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

:frown:

to answer you question tracey
 

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

out of context
 

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

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

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

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

If you want to end social welfare then you need to make all companies pay a living wage which the last time i checked the GOP was agianst any such messure, For there ten years of runing the house and senate min wage didn't raise 1 cent


:no: Jerseygirl Jen

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

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

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

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


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

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

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

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

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


:no: Jerseygirl Jen

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

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

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

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

How willing is the GOP?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."

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

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

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

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

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

Thankyou Tracy or should i call you RushII or perhaps AnnII, Your view that we are doomed because the GOP is not in charge and we are doomed everytime the Dems are in charge never gets tired so by all means keep the GOP flag waving and remind us agian of the wonderful job W did in his eight years tell us of the millions of high paying jobs he created
TELL US THE ECOMIC GOLD MINE EVERYONE HAD tell us about the cheap oil prices tell us how he kept us out of a needless war tell us how he gave us a hugh budget surplus by giving tax cuts to the very rich tell us how he kept the terrorist from there attack on 9/11/01 and tell us how he kept IRAN and NORTH KOREA from going nuclear and tell us how great Wwas, You always bitch and complain about Obama and you always forget that W was the worst president ever, Obama will not be the greatest presdent but he sure as hell won't be the worst as it will be hard to take W out of that spot only JEB or Sarah could do that

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

:lol: :lol:

:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

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

I point out how BO is the biggest screwup the whitehouse has ever seen, and you think that applies to all democrats. Why is that? BO isn't like all democrats. I think Clinton did a decent job with foreign affairs. Not a great job, since he didn't take al qaeda seriously enough, but he did a good job. BO's philosophy on foreign affairs is to ignore it.

Like i said Obama sure as hell will not i repete will go be the greatest president ever and Clinton was a hell of a lot better but calling Obama the biggest screwup ever is going some considring we just had 8 years of W and only Sarah could be a bigger screw up then W oh by the way i rember seeing on CNN that a former Clinton aide who i believe was PaulB i won't even attempt to spell his last name but he's on CNN a lot told how then presdent Clinton tried to warn W about al qaede and Bin Laden is the US's biggest threat and W could care less and paid no attention, Oh fyi i didn't vote for Obama i voted a write in for Ron Paul


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

McCain Palin quotes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LMAO Ron Paul is the exact opposite of who you support here, and I have used many of Ron Paul's arguments against BO's policies here, which of course, you vehemently argued against. Although, somehow, that doesn't surprise me about you. :lol:

The losing side always has and always will do soul searching to figure out where they went wrong and how they should stage a comeback. Nothing new here.

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

Proof that W is the biggest screw up ever first just look at the mess he made our country his econmic policy's caused the biggest jump of poverty massive job loss the average american family annual income went down for the first time ever workers instead of getting an annual pay raise instead got an annual pay cut his trickle down BS was just that BS and last but not least THE IRAQ WAR the biggest screw up in history and lets not forget the wallstreet mess and the housing mess plus how he did nothing right after hurricane Katrina all this happend from 01 thru 08


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

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

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

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

That is coming. In his never ending quest to do as much damage to America as he can before he is impeached or his 4 years is up, he will make them all US citizens.

If it takes decades then i guess you are blaming Ronald Reagan fair enought after all he's the father of trickle down


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

No, I've said several times here who's to blame, but that mental block of yours is quite thick.

Not just medical technology, but also properly training and equipping the soldiers. Bush gave the military what they needed unlike some other presidents who ranked worse than Bush in this area.

There was a commission set up to find out what happened wasn't there? What were the results of that?

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

Only in Jen's World. In this world, however, facts matter.

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

I never said they were perfectly equipped. They were equipped well enough to get the job done though. And well enough not to be ranked the worst president since we did not lose anywhere near 58000 troops like in Vietnam.

Let me draw your attention back to what you were talking about:

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

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

I also went for Ron Paul.

Do you have a link for this earth shattering information?

The reason behind the need for armor was:

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

The beginning of the Afghanistan war was perfect. Russia couldn't make any headway there after 10 years. We went in and took over the country within 2-3 months.

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

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

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

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

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

Tracy! You better not have one of these!

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

Watch out!
 

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

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

Look who's talking, Like Rush and Ann you forget half the facts which is unsupreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was sick of the recounts and wanted them stoped hence making W the president never mind the fact that thousands of votes would not be counted had those votes been counted AL GORE would have been the winner a fact you hate so tell me who's in there own dream world and since you love to point out the Jeb stayed out of the recount gee that was mighty big of him since the election was already fixed Jeb Bush was a weasel just like W but are tied as being the worlds biggest liar's, The fact that you continue to think that W did nothing wrong and nothing was ever W's fault and that he was a wonderful president proves you were off in your own dream world and have no sense of reality


:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

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

LOL Now that one is funny :)

Proof?

And while you're at it, don't forget this one:

Aren't photos great? ;):lol:

Article by Paul Krugman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiring minds want to know. :yes:

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

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

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

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


:lol: Jerseygirl Jen

Actually, the recounts showed NO such thing.

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

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...loridamain.htm

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

http://www.hulu.com/watch/99945/satu...-obama-address

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE???

How do all you Obama bashers feel about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg Laden's Blog
 

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

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

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

Dear Disgruntled Sisters and Brothers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Blogger,

Greg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough Jen. You have zero credibility with this claim until you can answer this question:
I know your world probably doesn't recognize any such commission. Be brave though and take a look at reality.

Well, look at unemployment rates after Reagan became president, and compare them to unemployment rates after he left office. There's your answer.

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

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

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

I think Michael Steele had a pretty good response:
This response was even better:
I've heard that they awarded the prize to Obama because of his potential. So if a guy gets a 4.5 GPA for a PhD in physics are they going to give him the nobel prize in physics because of his potential?

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

Not as vicious as taking mentally retarded kids from their parents to be suicide bombers, among plenty of other things! Trust me, we should go Jacques Massu on these bastards.

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

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

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


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

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

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


:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

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

Jobs are going over seas because it's cheaper to operate there. We need to cut taxes here. Before you dispute that, read this:
Ballmer Says Tax Would Move Microsoft Jobs Offshore

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

Not Getting Sucked In...
 

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal
 

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

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

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

Bussein, etc ...
 

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

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

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

I hope this post is a put on, either way, it is laughable. :lol:

Ha !!!
 

Trying to insult a poster is not polite! Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it, like it or not.

While there are some nuggets of truth in what I said, you caught me stirring the pot!

I know better than to discuss either religion or politics!

Carry on with the political humor ... sorry to interrupt!

I guess that's the main reason.;)

I dont respeact Obama at all

Bounce Bussein Gear ...
 

In the spirit of dry humor ...

OIC ... IMHO, I suspect you meant that you don't respect him.

OK then, you probably need to get some Oust Obammer gear:

http://tinyurl.com/CPOOGear


That way you can let the world know how you feel about Busein! :rolleyes:

Party on ...

I think Obama is a fucking liar, like almost all american presidents.
so crew him too.

Obama is a well educated intelligent black Democrat.
This drives conservatives completely bonkers. They like third rate movie stars (Reagen) and business losers (Bush) and complete idiots (Palin). Apparently they like someone who matches there own capabilities to be our president.:censored:

No. Obama is a smooth talking narcissist who hasn't done jack squat since he got in office except talk. I say give Zero the boot and elect Thomas Sowell in his place.

Sowell was born in North Carolina. His father died before he was born. In his autobiography, A Personal Odyssey, he recalled that his encounters with whites were so limited he didn't believe that "yellow" was a hair color. He moved to Harlem, New York City with his mother's sister (who, at the time, he believed was his mother). Sowell attended Stuyvesant High School, but dropped out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and a deteriorating home environment.[2] To support himself he worked at various jobs, including in a machine shop and as a delivery man for Western Union. He applied to enter the Civil Service and was eventually accepted, which prompted a move to Washington DC. He was drafted in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the US Marine Corps. Due to prior experience in photography, he worked in a photography unit.


Bio on Thomas Sowell
After discharge, Sowell passed the GED examination and enrolled at Howard University. He transferred to Harvard University, where in 1958 he graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics. He received a Master of Arts in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and a Doctor of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Chicago. Sowell initially chose Columbia University because he wanted to study under George Stigler. After arriving at Columbia and learning that Stigler had moved to Chicago, he followed him there.[3]

Sowell has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA. Since 1980 he has been a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where he holds a fellowship named after Rose and Milton Friedman.[4]

If the Republican party can get its act together and nominate an intelligent guy like Sowell, that would be good for the country.

Randolph, are you trying to say that you're a conservative? (note the text in bold)

Yeah, I gues I have a consurvatev gene when it cums to spellig.:lol:

Actually it's my liberal genes that give me the most trouble. I believe when politicians go to Washington they will be honest and do what is best for the citizens of this country. They will not be bought off by the military/industrial complex. They will not be bought off by the drug companies. The Republicans and Democrats will band together in times of crisis to solve the countries problems. They will avoid backbiting and petty lies to further personal political advantage. So you see my problem, how naive can you get?:broken:

Unfortunately, our elected representatives and legslators, Democrat or Republican, do not give a damn about the rest of the populace.

These 2 quotes sum up America today:

"Only a few prefer liberty;the majority seek nothing more than fair masters"-Sallust

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"- Alexis de Tocqueville (economic "stimulus" plan anyone?)

Obammer Care ...