenada]

Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.



JIM:

The best part is that Conse 'Pubs are listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, Levin and their pols. They all have money and would have more with tax cuts across the board. I've heard them saying the bankers, ins. cos. and oil cos. are under threat by Obama. Basically what they're saying is that corps. need more control over our lives.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Now America is whining because he hasn't fixed everything in one year. America needs to be taught a lesson.



JIM:

The best part is that Conse 'Pubs are listening to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Palin, Levin and their pols. They all have money and would have more with tax cuts across the board. I've heard them saying the bankers, ins. cos. and oil cos. are under threat by Obama. Basically what they're saying is that corps. need more control over our lives.

TAL

How are corporations in control of your lives? Explain that to me. I'd rather deal with businessess than Governments for the reason that if you don't like the way a business is doing things, you take your money and your dealings to a competitor. The more business they lose, the more apt they are to please the customer and boost sales.

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

[Talvenada]

How are corporations in control of your lives? Explain that to me. I'd rather deal with businessess than Governments for the reason that if you don't like the way a business is doing things, you take your money and your dealings to a competitor. The more business they lose, the more apt they are to please the customer and boost sales.

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.

Hoover was the one who started they whole expanding gov. thing; FDR was an asshole who took what Hoover did and took it way further. Hoovers institution of Keynesian economics really put us in the shitter. That was not capitalism; that was stupid executive intervention.

There is some room within the free market economy for the government. That role is that of a referee, to make sure that everyone plays by the same set of rules. Anti-trust rules need to be enforced. If monopoly or price fixing is allowed competition ceases and the market stagnates. However, government CANNOT participate in the free market, its very existence in the market kills the private companies that try to compete. This is because government can have unlimited resources, drop prices to unsustainable levels and does not operate on a for profit basis.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Talvenada]

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.


This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Tread]

?

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom#Summary

[Talvenada]

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

[Talvenada]

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom#Summary


TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

I am inclined to disagree with the list there Tread. Anything that lists UK as a bastion of freedom is very skewed given their recent activities:

Cops using drones to spy on people in the name of "public safety": http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones

Family kicked out of their house after squatter took control of it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242682/Family-shut-dream-home-gang-gipsies-moved-Christmas.html

Making self-defense illegal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6957682/Myleene-Klass-warned-by-police-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html

Even their own citizens are saying that Britain sucks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506219/The-testament-Flashmans-creator-How-Britain-destroyed-itself.html

Afterall, they have stupid internet laws that can be made up on the spot!: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

Hell, you can't even sell shit on e-Bay anymore!: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26649042-5013016,00.html

Sweden was even talking about a "man tax" simply for being a man!: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay100804.htm

Sorry, but that does not sound very much like freedom...

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

[Talvenada]

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL


THREAD:

Conse 'Pubs look only for that which proves they're right, and anything else is ignored.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

You left out a bit there:I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

[The Conquistador]

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

Ahhh. The old "guilty of success" card...

[Talvenada]

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

[Talvenada]

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

[Talvenada]

You left out a bit there:

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?


ANGRY of Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

So, there are NO exceptions? Maybe 1 or 2 out of millions?

In theory it works. In reality not so much.

TAL

[Talvenada]

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY of Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

So, there are NO exceptions? Maybe 1 or 2 out of millions?

In theory it works. In reality not so much.

TAL

There are exceptions but bad luck is no excuse for prior planning and risk mitigation.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.

[Talvenada]

You left out a bit there:

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

ANGRY:

Conse 'Pubs say friends, family and neighbors should help people who fall through the cracks.

You are saying anyone who has a problem it's 100% their fault--end of story?

Would you be that friend, famly member or neighbor who would reach in your pocket to help that person? Prove me wrong by saying there are no exceptions.


TAL

[Talvenada]

What does me being from California have to do with the discussion? The discussion was about personal responsibility and the gov's role, not Bush.

Stay back on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

It's important because the opposition to FDR, Obama and govrmt. programs labels that as socialism.

TAL

[Talvenada]

There are exceptions but bad luck is no excuse for prior planning and risk mitigation.

ANGRY:

So, what constitutes someone who'd qualify for your charity?

What's the big deal about adding to a topic being a distortion?

I've found that Conse 'Pubs want to narrow a conversation to avoid being exposed for having positions that are contradictory.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Correction. You added a question that had no place in the discussion about a percieved favoritism between Bush and Obama on the matter of patriotism. I favor neither nor did I distort anything.


ANGRY:

I want to find out where you stand, because a lot of your points appear to be Libertarian: to the right of Neo-Cons.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Conse 'Pubs say friends, family and neighbors should help people who fall through the cracks.

You are saying anyone who has a problem it's 100% their fault--end of story?

Would you be that friend, famly member or neighbor who would reach in your pocket to help that person? Prove me wrong by saying there are no exceptions.


TAL

Anyone who does not have enough foresight to forsee possible obstacle and plan accordingly deserves what they get. If family, friends and neighbors want to help out, then so be it. I have no problem with individual charity.

I never said anyone who has a problem is to blame. I said that anyone who does not anticipate possible and probable problems in their future is an idiot and gets what they deserve. Alot of things can be fixed early on (note I said alot, not all). Things like health problems could be prevented by routine exercise, discipline and good nutrition. What I cannot stand is people who lead reckless lives with no thought to their future, and when shit starts going downhill, they try to obligate others into making things comfortable for them. I have no pity for losers like that.

And if I knew that a friend, family member or neighbor who was in trouble, yes I would help them if it was a reasonable cause. If they had incurred the problem themselves, I would tell them to kick rocks.

I have some questions for you.

Is your personal health your responsibility or the Government's?

Is managing your hard earned money your responsibility or the Government's?

Is proper planning on your behalf your responsibility or the Government's?

[Talvenada]

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".


ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Tal. What I have a problem with is when people are not responsible for their actions and use the system as a way for other people to pull their weight.

If you want to help someone out, that is all good. But using the gov. as a way to force people to be "charitable" is cowardly. You have no "social responsibility" towards the welfare of unproductive people. They have to realize that they need to be more proactive in their lives. Feeling guilty because someone is facing the consequences of their actions is the routine of con artists and parasites. If they are in legitimate need of help, by all means help them. If not, then they must learn the errors of their ways.

Remember the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime."

[Talvenada]

You act like Limbaugh and all those other dipshits somehow speak for me. Try again.

The Bush comment was a way to divert the conversation away from what was being discussed, namely personal responsibility over imagined "social responsibility".


ANGRY:

You wrote that the govrmt. interfering is totalitarian, and destructive to liberty. Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin say the exact same thing. You put yourself there, and I didn't imply that you agree with the other things they say.


TAL

[Talvenada]

I have some questions for you.

Is your personal health your responsibility or the Government's?

Is managing your hard earned money your responsibility or the Government's?

Is proper planning on your behalf your responsibility or the Government's?

ANGRY:

I don't feel the govrmt. is responsible, and that is a Hannity type of trick that says you're right. Answer the question yes or no. I say yes and you're right, and I say no and I'm a socialist.

I say there are exceptions with the difference being that you'll look for any excuse to say no. You don't exercise and you're disqualified from all illnesses, no?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

No one is against personal responsibility, but not everyone in need is imagined.

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

[Talvenada]

Tal. What I have a problem with is when people are not responsible for their actions and use the system as a way for other people to pull their weight.

If you want to help someone out, that is all good. But using the gov. as a way to force people to be "charitable" is cowardly. You have no "social responsibility" towards the welfare of unproductive people. They have to realize that they need to be more proactive in their lives. Feeling guilty because someone is facing the consequences of their actions is the routine of con artists and parasites. If they are in legitimate need of help, by all means help them. If not, then they must learn the errors of their ways.

Remember the saying: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime."


ANGRY:

Save the Conse 'Pub one-size-fit-all sayings.

Each circumstance is individual, and I've found that Conse 'Pubs label a wide range of situations as a con.

When Conse 'Pubs are done with their exclusions, are not enough people left to have a program in a town, let alone a country, no?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

I don't feel the govrmt. is responsible, and that is a Hannity type of trick that says you're right. Answer the question yes or no. I say yes and you're right, and I say no and I'm a socialist.

I say there are exceptions with the difference being that you'll look for any excuse to say no. You don't exercise and you're disqualified from all illnesses, no?

TAL

You admit that the government has no say in things regarding personal responsibility. That is what I was looking for.

I do not think that you are a socialist but I like how you were trying to forsee a probable outcome.

Things like exercise and saving your money will pay big dividends in the future. Say someone makes x amount of dollars a year. Now let's say that y amount of dollars is used for essentials like food, rent and bills and is half of what they make. What about the other half of what they earn? Could that other money have been used towards things like savings or healthcare? What happend to the money? Now add this up over a few years and you got a good sum of money. Could that money not be used towards necessities?

Odds are that your average person will have burned through that money and squandered it on a flashy car or a new sound system so that they can impress their friends. That is irresponsibile and stupid. If people have that much lack of restraint, they need to accept the concequences when they come back to bite you in the ass.

[Talvenada]

There is an organization here in CA called The State Victims of Crime that I regularly donate to because they help out people who have had their things stolen or damaged. It helped out my sister after her house got ruined when police lobbed in 18 canisters of CS gas to get the criminals who had holed up in there out. That I view as a worthy cause. I also donate to the local LGBT rights group here in SD(their name escapes me at the moment). Breast cancer research is also one of those things that are a worthy cause. They are for the advancement and furthering of people, rather than handouts that people tend to abuse.

If someone that I know has been crippled because they were injured by a drunk driver, I will gladly donate to help them out. You can only predict so much; you cannot predict when a drunk driver might hit you or when a robber breaks into your home.

However, if it was preventable and it was incurred due to laziness, apathy and /or general irresponsibility on that persons part, I will not hesitate to tell them to fuck off.

Welfare bums and the sort are parasites because they are not productive and pull the "victim of society" bullshit to get the government into giving them handouts.

If someone can get something for free, why work for it, right? Just remember that when you see the taxes taken out of your check. 99% of the time, it is going to someone who is leeching off of your tax dollars.

ANGRY:

You're forgetting the pols who stuff their pockets, and make rules to enrich their already rich donors.

99% is way off base!! People get social security based on what they paid into the system, like a savings account. I can tell you from personal experience that more than 1% of my pay went to social security. Conse 'Pubs say I shouldn't receive those funds, because it would rob their children. They, however, have no problem with me paying into it, or I should say they never mention it.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

Save the Conse 'Pub one-size-fit-all sayings.

Each circumstance is individual, and I've found that Conse 'Pubs label a wide range of situations as a con.

When Conse 'Pubs are done with their exclusions, are not enough people left to have a program in a town, let alone a country, no?

TAL

That is the idea. If you tolerate that type of leeching, people will just continue to abuse the system. If you stop giving them handouts, they tend to be more productive, and less dependent on others.

Programs like Welfare, Medicare and other things are a way for people to justify their irresponsibility and only serves to burden everyone else with a huge cost.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

You're forgetting the pols who stuff their pockets, and make rules to enrich their already rich donors.

99% is way off base!! People get social security based on what they paid into the system, like a savings account. I can tell you from personal experience that more than 1% of my pay went to social security. Conse 'Pubs say I shouldn't receive those funds, because it would rob their children. They, however, have no problem with me paying into it, or I should say they never mention it.

TAL

Most of the taxes paid in this country are from companies. They bear the hugest cost.

Do you honestly think that all the money that you paid for in Social Security is just sitting there waiting for you? No! It has already been spent by the Fed. otherwise you would be able to withdraw all you put in at once!

Here's some quick math that I thought of that pisses me off... Your take-home pay is decreased more than 12% due to your "contributions" to the social security system. That money of course, like any other ponzi scheme, is immediately sent from the Treasury to the mailbox of some random old person. It seems like a logical system to politicians, but the reason it's called a ponzi scheme is because current investors, who have an effective basis of $0, are kept afloat by new investors. When the new investors dry up, the current investors' bases of $0 are fully realized, and the system collapses. Madoff went to jail for this EXACT same thing, and the very politicians who favor expanding and taxing even more the social security contributions of individuals, are the same ones who were lambasting Madoff for running the very same operation they are! Hypocrites! Idiots!

The average American takes home a little over $40,000 per year. Without a Social Security tax, our incomes would be closer to $45,000. If we all used that extra $5,000 to invest in our Roth IRAs every year from our 20s onward, we could retire at 65-70 as MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Instead... we give that $5,000 to the federal government, which, of course, immediately disappears. But when we reach age for withdrawal, the average American receives $1,153 per month from Social Security. $13,836 per year. Assuming we live a very liberally estimated 25 years from the day we withdrawal benefits, that is a total of $345,900 nominal dollars over 25 years. Annual cost of living adjustments are made to the benefits, but the real purchasing power of those checks will remain about equivalent to what $345,900 would buy today.

On the flipside, those of us who opted to manage our own retirement, would wisely begin withdrawing (tax free, of course) funds from our Roth IRAs as soon as we hit 59.5 years old, ratably with the timing of the market at that time, and placing the withdrawals in safer investments like money markets, CDs, and low yield bonds. That way when we reach 65 or 70, or whatever age we decide we want to cruise around the world, we will have several hundred thousand dollars more than the social security folks. Oh, and the best part? We won't be paying income taxes on the adjusted principle of our withdrawals, the social security folks will be.

That being said, is our method of retirement a little riskier than social security which is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US government?" Yes it is, but high risk, high reward. And it's worth it to me to have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more disposable dollars at retirement. Some people may not be willing to go through with that, and may opt for something safe and low yield like social security, and that's fine. If we want to give them that option (rather than just allow individuals to invest that same money in equally safe investments via the private sector...), they can have that opportunity, but my gripe is, why do we all have to be forced to pay for it!? It all boils down to my gripe with the public option. If we want to be little leftists and have a public option, OK, but why will we all be forced to pay for it!?

[Talvenada]

That is the idea. If you tolerate that type of leeching, people will just continue to abuse the system. If you stop giving them handouts, they tend to be more productive, and less dependent on others.

Programs like Welfare, Medicare and other things are a way for people to justify their irresponsibility and only serves to burden everyone else with a huge cost.

ANGRY:

It's also my point about exclusions being more important than people, because you can eliminate all but a handful of PERFECT people. Jesus drank wine to excess, he'd be excluded by most Conse 'Pubs.

You're right the idea is to exclude most people, and the balance would not get covered: no program, no coverage!! ZERO covered!! Tough luck, too bad!!

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

It's also my point about exclusions being more important than people, because you can eliminate all but a handful of PERFECT people. Jesus drank wine to excess, he'd be excluded by most Conse 'Pubs.

You're right the idea is to exclude most people, and the balance would not get covered: no program, no coverage!! ZERO covered!! Tough luck, too bad!!

TAL

Most of the people on welfare are leeches. The money that you shelled out for Social Security and Medicare has already been spent once it was taken out of your check. All these government programs are are just clever wealth redistribution. Government spending is what gets us into this kind of crap and they just continue to tax us to cover the costs of their out of control spending.

Is that really beneficial for anyone?

[jimnaseum]

blah blah blah

You take away social security and medicare and you will have a third of America in prisons or hospitals. Run over by the American Dream.

[The Conquistador]

You take away social security and medicare and you will have a third of America in prisons or hospitals. Run over by the American Dream.

As usual, you cannot come up with a reasoned and coherent response. At least Tal can, which is why I am talking to him and not you.

[Talvenada]

Most of the taxes paid in this country are from companies. They bear the hugest cost.

Do you honestly think that all the money that you paid for in Social Security is just sitting there waiting for you? No! It has already been spent by the Fed. otherwise you would be able to withdraw all you put in at once!

Here's some quick math that I thought of that pisses me off... Your take-home pay is decreased more than 12% due to your "contributions" to the social security system. That money of course, like any other ponzi scheme, is immediately sent from the Treasury to the mailbox of some random old person. It seems like a logical system to politicians, but the reason it's called a ponzi scheme is because current investors, who have an effective basis of $0, are kept afloat by new investors. When the new investors dry up, the current investors' bases of $0 are fully realized, and the system collapses. Madoff went to jail for this EXACT same thing, and the very politicians who favor expanding and taxing even more the social security contributions of individuals, are the same ones who were lambasting Madoff for running the very same operation they are! Hypocrites! Idiots!

The average American takes home a little over $40,000 per year. Without a Social Security tax, our incomes would be closer to $45,000. If we all used that extra $5,000 to invest in our Roth IRAs every year from our 20s onward, we could retire at 65-70 as MULTI-MILLIONAIRES. Instead... we give that $5,000 to the federal government, which, of course, immediately disappears. But when we reach age for withdrawal, the average American receives $1,153 per month from Social Security. $13,836 per year. Assuming we live a very liberally estimated 25 years from the day we withdrawal benefits, that is a total of $345,900 nominal dollars over 25 years. Annual cost of living adjustments are made to the benefits, but the real purchasing power of those checks will remain about equivalent to what $345,900 would buy today.

On the flipside, those of us who opted to manage our own retirement, would wisely begin withdrawing (tax free, of course) funds from our Roth IRAs as soon as we hit 59.5 years old, ratably with the timing of the market at that time, and placing the withdrawals in safer investments like money markets, CDs, and low yield bonds. That way when we reach 65 or 70, or whatever age we decide we want to cruise around the world, we will have several hundred thousand dollars more than the social security folks. Oh, and the best part? We won't be paying income taxes on the adjusted principle of our withdrawals, the social security folks will be.

That being said, is our method of retirement a little riskier than social security which is "backed by the full faith and credit of the US government?" Yes it is, but high risk, high reward. And it's worth it to me to have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more disposable dollars at retirement. Some people may not be willing to go through with that, and may opt for something safe and low yield like social security, and that's fine. If we want to give them that option (rather than just allow individuals to invest that same money in equally safe investments via the private sector...), they can have that opportunity, but my gripe is, why do we all have to be forced to pay for it!? It all boils down to my gripe with the public option. If we want to be little leftists and have a public option, OK, but why will we all be forced to pay for it!?

ANGRY:

If 12% of my pay goes to SS, how do 99% of my deductions go to deadbeats?

People are imperfect, have different intellectual abilities, and the world is not a fair place. If the world were fair, your points would have greater weight.

You've put a lot of thought and numbers into your view, but it's a theory that won't work with humans. You basically want to force people to live YOUR way, as opposed to YOU having to overpay by a nickel, while the fat cats will raise prices with their competitors to rob YOU blind. One way or the other it's going to come out of your pocket, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Most of the people on welfare are leeches. The money that you shelled out for Social Security and Medicare has already been spent once it was taken out of your check. All these government programs are are just clever wealth redistribution. Government spending is what gets us into this kind of crap and they just continue to tax us to cover the costs of their out of control spending.

Is that really beneficial for anyone?

ANGRY:

The % is irrelevant, because no human system has EVER worked. The Swedes had the best one, which cost a lot to pay into, but had super benefits. All the people had to do was do the right thing, but some wanted to game the system, which destroyed it. It was the healthy and educated that broke it, and not the deadbeats. Wall Streeters took way more than the deadbeats to bring the global economy to its knees.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

If 12% of my pay goes to SS, how do 99% of my deductions go to deadbeats?

People are imperfect, have different intellectual abilities, and the world is not a fair place. If the world were fair, your points would have greater weight.

You've put a lot of thought and numbers into your view, but it's a theory that won't work with humans. You basically want to force people to live YOUR way, as opposed to YOU having to overpay by a nickel, while the fat cats will raise prices with their competitors to rob YOU blind. One way or the other it's going to come out of your pocket, and there isn't a whole lot you can do about it.

TAL

Of course the world is an unfair place but why give the Fed more control than what they need? People learn, governments don't.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

The % is irrelevant, because no human system has EVER worked. The Swedes had the best one, which cost a lot to pay into, but had super benefits. All the people had to do was do the right thing, but some wanted to game the system, which destroyed it. It was the healthy and educated that broke it, and not the deadbeats. Wall Streeters took way more than the deadbeats to bring the global economy to its knees.

TAL

No human system will ever work. But why cause undue burden with an apathetic and nihilistic attitude? We are the boss of the elected officials, not the other way around. They are only limited 17 things that they can do. The Constitution is a limitation on the things that our Gov can do, not the other way around.

People need to be aware of that and need to stop being so content and complacent. There is a checks and balances system in place but most are too lazy to use it. That kind of shit needs to stop or we will just keep getting pushed into submission. If you don't draw the line at something, then where will it stop?

I am not saying that banks and corporations are innocent in this. I am saying giving the Gov. unnecessary control over major things in our lives is bad and that we should not be even thinking of that course of action. People need to be more self-sufficient and independent instead of relying on others to do things for them.

[Talvenada]

No human system will ever work. But why cause undue burden with an apathetic and nihilistic attitude? We are the boss of the elected officials, not the other way around. They are only limited 17 things that they can do. The Constitution is a limitation on the things that our Gov can do, not the other way around.

People need to be aware of that and need to stop being so content and complacent. There is a checks and balances system in place but most are too lazy to use it. That kind of shit needs to stop or we will just keep getting pushed into submission. If you don't draw the line at something, then where will it stop?

I am not saying that banks and corporations are innocent in this. I am saying giving the Gov. unnecessary control over major things in our lives is bad and that we should not be even thinking of that course of action. People need to be more self-sufficient and independent instead of relying on others to do things for them.


ANGRY:

I was referring to your system, while half the population has no clue what's going on. Human beings are nowhere near a good system.

We went from barbarian to civil, the next step is to humane, and your system is for the now--not the tomorrow when a system will have some teeth.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

I was referring to your system, while half the population has no clue what's going on. Human beings are nowhere near a good system.

We went from barbarian to civil, the next step is to humane, and your system is for the now--not the tomorrow when a system will have some teeth.

TAL

A system that values personal responsibility and accountability will survive alot longer than one that endorses entitlements and handouts. When there is positive value to a person's actions, the benefits of those actions far out weigh the actual person[s].

Letting people make decisions is far more humane and alot less condescending than telling people that you know what is best for them.

Meritocracy > kleptocracy

[Talvenada]

A system that values personal responsibility and accountability will survive alot longer than one that endorses entitlements and handouts. When there is positive value to a person's actions, the benefits of those actions far out weigh the actual person[s].

Letting people make decisions is far more humane and alot less condescending than telling people that you know what is best for them.

Meritocracy > kleptocracy


ANGRY:

What I'm saying is that the best system is a combination, and not one or the other. Not the left or right edges but in the middle.

TAL

[jimnaseum]

Hmmm, maybe the system that WORKS is the best one! How about Monoco? No taxes at all. Sweden with 50% tax was the CLEANEST place on Earth. Amsterdam? Haiti?
You need a changing system that conforms to the strengths and weaknesses of the USA. You need a smart dynamic leader with lots of cash to spend. Palin looked like a genius when she had oil money taxes. Money makes everything easy. Ask George Bush. Finding a fair system that taxes fairly and distributes fairly is pretty tough. Ask Obama.

[Tread]

I am inclined to disagree with the list there Tread. Anything that lists UK as a bastion of freedom is very skewed given their recent activities:

1. Cops using drones to spy on people in the name of "public safety": http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones

2. Family kicked out of their house after squatter took control of it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242682/Family-shut-dream-home-gang-gipsies-moved-Christmas.html

3. Making self-defense illegal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6957682/Myleene-Klass-warned-by-police-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html

4. Even their own citizens are saying that Britain sucks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506219/The-testament-Flashmans-creator-How-Britain-destroyed-itself.html

5. Afterall, they have stupid internet laws that can be made up on the spot!: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20/britains-new-interne.html

6. Hell, you can't even sell shit on e-Bay anymore!: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26649042-5013016,00.html

7. Sweden was even talking about a "man tax" simply for being a man!: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay100804.htm

Sorry, but that does not sound very much like freedom...

I didn?t say there is a country with full freedom, and to mention issues of other countries doesn?t make your freedom better.
The biggest freedom problems of the USA are medial/press freedom and censorship, probably you don?t hear much about it that because of it.

Btw:
1. Your police and agencies are the biggest (not commercial) information collectors and not the UK.

2. The were not kicked out after squatters took control of it, they were shut out by squatters. The situation was not solved well, but the squatters had to move.

3. Self defence is not illegal in the UK. Don?t belief an article that reports over a pissed off person that tries to quote a statement from a police officer.

4. Personal saying that politics, government or laws sucks does not lower or increase freedom.

5. I think, at stupid senseless laws the USA is on top.

6. One board game! As you were allowed to buy and sell everything from/to everyone you want.

7. Talking! Even stupid nominations are discussed, but they are free too suggesting it.

[The Conquistador]

ANGRY:

What I'm saying is that the best system is a combination, and not one or the other. Not the left or right edges but in the middle.

TAL

A balanced system is what we have. It is not perfect but it works; the problem is that people have abused it for far too long with victim ideology and the belief that they are entitled to free things simply by being here. That only serves to weaken the system we have built. The fact of the matter is that there is always a cost. Failure to recognize that just perpetuates the problem.

All this is found in the Constitution but people just tend to ignore it and continue through a listless, worry-free life. So now we are looking at something akin to The Fall of Rome because of complacency. Even our comfort has come at a price and now we are paying for it.

[The Conquistador]

Hmmm, maybe the system that WORKS is the best one! How about Monoco? No taxes at all. Sweden with 50% tax was the CLEANEST place on Earth. Amsterdam? Haiti?
You need a changing system that conforms to the strengths and weaknesses of the USA. You need a smart dynamic leader with lots of cash to spend. Palin looked like a genius when she had oil money taxes. Money makes everything easy. Ask George Bush. Finding a fair system that taxes fairly and distributes fairly is pretty tough. Ask Obama.

You think Europe is a model of a working system? Haha! A "changing" system? "Diversity" is what got us into this mess and ever-changing standards have dumbed down and weakend the necessary family structure needed to support a civilization. You honestly call that progress?

[jimnaseum]

There's no perfect society or perfect man under the sun. ANY society that everyone abides by is as good as it gets. This is Obama's hurdle. He's got 40% of the country hopped up on Teaparty Kool-aid. Obama took no-one's job. Bush did. The only way to create jobs is the fucked up stimulus bill, set to flower just before the November elections, I would think. Give the baggers jobs and they'll disappear. A fucked up solution for a fucked up situation.

Obama is my man. I could not dream up a better President. Almost ANY system that has the support of the people will work. You can't say the system is right and the people are wrong, even if that's the truth. Find some religion. Give unto Caesar.

[The Conquistador]

There's no perfect society or perfect man under the sun. ANY society that everyone abides by is as good as it gets. This is Obama's hurdle. He's got 40% of the country hopped up on Teaparty Kool-aid. Obama took no-one's job. Bush did. The only way to create jobs is the fucked up stimulus bill, set to flower just before the November elections, I would think. Give the baggers jobs and they'll disappear. A fucked up solution for a fucked up situation.

Obama is my man. I could not dream up a better President. Almost ANY system that has the support of the people will work. You can't say the system is right and the people are wrong, even if that's the truth. Find some religion. Give unto Caesar.

The stimulus bill was like injecting massive amounts of morphine into an already sedated severely injured patient. It did more harm than good. Our economy was showing signs of recovering before the stimulus bill was passed and the fact of the matter is that Obama spent money that we don't have.

Why can't I say that some things are right and some things are wrong even if I am correct? Because it might hurt someone's feelings?

[jimnaseum]

The stimulus bill was like injecting massive amounts of morphine into an already sedated severely injured patient.
No, it was like injecting massive amounts of money into a monthly credit card bill that is 10 times bigger than your salary.
It did more harm than good.
Death of the patient is good?
Our economy was showing signs of recovering before the stimulus bill was passed
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
the fact of the matter is that Obama spent money that we don't have.
BULLETIN!!!!


Why can't I say that some things are right and some things are wrong even if I am correct? Because it might hurt someone's feelings?
Because when you are President you don't have the luxury of telling people in jail that they're wrong. You don't have the luxury of telling sick people they should have taken better care of themselves. You can't tell Oil Companies that making obscene amounts of money is wrong.

As individuals, we can say anything. This stopped being the Coakley-Brown thread a couple of pages ago. A candidate with your views would be laughed off the podium!

OF COURSE Abortion is wrong! So is bombing abortion clinics. This seems to be the 50/50 issue. Pro-choice or Pro-life. Pick a side and half the people will love you, half will hate you. Don't pick a side and all the people will stop listening to you.

This thread is POLITICS. UNITED STATES POLITICS. not Biker politics, or surfer politics, or nazi politics, or YOUR politics. The only opinion of yours that counts is whether teabaggers and right-wing crackpots will re-enter the Republican Party.

[The Conquistador]

The stimulus bill was like injecting massive amounts of morphine into an already sedated severely injured patient.
No, it was like injecting massive amounts of money into a monthly credit card bill that is 10 times bigger than your salary.
It did more harm than good.
Death of the patient is good?
Our economy was showing signs of recovering before the stimulus bill was passed
HA HA HA HA HA!!!
the fact of the matter is that Obama spent money that we don't have.
BULLETIN!!!!


Why can't I say that some things are right and some things are wrong even if I am correct? Because it might hurt someone's feelings?
Because when you are President you don't have the luxury of telling people in jail that they're wrong. You don't have the luxury of telling sick people they should have taken better care of themselves. You can't tell Oil Companies that making obscene amounts of money is wrong.

As individuals, we can say anything. This stopped being the Coakley-Brown thread a couple of pages ago. A candidate with your views would be laughed off the podium!

OF COURSE Abortion is wrong! So is bombing abortion clinics. This seems to be the 50/50 issue. Pro-choice or Pro-life. Pick a side and half the people will love you, half will hate you. Don't pick a side and all the people will stop listening to you.

This thread is POLITICS. UNITED STATES POLITICS. not Biker politics, or surfer politics, or nazi politics, or YOUR politics. The only opinion of yours that counts is whether teabaggers and right-wing crackpots will re-enter the Republican Party.

Jimbo, spending money that you don't have does more harm than good. What Obama did was pretty much economic anaphylaxis; like giving extra morphine to a trauma patient who has already had massive amounts of sedatives and painkillers to relieve the pain. It just worsened things by putting us into economic shock. What do you think will happen when he has the Treasury print out paper promises to back things that we don't have?

Hyperinflation. That's what's going to happen.

Your blatant and willful disregards for facts is showing.

Also, I am quite aware that this thread is about politics and until you tell someone that they are doing wrong, they will just continue on in their blissful ignorance. Babying and sheltering people does not benefit them.

The only opinion of yours that counts is whether teabaggers and right-wing crackpots will re-enter the Republican Party.

Again you lump me in with that crowd. Jimbo, once again, you need to get your facts straight. Is that so hard to do?

[jimnaseum]

Again you lump me in with that crowd. Jimbo, once again, you need to get your facts straight. Is that so hard to do?

Lets try this ONE MORE TIME. The Treasury is not empty, it is TEN TIMES empty. Not spending money means hanging US Troops out to die. It means throwing gramma out into the street. This is your plan?


The fact that Rush and Glenn and you and Tracy denounce Bush NOW doesn't make you right, it makes you wrong. He was YOUR guy, YOU voted for him. If you didn't vote, then you have no say in the American Political System. Your choice is a matter of record.

I asked the party of NO to write a check for 2000-2008. They said NO! Can you believe that shit??!!!

Here is the fact. In the World of US Politics, you are a right wing nutjob. You stand beside your right wing nutjob principles, I get it. You betcha. Look up Right Wing in the Dictionary. Look up Nutjob. Put them together. That's you. Start to finish. Case closed. Story told. You are a NOUN, my friend.

[The Conquistador]

Lets try this ONE MORE TIME. The Treasury is not empty, it is TEN TIMES empty. Not spending money means hanging US Troops out to die. It means throwing gramma out into the street. This is your plan?

Where did I say that?

The fact that Rush and Glenn and you and Tracy denounce Bush NOW doesn't make you right, it makes you wrong. He was YOUR guy, YOU voted for him. If you didn't vote, then you have no say in the American Political System. Your choice is a matter of record. I asked the party of NO to write a check for 2000-2008. They said NO! Can you believe that shit??!!!

Let's see: I was 14 when he first got elected to office, so I was unable to vote the first time and I didn't vote for him the second time; I voted for someone else. So the whole "trying to tie me to Bush" thing will not work.

Here is the fact. In the World of US Politics, you are a right wing nutjob. You stand beside your right wing nutjob principles, I get it. You betcha. Look up Right Wing in the Dictionary. Look up Nutjob. Put them together. That's you. Start to finish. Case closed. Story told. You are a NOUN, my friend.

Here's a fact for you. Obama spent roughly $2 trillion and pushed us to a defecit that we will not be able to pay off. Did he have to? No. Did he do it anyways? Yes.

I am not right-wing; I am independent. A conservative libertarian. I am someone who cares about my future and am absolutely pissed off over the the attitudes of our elected public servants. Politics is all about the art of bullshitting and being the best bullshitter on the block.

Now what happens when the best bullshitters find out that they cannot bullshit their way through anymore of their problems; that people are seeing through the crap that they are spouting? Huh? If you honestly think that this whole thing is about Democrat vs. Republican, you really need to turn off the TV and take a look around. It is about reckless actions, alarming Gov. growth and usurpations of our liberties.



Guess what? I did look in the dictionary and we are BOTH nouns! :yes:
Take a gander at this one! I found a definition that perfectly suits you as well!

Main Entry: tool
Pronunciation: \ˈt?l\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tōl; akin to Old English tawian to prepare for use — more at taw
Date: before 12th century
1 a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool
2 a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools> b : an element of a computer program (as a graphics application) that activates and controls a particular function <a drawing tool> c : a means to an end <a book's cover can be a marketing tool> d often vulgar : penis
3 : one that is used or manipulated by another
4 plural : natural ability <has all the tools to be a great pitcher>

[Talvenada]

I thought it was


2 D.

[The Conquistador]

I thought it was


2 D.

A literary way to call someone a "dick"? Nah, I won't stoop to name-calling.

[jimnaseum]

"Nah, I won't stoop to name-calling" said the right wing nutjob.

HA HA!

So, you could vote last election, right? Who did you vote for? THRILL ME!!

Take all the time you need, All Seeing One, it's an easy question.

[The Conquistador]

"Nah, I won't stoop to name-calling" said the right wing nutjob.

HA HA!

So, you could vote last election, right? Who did you vote for? THRILL ME!!

Take all the time you need, All Seeing One, it's an easy question.

I told you to look for it. Actually look in the Barack Obama thread. It should be there. Look and ye shall find.



And no, I was not name-calling; I merely insinuated something... ;)

[randolph]

Time to go potty?

[The Conquistador]

Time to go potty?

Maybe. Eating prunes and typing generally do not go together.


Scratch that. Prunes and heavy lifting do not go together...