Freedom Of Speech Roflmao
 

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:

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...reedom#Summary

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

TREAD:

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

TAL

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/ja...ce-plan-drones

Family kicked out of their house after squatter took control of it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Christmas.html

Making self-defense illegal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-knife.html

Even their own citizens are saying that Britain sucks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-itself.html

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

Hell, you can't even sell shit on e-Bay anymore!: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...013016,00.html

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

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

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.

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.

THREAD:

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

TAL

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?

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

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

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

Bush was a part of my point only!!

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".

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 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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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?

ANGRY:

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

You say there are exceptions, name a few?

TAL

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:

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

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

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Where did I say that?

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'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>

I thought it was


2 D.

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

"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... ;)

Time to go potty?

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


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