Barack Obama

[transjen]

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

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

[transjen]

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

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

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

[charlietwobeans]

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

I think not.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by transjen

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

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by charlietwobeans

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

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

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

http://usdebtclock.org/

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

[TracyCoxx]

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

[randolph]

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no insoluble government problems.

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

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

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

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

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

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

Government sucks!

[charlietwobeans]

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

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

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

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

[randolph]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

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

http://usdebtclock.org/

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

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

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

And how long did the white house sit on that tape? And it still doesn't give W the excuuss to use fear to stay in power
Jerseygirl Jen

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

LET'S HAVE A REALITY CHECK HERE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[transjen]

Originally Posted by CreativeMind

["

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

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

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

[transjen]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

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


Jerseygirl Jen

[randolph]

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

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

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

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

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

You have a good point on the military but giveing credit to Reagan and W you are wrong, The idea that Reagan ended commieusm is one of the biggest myths from the GOP ever fact is Reagan just happend to be the presdent when Russia could no longer afford there army had they had a few more years then old man Bush would have gotten the credit for bringing them down,

Yeah, that's what I mean about being naive. Good example. Would you mind describing our military, that you give credit to for keeping us safe, after Carter's term vs. after Reagan's terms?

Originally Posted by transjen

Now W really did a lot for the military like getting 4000+ of our soliders killed for his lies on his BS Iraq war, Which done nothing to keep us safe,

You mean other than killing all those Al Qaeda ass holes and taking out Saddam and "Chemical-ali"? Yeah, that was probably a waste. At least the Iraqi war only cost less than 20% of what Obama spent in his first 2 months

Originally Posted by transjen

I also find it funny that the war drum banger W when it was his time to fight for our country his daddy pulled strings to put him in to the AIR NATIONAL GUARD where he never would have to worry about going to Nam but chickin shit W still went AWOL but daddy pulled more strings to protect the little bastard no wonder he feels laws never apply to him

If you were comparing him to McCain, you'd definitely have a point. But you're comparing him to BO LOL!

[transjen]

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