With everything in America on a downward spiral, why on earth is President Obama using a shovel to help us. Please read <snipped - do not start threads for the sole purpose of promotion or posting links>
I'm ready to answer all Obama supporters. I live near Chicago and I'm familiar with his overall strategy. It all goes back to.......................
The Spiral began before Pres. Obama was elected. Im just curious ,since I wasnt here(USA) during George Bush's term (though there was plenty said Internationally) Did people make the same statements then , like what I hear bandied about Pres. Obama now?
From what I remember of the news at the time of George Bush's presidency is they did not want to at all do any bailouts and that the republican party was trying to block it, but we became in such a bind that they voted for it. However, we know how bad the bailouts were as we heard stories of how CEO's were using it. I think Obama is getting alot of flak because he said he is not happy with the moderate increase in the economy and is increasing continuous bailouts. The economy won't get back on its feet immediately after a recession and I think alot of people were expecting that. With these bailouts comes a higher increase in taxes which is going to hit the middle class hard.
Obama has been massaged and propped up by an adoring MSM. However even the stupid atr beginning to stir as jobs quickly dissappear and the Democrats continue to raise taxes, print funny money, borrow from China and increase deficit spending by trillions annually. Obama is no economist and his spending is unsustainable. The economy will fall in a way we have never seen if the U.S. does not return to democracy.
Your memory isn't very good. The bank bailout began under George W. Bush on the advice of Treasury Secretary Paulsen, former CEO of Goldman Sachs which benefited greatly from the bailout and now is back to near-record profits. Bush's spending like a drunken sailor and cutting taxes for the richest Americans put us into our current predicament. Obama is doing his best to get us out of the hole.
Please note that advertising and promotional posts in the forums will be deleted and may result in the closing of your HubPages account. Do not start threads for the sole purpose of promotion or posting links. Please use the Forums in the spirit of community!
I have heard no one of any relevance, save Fox News pundits, asking for any 'extension deadline' for noting improvements in the economy. Those who are serious about such matters are hoping--for all involved--that the economy does improve. This should not be a partisan issue. This is an American issue...it is everyone's country.
Those who would have our President, his policies and our economy fail are not analyzing their own enlightened self-interest right, IMHO.
No Lita, I do not hope - I access the odds, determine the most probable outcome, and act accordingly.
Right now my analysis tells me that most likely we are facing the biggest economic crisis of a century or two, with high probability of civil war and country break up - NO MATTER WHO CURRENT PRESIDENT IS. And I am acting accordingly - preparing to flee.
Well, just as a possible solution to your problem, you might consider moving to South Dakota, Iowa, or Nebraska. Nothing but slow steady growth and sunny plains out there. All the best news programs say, , and I can also tell you from personal experience.
We actually felt we would come under martial law if McCain (now remember, I live in AZ, and we are quite familiar with him & the way AZ is run) made it to office. That's why we worked like hell to get Obama in there. We feel he is the right man at this point in history. The wounds must be healed with the rest of the world - or we will be at war. (shhhhh, don't want to anger the OP, either..)
You're not? So you seriously believe that John McCain would have tried to put the entire world under martial law? It CANNOT be necessary to say that is beyond ridiculous.
As for what would have happened if McCain had won the election, hypotheticals are nothing more than that, but I don't think at this point there would be much material difference from what we are 'doing' now. I suppose he would have spoken out more forcefully against NK and in support of the protesters in Iran, but I don't know that significant actions would be much different at this stage.
He would have started a war with Russia via Georgia. It was in the making. He made them his special friends--he still saw Russia as an evil empire. Look what he did when there were issues between the two before the election. It was not measured/dimplomatic...it was foolish. His whole resume was built on war--his whole life, actually. With Sarah Palin on board, there would have been serious social upheaval and use for those so called 'prison camps.' It indeed could have ended in US martial law.
Show me the quote where he said he wanted to go to war with Russia, or supported martial law for the US.
You won't. This is more magic alternate reality nonsense. Why can't people simply hold their political views without drifting into silly fantasy worlds of extreme hyperbole? McCain was not out to conquer the world and Obama is not a secret Muslim agent infiltrating the highest levels of US government. Nonsense is just nonsense.
Are you getting me mixed up with someone else, or are you always this hateful??? No I'm not being snide. So you best back off, before you and I become well acquainted in a whole different manner. I'm RK. Not LITA. I'm trying to have a respectable conversation with you. In capable of handling that type of conversation I see. The next time you and I exchange post, YOU had better buck up and act like a decent human being. Or I'll take you so far down the gutter to nowhere, that you'll never get back. Got it? I suggest you best be getting it.
Now- what kind of foreign policy did you write, that John McCain would implement in your educated opinion?
Damn. It has been my experience in life, that people who really don't have a clue- hide their ignorance through smart ass rhetoric. Lita, you're a hard one to debate. I can see where this might be the case.
Yeah I did say that. But explain to me why it is was soooooooooo ridiculous. In your words, without all the insults. It is quite apparent you have a problem here. Look at what everyone is saying about you, put it to good use and learn from it. If you've got so many people saying your hateful, maybe they are saying it because YOU are. Matter of fact, you act like a big jackass towards anybody who doesn't share YOUR point of view. Try changing your tone and more important, leave your insults check at the door. I'd really like to read what you think of McCain. I'm actually intrigued. Maybe because I haven't had too many dealings with you. But when you are addressing me- I've worked too damn hard to be "spit on" by the likes of you. I'll take you down. Got it? Do I honestly believe that John McCain would have implemented martial law over the world? No. Do I think he would of tried. You bet. Now the respectable thing to do is to ask me why. Like I asked you.
What is this, bizzaro world? When has McCain ever expressed a desire to place the ENTIRE WORLD UNDER MARTIAL LAW? How could a man with his military experience harbor the notion that such a thing could ever be possible? I'm really hoping that this is just a joke you are trying to pull or something (which would explain the hilarious "I'll take you down!" bit).
LOL thank you for ideas, but: 1. I do not have a problem, America has 2. Due to my legal status here I can't live in any place but DC area 3. I think the trouble is likely to affect all states, including those you mentioned
I think you are right...and apparently Oblahblah must too. He has increased the number of active duty troops, but these are guys who will be used domestically in case of an uprising. They have also been researching locations for domestic "detention camps" that would be capable of holding tens of thousands each. Things aren't looking too good.
The mess America has found herself in is because of George W. Bush's lack of understanding and self made Republican politics. If Teddy Roosevelt had been alive today, I think he would have raised hell with Bush's monopolizing, big company Republican politics!!! So why is it that the Republican party can NOT admit it, and HELP fix it? Instead of constantly bitching about Obama and the Democrats who are trying to shovel their way out of this mess, that they the Republican party leadership started, for us the American people! The more the Republicans rant, spread hate and bicker with every slightest theory or solution, the deeper this country falls. Now how is that Obama's fault?
LOL Actually Bush walked into a crap pile too. As many other presidents before him. And every single one of them (including Obama and Roosevelt) kept adding to this pile, instead of shoveling it to where it belongs...
And the next president after Obama is gonna say the same thing. It's just what everyone says to avoid being held personally responsible for as long as possible. It's always true to a certain extent and they always try to milk it for as long as they can.
Bush made, did someone just...was that Bush made the economy thrive for years was that what I heard? Hmmm...i do remember how great it was when Clinton was in office. Great freakin years economically...everyone was doing great, then I remember shit hitting a fan...and it got real ugly after that...and then its just a blur and a presidential approval rating of like 6.
Maybe I will just look up and see all the people suffering because of the major corporations and banking industries running amok and going unchecked by NOT having any government involvement and then I will look up and see how someone is in there who did in fact inherit more crap that any other president in quite some time, is trying to get them straight. Regan promised quite a few years ago that he would give all sorts of benefits to the rich (which is why they adore him) and it would have a "tickle down" effect to the rest of us. That is not the way economics works. Not a damn thing trickled down but a longer recession.
You know what does however trickle down? Poverty. When those major coroprations and banks were failing, so does Wall street. Does anyone know what happens when Wall street continues to fail? I think you do. In saving those jerks, and i am sure he did not want to, as many of us wanted them to just die, would have put the rest of us in a whole lot more pain. I bitched and complained about Obama throwing money at those people and my highly educated/professor/intellectual husband (yeah you live with it), informed me that I was being ignorant and the ramifications of those banks and companies failing would have had such a disastrous effect on this country, indeed the world, that we may have never recovered for decades. There is alot of information out there and my husband actually had me watch some extremely informative and educated people speaking on how bad this really was (that the public was never informed about for fear of panic) and how hard it was to save it. It continues to be an on-going process. We are not out of the woods yet by a long shot. Being a Republican and feeling a NEED to trash the Democratic president will not change the fact that according to the most influential and educated financial minds in this country, and out of it, He really had absolutely no choice whatsoever if he didn't want this country to be in a situation which "would have rivaled the great depression". Their exact words.
I hope you've got enough time to 'look up' ALL the many and complicated facts, because it's a loooong story and everyone on every side had a hand in it - as always. If you find a 'source' that says "It was all THEIR fault (whoever 'they' are) then keep looking.
I'm sorry to say your husband and those college teacher's are frequently incorrect. Read what Charles Krauthammer, Stuart Varney and many WSJ writer's say. There are so many economist's that disagree with your intellectual club.
Wow. "Spread hate"? How so? As for "bickering," that's what the opposition party does; what it's supposed to do. When the Republicans were in the majority that's what the Democrats did. That's just how it works. Did you hold Democrats to the same standard mentioned above when the Republicans were in the majority? I hope not.
No, I hold the American populace to that standard though. It is our job to see to it that our Congressmen and women are doing their job. But lately, the American people are too busy labeling each other, bickering over whats right or wrong; like any of us really has a clue, instead of banding together to get something freaking done for once. Just look at this thread. Very productive. NOT!
I would say teddy rosevelt would agree with half the republicans...He said when he created social security that it was to only last ten years and to only help people out of the depression. I am a republican and we don't stand for monopolies...we stand for a capitalist economy. Everyone has the right to work hard for their money and earn from their money. I see ranting from both sides of the parties...It is not all republican and it is not all democrate. Both parties need to put their prejudices against each other aside. A country can't hope to stand if it is divided and that is showing now. Alot of our problems deals with our division between democratic and republican. Each party is trying to show up the other by not letting anything happen. So we can't point the blame at just one group or one person or one party.
haha thanks, but i have my own tuition bills...will you take my tuition bills in holy matrimony and pay them for me and i promise to take your tuition bills and make sure I nag you until you pay them too...
Amen. But I won't be as nice. Bush and cronies are darned near criminals for their fleecing of the sheep to support a few families wealth in the eyes of many people. Perhaps not here on Hubpages, but many people with their eyes open.
Let us not forget those who support Obama are the MAJORITY. The Republican party has been decimated by the actions of these neocons.
Yes he HAS a big shovel... and shoveling all of that money into big corporations and big pockets is supposed to save us?
Dig your heels in folks-- regular people are going to have to help themselves and each other. When have big government strategies, working with big taxpayer money, ever helped things? Thomas Jefferson-- (or maybe someone else) said,the government that governs least, governs best. I think someone is digging us in deeper.
yep is it a contrary statement , its just one of those patriotic speeches , which every country does as well.. in our family we call it 'the da blah blah blah' I lost count how many times , our new Prime Minister rambled on about "moving forward" then increased taxes on fuel trust me our car wasnt moving the same after that
Look at history, great power's fall from within. That's what Obama is doing. Lower our standings and make us equal, except for a few like him. The people lose incentive and society goes down. With socialized medicine in England 15% of the doctors are now trained in India and Pakistan.
i was just waiting to get to the end of the thread. that was funny. and sad. i remember being shocked when the president of the usa had to stand on national television and say, concerning the swine flu, something like....we all need to cover our mouths when we cough, and to wash our hands regularly....seriouslly, like hes the Kindergarden teacher..
Hmm, that's a pretty biased view of Liberalism. The definition of Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies emphasizing freedom and equality as the most important values. In contrast, Conservatism refers to the desire to preserve traditional structures and values.
I don't think liberals disregard the Constitution, they simply regard it as a living document, and are interested in its intent and purpose, while conservatives are more interested in a literal interpretation.
Dictionary.com gives a 20th century definition of Liberalism as such:
In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, <b>as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state</b>. (emphasis mine)
I don't think it really counters it, but I do think it explains what Liberals think they are voting for versus what they are actually getting. In my mind Liberalism means "giving the government liberal powers over the people", I.E.-Big Government. Where I equate Conservatism as "being very conservative with the powers that the government is given". And quite frankly I see both the Dems and Reps propagating Big Government ideals.
Ah, I see what you're getting at. The term "liberal" is tossed around far too liberally, in my opinion. (Excuse the pun.) There are many kinds of liberals. I think the confusion here stemmed from the fact that I am talking about social liberalism (ie, equality and freedom in the area of social issues such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc), and you are talking about, for example, economic liberalism (desiring large amounts of government regulation in industry and trade). There are plenty of people who are socially liberal and conservative in other areas (in your definition, in terms of wanting gov't limitation).
Yes precisely. And I would most certainly consider myself a social liberal as far as your definition goes. But the government should stay out of our business as much as possible. They shouldn't be owning large percentages of former DOW 30 companies, they shouldn't be printing money on a whim, and they shouldn't be creating restrictive laws like the Smoking Ban, which makes it illegal for a business owner to have a smoking section in his privately-owned establishment if he wants.
Funny how some people think that anyone who doesn't subscribe to their own biased political point of view is 'asleep' or 'brainwashed' or 'ignorant' or 'needs to open their eyes.' This is prevalent among those in or leaning towards the 'dark conspiracy' type.
Then I take it the editors of such mainstream (and excellent) publications as The Atlantic and The New Yorker fall into this category.
What the heck do you read, TK. You are a teacher who doesn't know about extrinsic/intrinsic motivation....you like to post political issues, but you don't have a clear grasp on what the other side thinks. IMHO.
That's it... I don't need to be stalked. But this is how I find your 'argument.'
That is completely idiotic. I was referencing them (and I'm fully aware of their liberal biases) as an example that you don't understand the other side. ie, these 'conspiracy theories' are mainstream. Capish?
Aughghggghghgghgh! My kingdom for....well, nevermind... I'm bored!
The exasperated "what do you read?" is so stereotypical of the smarmy, self-obsessed liberal desperately needing to fabricate a sense of elitism that (insert voice of Bill Murray from Caddyshack here)'I have to laugh!'
I think I figured it out! They are PAYING you to be here. That's why you have not been banned. lol And why you spend so much of your time--all day long--doing this.
Yeah, sorry. It's my personal taste to prefer those who read stuff. (Please notice and comment negatively on the word 'stuff' here, I invite you.) I know I should be very ashamed of that and self-flagellate or something, but that's allright. There are enough sadists who like to attack because they feel inferior like you in the world. lol
OK, now don't forget, just for your kicks and giggles, if you find somehow some other word in my writing to take offense with...to berate me for the opposite thing...for being a stupid valley girl who doesn't read but nothin.' Exasperated elitist/stupid valley girl, what a combo!! lol
I know! Why don't you just kill everyone (and they are legion) you take offense with for being in someway lacking because they don't think specifically, exactly like you do every single time--even those who support your cause. Because that is your very narrow-minded, very nasty mode of being. lol Now that IS self-obsessed.
FYI, I like fighting/debating with bright people...what I was about to say is my kingdom for a person on here with an argument! Please! But they've all gone away...and been replaced with... Well, I'll leave that to your imagination... OK, Gotta go, bye bye now. You have a NICE evening chasing your tail and biting people on contact.
Taken out of context...omg...lolololol Will you play your game forever? Don't you get bored with yerself?
I get a good sense of a person through their writing. I'm a writer, and find I can do that. FYI, that is how I met my bf of 5 years. On the internet, writing. He reads about 2 books a week. Incidentally, he's the only man without a MA or higher I've ever been with--but it doesn't matter, cuz he's got the goods. That's how elitist I am. Oh, yeah. And my dad was a truck driver. Mom hung up chickens at the Campbell Soup factory. We never lived in the Valley in CA, though...hmmmm.
Like, like, like, yeah, you know, and all, OK then?
Yeah, I did say that. Hard to believe isn't it? LOL... Oh, that little red haired girl was trying to tell you about like to like, . If I'd chosen a high school dropout, I'd have the same issues I have with you! I'd just have no peace. lolololol
FYI, I'm a formalist painter. Not near performance art. You'll just have to look that one up when you are not attacking someone...maybe within the next 6 months?
I looked at his profile, and it says he has MS...not that it is the reason for the postings like that, but that it could be...neurological, you know. Also, some older people on here I've found don't exactly know how the quotation thing works.
And as usual, TK, the rabid dog assumes the worst. God. Those must be some serious paranoid delusional demons he has in his head. The 'elitists' are out to control the world and get him...decide who should go and who should stay...or more likely, in his physical sphere of influence, they do not approve of him. Evidently, some of us must 'look like' them here on Hubpages.
No offense, but here again you have come across a term or topic that you think is sufficiently important and academic to flatter your view of yourself and you are trying to shoehorn it into any context you can no matter how off-topic or irrelevant it may be to the topic at hand. Yeah, I've heard of it - try to relax.
Invading Iraq was the beginning of the end for the American economy. There is no excuse for the invasion that withstands scrutiny, America made a decision to invade, and then tried to build a case for it. All that money for munitions and equipment is still pouring out every day. On top of that the financial institution bailout is a disgrace, and although some rich Americans are not affected by the economy most of America is already feeling the tide of debt rolling over them. All of this mess was already in place long before Obama ran for office. Obama is not destroying America, someone else had already kicked the crap out of it.
I agree the problem was building, but 8 billion a month dribbling out the door didn't help, and Bush was not shaping up at home. The Iraq war saved Bush, he was dead in the water without it to distract the American people away from what was happening at home.
No I'm not. Bush was heading for the scrap heap until the war was started. The war was not well supported Internationally at first, but after the concocted evidence of WMD's was presented to the United Nations America bolted the "Coalition of the willing" together with England and Australia in the mix.We watched the "star wars" like destruction of Baghdad on TV. It certainly got the press off G W Bushe's ass.
Before Bush came in we had a budget surplus (after Clinton). If you look at the Presidential debates between AL Gore and Bush, they were discussing how to spend the billions in surplus and now to be in such a big hole, I just cannot believe it. How 8 years can change every thing (and the spending is still continuing).
Do you know anything about business and the Skalar chain of command? Of course Bush is responsible, as is every CEO. His manager's follow matters and report to him. The plan was good but the Democrats ammended it. Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed the mortgage problem through. Reid will lose his next election, as will many Democrats. Bush's managers failed to keep track of things, that's why Bush gets the blame.
Don't forget Bush took over a faltering economy and got unemployment down to 4% before this all happened. He never blamed Clinton for anything, Obama is quite different.
Hold on a minute, invading Iraq was justified. Intelligence agency's from Russia, France and England said the same thing as the CIA. Hussain had already killed 10,000 Kurds with chemical weapons, he invaded Kuwait, and sent scud missiles into Saudia Arabia and Israel. What else did you want to wait for? I would bet you want to send troops to Darfur
Everyone in America feels the loss of money. Warren Buffet lost billions, do you understand what that means? Of course his life style won't change but what about all his business ventures? Do you believe he may give less money to charity? I guess you're right, no effect.
So you guys did not like what he was doing, and this justified the invasion and destruction of another country, on the opposite side of the Globe? Cool thinking. I am glad you guys soon will run out of money and can't do such things anymore
The Iraq War was by far the most contentious aspect of his entire presidency. There were people marching in the streets and burning him in efigy all over the world BEFORE fighting even started. He had a good deal of support at home and abroad when we began the offensive in Afghanistan so he was hardly 'heading for the scrap heap' prior to the start of the Iraq War. And NO ONE forgot about any domestic issues because of it. You're way off base on this one.
True that "no one forgot about domestic issues"--Bush turned many domestic policy issues over to Evangelical idealogues. the drug industry, the oil industry, etc., cut taxes for the top 2% richest Americans at a time when their taxes should have been increased, etc. It's a tossup whether Bush's failures were greater wrt domestic or foreign policy.
As an executive you find out the inside story, any idiot knows that. You have sounded like you are looking for a fight. Sorry I can't oblidge at this time, I would have had fun.
I get more information than you! A friend is running fo the Senate, I know a sitting Senator, two friend's are state Representatives. Family in the CIA, FBI, DOD and more. Would you really like to get into it?
I think so. The decision to give the financial institutions all of the American peoples money, houses and assets, I would say that nothing can get better, there is just too much debt. I believe that Obama either agreed with Hank Paulson or he has no say in treasury.
No I dont think so , at least the last guy had 8yrs to really f*** it up , I think at least a couple more years then maybe , analyse the crap outta policies Thing is I really beleive unless youre gonna sack the President ,Americans should be united and get behind their leader!! dammit
Bush,Obama, or who ever - They should cut spending. This ridiculous spending. It is hard to understand how these "Economic Advisers" don't see that too much spending is going to screw up the US dollar in the long run.
Actually, Harvey...It's a troll fight (look up definition on Wikipedia...) And that an older man who likes to sit on the internet all day long and verbally attack anyone--especially women, liberals, smart people, and anti-religionists. Or conservatives. Really anyone he comes in contact with.
Just got home and read most of the posts. My lord, this has gone in all directions. I believe, probably at the last moment on voting that Obama would be sincere to his word. So far, he has moved beyond the mountains of political influence to look at what is really happening in this country. Yes, his mannerisms may be a bit overdone, but he is gathering those who have intelligent input into some of our problems in this country. Nothing happens overnight, except UPS and FedEx. Give it time folks...........
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in. Not really. Just to say "Thank you GT" for the musical levity. I enjoyed that song. The name calling I can do without. Lita -- you've got sharpness and right on your side. Go, girl! MM
He's said he doesn't smoke daily; that, as a former smoker he has occasionally "fallen off the wagon" and smoked a cigarette here and then. I think there's a difference. My godmother quit smoking years ago, but will occasionally have a cigarette at a gathering, if someone else is smoking. I don't think that makes her a smoker.
Yep you're right. But when the federal government "entices" states to adopt those types of laws by withholding funds or using other scare tactics, they may as well not be "state Issues". I mean I never thought I would see the day when the tobacco states would agree to adopt it, but there ya go.
All presidents, since the beginning of the banking systems, but especially since the creation of the Federal Reserve, have been controlled and taken over by the power elite families of the world; presidents are little more than puppets for those elites.
Blame and divide, just one more tactic of the elites...and too many people fall for it.
Since when does it make any sense to pile on more debt to get rid of debt? Since when does it many any sense to continue to hand more money and power to those that have wrecked a system with their money and power...as if they are going to change the way they run things? No, just dump it all on the ignorant masses who prefer to watch TV, or role over and let their tummies be rubbed into further submission, rather than to stand up and say NO! I will not allow this to continue!
I completely disagree. Andrew Jackson took over the banking system, so that it wouldn't be controlled by the ruling class families of America. Presidents like him, through to Teddy Roosevelt, were not as you so suggest. Reagan didn't let America's ruling class families control the banking system. Nor did George Bush, Sr., or Clinton. I'm not sure about Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, JFK, Truman, FDR, etc.... But this Banking mess is pretty recent. As in W. recent.
Yes, I know...people like to be all warm and fuzzy...it's too scary to think that we are being controlled to the very core of our every day life...and especially by those to whom we look to for guidance and security and all those palatable, digestable, pretty words.
You got to go deeper, to your core, and get a grip, my friend...
Indeed, McCain, who publicly confronted Putin in Munich last year, may be the most visible — and now potentially influential — American antagonist of Russia. What remains to be seen is whether the endgame to the Georgia crisis makes McCain seem prophetic or headstrong and whether his muscular rhetoric plays a role in defining for voters the kind of commander in chief he would be.
What is not in doubt is McCain’s view of Russia. His belief that Moscow harbors dangerous aspirations goes back a long way, as does his fervent view that the only way to quiet the Russian bear is through tough talk and threat of real consequences — and certainly not through accommodation.
McCain has suggested he sees Russia’s danger to its neighbors through a long historical lens. As far back as 1996, when Russia was near economic ruin and governed by an erratic Boris Yeltsin, he warned of the danger of “Russian nostalgia for empire.”
That belief has not changed. “I think it’s very clear that Russian ambitions are to restore the old Russian empire," McCain told local reporters on his bus in Pennsylvania on Monday. "Not the Soviet Union, but the Russian empire."
Thank you... There is more with Georgia that I know of...McCain actually does some 'skull and dagger' with an organization he labels/heads as a nonprofit with great interest in Georgia with aims of course, towards Russia. This is mainstream investigative journalism stuff...but I'd have to dig it out.
Serious question, TK-- What ARE you getting out of doing what you do? Are you getting paid by hubpages (lol)? I just can't imagine anyone of a certain age (older than 16, really) getting this many kicks out of picking and posting crap like you do.
Are you working at the same time (certainly not writing), so that you can only manage these lamish answers?
Oh, 'certainly not.' How could I if I haven't managed to make you guess I read the New Yorker? I haven't even mentioned what my Jr. High teacher thought about my writing or commented on my education several hundred times regardless of the topic. THAT'S what real writers do!
No, I can't say I am. I'm actually intrigued by the lack of originality enough to ask, though.
And TK, you idiot... An author of 3 books doesn't actually care what her jr. high school teacher thought of her writing...if ever. It was a joke ON you. Do you really not get these things? It's getting a little scary... Are you 16?
They were jokes, frankly... But my idea about you is that you feel very out of place in a place like Cambridge. Among all those elitists and all... I think you have a pretty violent temper...I seriously doubt you are actually a writer. No writers I have ever known behave in the way you do. They also take pride in what they have to say and how they write it, and you don't seem to at all. It's all pretty common...your output.
Ok... so I'm just trying to be peaceful here, but it seems like everyone... well just some... are very busy bashing and hating each other to stay on topic, this brings about a very good point:
Isn't this what everyone is doing in the US right now? Bashing, slandering and hating everyone else for their screw ups or opinions and views? Shouldn't we all be trying to set aside our differences and work together to help our country out instead of hurting one another? It's not going to do the US any good if we continue to struggle and fight and bunt heads with one another, is it?
Democrats, Republicans, Liberals... really??? our country needs us to work as a team right now, not against each other! How is anyone supposed to get anything accomplished if they're too busy fighting on the same side of the fence?
Now, I do have to say this... and it's just my own opinion which everyone is entitled to and I'm pointing fingers at either sides....
1. If we would have stood around like a bunch of bobble head dolls with our thumbs stuck up our butts, running and hiding after 911... those terrorists would have won and probably had the opportunity to do much much worse.
2. No president has absolute power over what they vote on, vito, sign or anything... the president is just pretty much a voice and an icon... the senate and congress and blah, blah, blah, really have the say over what happens in this country.
3. The government is looking to have absolute control over every American! They are the ones who are looking to really have the POWER AND CONTROL...phone taps, healthcare, hidden video cameras...
4. People get what they ask for... if they have blinders on at the time or don't really understand the totality of a situation, it means devasting consequences for everyone else.
Well, now, consider the dialogue. It consists of "LOLLLLLs!!!" and at most, three word sentences. Doesn't really strike one as first rate stuff, I must say. And then there are threats, the taking of things out of context, etc., etc. Not too terribly sophisticated.
Again, I must ask, what could one possibly get out of posting stuff like you do? I mean, any reasonable person, or person of reasonable education?
You go right ahead and jump in there, MM... (And yeah, K-J is Mad Cow disease, lol, or "Laughing Sickness," as it was known a couple centuries ago. Found mostly among cannibalistic tribes...has to do with prions).
This is my 'interview,' lol, MM..... And be very careful. I was nice to him, too. Then he attacked.
I never lived in Cambridge but lived in Arlington for a bit and commuted on a bus to Harvard Square and then into Boston. Also on Comm Ave in Brightong (straight out of college with 4 roommates), in Somerville and then on the Watertown/Belmont border.
Traffic in Harvard Square was terrible even back when I frequented it -- many, many moons ago. But there were some really cool places. I'm guessing now it's a lot more commercialized with chains overtaking the funky one-off places.
What's wrong with Saul Alinsky? The drug companies, the oil companies, the Wall Street banksters, the health insurance parasites and the AMA all have their K Street lobbyists. Why shouldn't inner city poor communities organize on their own behalf? What is so sinister about community organizing?
Because lobbying for special interests is unethical no matter the reasons. Everyone on K Street is looking for a piece of the Federal pie and damn the consequences to people at large. We are in the mess we're in due to massive government interference in the national life. Forget for a moment that everything they've done violated the supposed highest law in the land, all that really matters is that they are and continue to screw things up.
You said a lot about yourself with that statement, Ralph. I know you are a die-hard Democrat. Alinsky was a self proclaimed Communist, that's ok for Obama to follow his teachings? So you are a COMMUNIST!
Why not just go on Obama's website designed for Americans to see what his plans are. Why go elsewhere? Hell, the birthers have a website claiming he is not a citizen. Most of these websites are not accurate
People can flag forum posts by hitting the "report" button next to the post. This alerts me that there may be a rules violation occuring or a formatting problem, etc. Your posts were flagged because you simply quoted other posts without adding any new comments of your own.
The amount of false propaganda emerging from that network is literally tearing this country apart. Their viewers are so misinformed that it becomes impossible to have reasonable conversations with them. ...
While I am not a republic nor completly white, I am so tired of the constant assumption that Republicans are just white racist. Why do people assume this? It would be like saying Democrats are just poor black and...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Banks-rep … 62554.htmlForeclosures topped 1 million in 2010 and the pace is expected to pick up in this quarter pushing home prices down an additional 5% and putting more borrowers...
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that...