Ya know, I am really excited for the left to run Obambi and that entrenched old establishment DC guy, Joe soundBiten. What a loser ticket!
Let us pray that the left is foolish enough to believe Americans LIKE high unemployment, high taxes, high gas prices and inept bungling of ALL things "foreign policy." I get a chuckle just thinking about it.
If they repeat THAT joke, the Republicans could win with Jeff Dunham and any random sock-puppet. Actually, the left might like Cookie Monster for veep. At least when HE speaks, PBS isn't too embarrassed to repeat it.
If the Republicans run a competent ticket with a Palin or Christi type on it, the Democrats will have to resurrect JFK and get Bill Clinton as a running mate, just to lose gracefully.
Do you feel the left is really brave enough to risk it?
You had me when you used the word competent and Palin in the same sentence. LMAO.
Palin is a joke. Christy has pluses and minuses. He's so overweight he could drop dead tomorrow.
I love how this guy thinks this is bad, and forgets Bush Sr throwing up on the Prime Minister of Japan, or Bush Jr treating the German PM like a hs school girl, massaging her neck...she looked like she was going to cut his face off. If you watched that one, wow...you saw the epitome of why the world hated Bush. That was tense.
Hoo boy. ~chuckles~ Is this some indication that the left is going to run against Bush again? Please, and by all means. THAT is the kind of debate which will ensure Obama's defeat.
Bush got hit with 9-11 in the first year of his first term. He endured a constant barrage of hate, innuendo and outright lies from the side that SWEARS it's all about... How does John Holden put it? "7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."
He then had to deal with the aftermath of Katrina, where the liberal Mayor of a liberal town in a liberal Parrish of a corrupt and liberal state with a liberal Governor, bungled and completely mishandled all local efforts at evacuation.
Three years prior to Katrina, in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers had offered to HELP the State of LA. reinforce the levies, but the bureaucracy in charge of doling out Louisiana's vote-buying money said "NO!" Their Social Programs and Union Retirement Funds needed the funding far more.
Through all of that and two wars, G Dubya kept unemployment constantly below 6%, and as low as 4% at times. Gas was in the $2.00 range until a year AFTER Democrats took control of the House and Senate (writing the budgets poor little Obambi had to inherit) in 2006.
I was there when GHW barfed next to the Japanese PM. He was ill, but still trying to respect the Office of the President. GHW was mortified, and accepted the PM's teasing when the Rice Soup they offered him was "grown in Japan."
So please, and by all means. Run your next ticket with your inept, inexperienced Bungler-in-Chief against the Bush legacy. I absolutely DARE you.
It's rare these days to find a W defender. Even the staunchest Republicans denounced him years ago.
I suppose Nixon wasn't crook in your book either?
Note: Dems are not BRAVE to run Obama for a second term.
As previously noted (RebekaElle I think) it's protocol, custom, call it what you will. No reason to change horses midstream.
Show us an opponent who can command ALL of the GOP vote + the TP vote + pull the needed INDs to upset Obama and we're all ears.
BTW, Meg Whitman showed you can't spend your way into office if you're not electable. But isn't that just like the GOP to think it's all about flashing the cash.
According to rhamson, it's Obama's billion we need to beat.
G Dubya caught hell from Conservatives for allowing money to be spent the way it was. Then, of course, we met The One, and learned that W had no CLUE about the kind of crippling debt a determined Liberal could foist on an unsuspecting public, for generations to come.
I'm sure it's fun for you to SAY "...the staunchest Republicans denounced him..." but that requires we both agree on who a Staunch Republican is, and if your saying it makes it true.
I may as well point out that the kook fringe Uber-Lefties hate Obambi for failing to close Gitmo, keeping us in the wars and generally not openly requiring conservative Americans (like ol' Crunchy) to forcibly be enrolled in Re-education Camps. Or simply lobotomized. Or just shot.
Those Staunch Democrats are denouncing Obambi as we speak.
Are they really?
Well, your saying it makes it so.
Guess I don't know any Staunch Democrats.
Nor do I know anyone besides you who refers to President Obama as Obambi. You must think that's real cute.
I call our current President Obambi, because he is a "babe in the woods" as far as actual leadership experience is concerned. Or can you tell me about all his accomplishments in the legislature, prior to becoming our President? Leadership positions he held? International delegations he lead? Bills he wrote, then championed through?
Hell. I'd settle for a "leadership conference" he might once have attended.
Obambi didn't keep his campaign promises about transparency (where is it I can read a bill for 5 days before he signs it, again?), Lobbyists (his staff is littered with them), Taxes, or any number of "If I'm Elected" Hopey Changey statements.
And if you don't think the Loonie Left isn't pissed, here's ONE of their Facebook pages:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Left- … 2772783539
Flash the cask, isnt it the Dems who are bragging the are going to raise 1 billion dollars for Obamas reelection campain? Talk about buying an election. To bad Dems did not put that kind of effort into cutting waste, balancing the budget, paying down the debt.
Freudian slip much? Flash the cask, eh?
Slainte to you, American View.
The Dems generally don't go around bragging about money.
We find it gauche.
Money is all the GOP ever talks about.
Except when they're talking about some fairytale American way of life that hasn't existed since 1950s TV.
Read the polls, dude.
Americans as a citizenry are not that het up about balancing the budget or paying down the deficit.
That could be why the Dems are not jumping up and down on this issue. It's not perceived as that important by the people who elected them.
Sorry about the typo. Sometimes my fingers hit the wrong key. I disagree with you about the money bragging. I find that both sides brag about who can raise the most money. That is why there is no true fundraising reform. Personally, I think all fundraising should end. Businesses and citizens alike can donate into an election fund. Then each candidate receives a small fund to use for primaries. Once the Presidential nominees are chosen, then they are given an election fund. Each one receives the same amount of money. Plus the media only gives them an equal amount of air time on news programs and an equal number of campaign ads slots. This will never happen; neither side will part with the donations. I guess it will just remain an idea.
I also disagree with you about the polls. I appreciate your view of them, but I like facts. I could have said to you that it was an important issue for Americans, but I think you might not believe me. I understand that. There are so many people giving opinions on these threads that are not based in facts, it is hard to believe anything we read. So here are the facts:
Here is the latest poll from Rasmussen. Question about economy includes budget and deficit. This information comes from their web site
Friday, April 15, 2011
Unemployment claims jumped last week, signaling continued weakness in the nation's economy, so it's no surprise that voters continue to rate the economy as the most important issue they vote on.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 76% of Likely U.S. Voters see the economy as a Very Important issue in terms of how they vote. Still, that’s down from 86% in February and at the lowest level since May 2008. Voters have consistently ranked the economy first or second in importance among 10 issues regular surveyed on by Rasmussen Reports for several years.
Here is the latest Gallup Poll. This information comes from their website.
Poll: Economy, deficit top US worries
The economy and federal deficits are Americans’ most pressing concerns, a recently released Gallup poll found.
According to the polling outfit, roughly seven in 10 said they worried “a great deal” about the economy, with another 22 percent stating they were fairly concerned about the issue. On federal spending, 64 percent were greatly worried, and 23 percent fairly anxious.
Here is a poll from Washington Post and Pew Research. This comes from their web site.
Americans increasingly see the budget deficit as a big problem that demands quick action, but a dwindling number thinks the U.S. will make significant deficit reductions over the next five years, according to a new poll by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center.
Just 31 percent now expect sizable deficit reductions in the coming five years, a 6 percentage point slide from a December Pew poll. While hopes have slipped over the five months of budget debates and furious dealmaking, 81 percent of Americans now call the deficit a major problem requiring immediate remedy, an 11-point jump.
The slippage in optimism about the deficit since December is most pronounced among Democrats, although it’s dipped across party lines. In December, 53 percent of Democrats expected progress in closing the accounts gap; that’s now down to 44 percent in the new poll. Despite the spreading pessimism, Democrats remain the most optimistic about the potential for progress in the next five years. Around six in 10 Republicans and independents alike expect no such improvement.
Just for vetting purposes, I am an Independent. I look at all sides of an issue, research it then make a final decision. Just wanted to make it known I am not a Dem or a Repub. Just wanted you to know where my responses come from
Thanks for the poll excerpts and for the self-vetting, AV.
For the sake of truth, honesty and all that good stuff, I never said Americans are not concerned about the ECONOMY. It's still, and has been since Obama took office, "the economy, stupid." How could it not be?
But when we say the economy, what are we really worried about?
We are worried about:
#1. JOBS (still not forthcoming in any meaningful way, including discussion thereof from the new 2010 TP congress).
#2. HOUSING. As in, will our bank finally catch up with us when they get through their backlog and force us into foreclosure as well? If not, are we so upside down on our mortgages that the prudent thing is to cut and run?
#3. PURCHASING POWER. The insane weather conditions across the US and globe have impacted the price of goods. Produce is especially hard hit.
Ok, so we can forego fresh lettuce and eat canned green beans.
But the price of gas is still too flipping high (even though it's back under $4.00 here for regular).
I dare say the average American's concern over the economy is 98% personal.
People who claim to be concerned about the deficit are being fed propaganda about it by... well, we both know who.
I wonder how freaked out people were after WWII about the deficit?
It becomes and issue when those who control the media make it an issue.
Polls also show (and sorry, I don't have time at this moment to go pull any) that Americans favor a combination of TAX INCREASES (basically a return to pre-Bushcut rates) and SPENDING CUTS to help balance the budget.
Why don't we hear more about the revenue raising propositions on the news? Gee. I wonder...
I agree that we do not address any of the issues seriously. All they do is talk, argue and belittle each other. As Lewis Black says" the Repubs are the party of crappie ideas and the Dems are the party of no ideas. When a Repub gets up and says I have a crappie idea, and the Dem stands up and says I can make it crappier"
Seriously, I am against tax increases, however I am for repealing some of the Bush tax cuts. The wealthy should be paying more, so should some businesses. We need real spending cuts with real numbers. Enough of these phoney numbers and lies. I think that the tax code should be overhauled entirely. Instead of raising taxes perhaps we should look at the tax system itself. The one issue all Americans agree on is fixing the tax code. The tax code is complicated and grows every year (see the chart at the bottom of this article). Today the tax code is 72,536 pages long. It has grown more than 3,000 pages in the two years of the Obama Presidency. So much for the President’s claim of cutting taxes. What needs to occur is an overhaul of the current tax code. Some say the code is fine; all we need to do is raise the taxes paid by Americans that earn over $250,000 per year. While it would increase revenue, the amount would not make much of a difference. Some say a flat tax is the way to go. While there is some merit to that proposal, it would not be a fair system since all workers will pay the same taxable percentage. So why not combine both proposals, raising the taxes on the wealthy as well as tiered flat tax system based on income. Think about it, No more itemized deductions. No more loopholes (everyone pays no more paying nothing!!!). No more pages and pages and pages of forms. No more tax attorneys (!) A lot fewer to no audits. A much less powerful as well as much smaller IRS. (We can all agree on that, right?). The percentage in a flat tax tier system would be the same as currently in use by the IRS.
Single Filing Status
• 10% on income between $0 and $8,375
• 15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000;
• 25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400;
• 28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850;
• 33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650;
• 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule Y-1, Internal Revenue Code section 1(a)]
• 10% on the income between $0 and $16,750
• 15% on the income between $16,750 and $68,000;
• 25% on the income between $68,000 and $137,300;
• 28% on the income between $137,300 and $209,250;
• 33% on the income between $209,250 and $373,650;
• 35% on the income over $373,650; plus $101,085.50
So can budget cuts help? So that brings us back to now. Today as both sides of the aisle crank up their rhetoric, the President gave a speech on his plan to cut the national debt. Now when I went to school, they started the new math. When I asked my parents for help, they looked at the books and went crazy. Now it appears there is a new math program called Obama math. Obama says that his cuts will save $ 4 trillion over 12 years. Other proposals are close in number but are over 10 years. The President claims he cut one trillion out of last year’s budget and that his health care law will save another one trillion per year. So two trillion dollars per year times twelve years under Obama math is four trillion dollars. Not sure but I thought two trillion times twelve years is twenty four trillion dollars. So if Obamas statements were true, what would the congress be fighting for? After all the Presidents cuts would have more than taken care of the national debt. Obviously the Presidents statements were not quite accurate.
But it does show one thing to be true; we can seriously reduce the debt or may eliminate the debt by cutting the budget. The debt will not be gone overnight or in a few years. If both sides of the aisle could work together and cut one trillion per year, the debt can shrink every year till eliminated. Both sides say cutting this only saves one million, cutting that only saves ten million, so do not cut it because it will not help. HELLO, all cuts added up will help. There must be a beginning. So let’s start with Congress and the President. How about a reduction of 25% from their salaries? The same should occur at the State level. Then a complete audit per department to cut all waste. If Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid waste was eliminated, that may be enough on its own so that there would not need cuts now. After removing the fraud from the system, then look at ways to make changes but not at the expense of care for the patient. Lastly, eliminate useless programs. For example, we spend millions per year on the mating habits of bees. This has been in the budget for years. Do the bees have that many sexual positions that it takes years to monitor them? Or how about the bridge in Florida for turtles? How about the $ two million of the budget given to Charles Rangel of New York. He then donated that money to one school so that the school would be named after him. Nothing wrong with a school named after him, but use his own money instead of the taxpayers. Let’s face it that would pay the salary for 50 teachers. These are only a few examples of waste, there are hundreds of others.
The President’s speech and his open mike comments show that both sides of the aisle cannot get along. But they must work together to bring economic stability. The result will not be pretty if they do not. Both sides have misread the midterm elections. They think the Tea Party campaigning for cuts is the reason the Democrats lost the house. That is a part of it; Americans are tired of the bickering at taxpayer’s expense. Voters are choosing new candidates with the hope of replacements will end the fighting so the business of the people can occur. After all does not Congress represent the people?
Sorry MM, this turned into a book
Fess up now, American View.
You are Joe Lieberman!
(that's a joke, not intended as an insult)
First of all, I love it how you think the world began at Obama. Ignore anything another President did in history as an example of things like the referred to article happening, and how bad they get. This is a joke from start to finish.
Regarding Katrina - Again, selective history. He dealt with the "aftermath of Katrina"? First of all, we knew it was coming a week in advance, and 3 days AFTER it hit, he decides to end his vacation. "Way to go Brownie"? Remember that one? He put a campaign contributor who has only run Arabian horse shows in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency! 1 week into the aftermath, Bush hadn't gotten WATER TO THE SUPERDOME! In case you don't know, the Superdome is in THE MIDDLE of the country. That isn't ineffective, that is apathy. I am in logistics and I got all kinds of things into NOLA. We can find a guy in the middle of the desert in a hole, but you can't get water to the freaking Superdome in a week?! It is his mindset. I believe he felt like they deserved it somehow. Remember, his mother told the reporters that the people in the Superdome were better off than they were before. He didn't hesitate for disaster relief for fires in Montana. There were people on site the next day. He didn't deal with an aftermath of New Orleans devastation by Katrina. He dealt with the aftermath of bad press coverage because he didn't do squat, and botched the administration of the people who were set up to deal with it.
That Army Core of Engineers botched those levies for years and were CONVICTED IN COURT of doing so.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-18/us/l … g?_s=PM:US
Get a CLUE!
You apparently haven't been in the country over the last 8 years or you don't know the concept of cause/effect, but when Bush was President, we allowed and endorsed the creation of false billions in the securitization food chain leading to the recession/crisis. It is called a bubble for a reason...for a while it grows, big...and then it pops. Blaming the Democracts is ignorant. Either you don't know what happened or don't understand, but yes, you can have a rocking economy while you are inventing false billions and fleecing the states' pensions, but eventually you have to pay the piper. Also, Bush didn't include the wars on any budgets. He simply spent all of that money, and basically held it off any balance sheet entirely. in a corporation, that is illegal to do. Additionally, he gave out a tax break during two wars, unfunded. His culture of deregulation pushed all of the air into the bubble.
You want to respect the office of the President? You are a transparently hypocritical as humanely possible! You're purpose for being on here is to disrespect the current President.
On a side note, every candidate you offer backs out...weekly. Newt? Seriously? There is much on Newt that it would be nearly impossible to lose to him. Romney? Half of you hate him. Palin? Oh, please do. Your entire lot is an absolute JOKE!
Didn't you just tell me above you can't argue moronic???
But I hope you feel better getting that off your chest!
I was going to write down my GOP dream ticket but the field changes so quickly it'd be obsolete before the ink dries....
Christie and Palin would be fun.
Fat Man and Little Girl. Hoo ha!
Talk about getting a clue. Wars have never been in any budget in American history. They are treated as a seperate catagory outside of an annual budget. However, those costs are reported to the CBO every year. How do you think people know what was spent on the war? do you think someone just pulls that number out of a hat? Ok maybe some politicians do, but that is for the retoric they spew. What do you think, we say lets budget 60 billion because we are going to war with Canada this year? It does not work that way. A defense budget builds our military strenght in case of a war, IN CASE. That is why the Military leaders come before congress and request funds to operate the war.
As for Katrina, there is no doubt there was lot of blame to go arounthe Bush Administration. At least in a speach Bush admitted his and his admins mistakes and took responsibility for it.
As for the bubble and how it started:
To steal a line from Lewis Black “I watched the President’s speech the other day and realized one of us was nuts. For the first time I realized it was not me.” The problem with the debt started many administrations ago, not with the last President. The Financial Report of The US Government clearly shows when President Bush left office the national debt was $ 9.8 trillion. When President Clinton left office the national debt was $ 5.770 trillion, not zero or a surplus. After only two years of the Obama administration the debt has grown to $ 14.5 trillion. The debt rose under each of these administrations as it has for many administrations in the past. These numbers are actual figures as a result of a financial audit that occurs after every fiscal year and are available for free to the public. This is an independent group and their results are honest. They and the Congressional budget office both also show despite all the claims of a surplus under President Clinton, that was simply not true. The Clinton administration did not count any of the debt occurred under Social Security to make it look like there was a surplus when in fact the country was spending more than it was taking in. I guess that since the administration was using phony numbers, the corporations in America figured they could do the same. But when Bush became President and companies like Enron as well as many dot com companies asked for bail outs, they did not get them. As a result, Enron and many dot coms went bust. Many other corporations reported mistakes in their accounting reports and made financial corrections. Suddenly companies and stocks were not worth what they were claimed to be. As a result the stocks and company values went down to their proper levels.
Unfortunately, that is not accurate. Historically, the wars were funded by supplemental budgets. Supplemental budgets provide money on top of annual spending. Obama campaign on and came through with ending the practice and including the war spending on the annual budgets, which he did in 2010. A simple search on Google will enlighten.
Secondly, you try to tell me that the deficit led to the bubble, which isn't even in the same airspace of being accurate. The deficits have absolutely nothing to do with the bubble. You never mentioned the name of the independent group that we are supposed to trust, and that you report that Clinton didn't report debt under Social Security.
"Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."
~Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010
So, again...your statements when researched are proven incorrect. These numbers aren't from a mysterious no-name independent organization that we have to trust on your word....it is from the CBO, who you also listed.
The idea that Clinton fudged numbers (which in your cited case was untrue), led to corporations fudging numbers is astoundingly ignorant. If you want lists of corporations that predate Clinton lying about their numbers, I can provide it. I assume that was slightly in jest as it is beyond ridiculous to link the two.
Now, when Enron went belly-up, the losses were vast, perhaps as much as $60 billion, but the losses were widely distributed among a lot of different institutions. The company's two largest creditors, Citi and JPMorgan/Chase, well aware of the dodgy state of the company, had packaged up their Enron debt as "credit derivatives" and sold them on to pension funds. So Enron's crash was not going to bring down the big banks or even damage their profits. But if the big banks had stood to lose out big time, then it would have been a different story. The Senate hearings in 2002 which confirmed that the banks knew that there were big problems with both Enron and WorldCom -- in fact, they helped devise the "prepays" (loans disguised as trades) and other devices which concealed how highly leveraged the companies were.
With regards to your statement that many dot com companies requested a bailout, the dot com bubble was from 1995-2000, climaxing in March of 2000. Bush took office in Jan 2001. Again...this isn't even requiring a great deal of effort on my part.
Bush DID bailout the banks with TAARP, period. So, not much of your post was accurate. These things aren't hidden knowledge people.
All you proved with your hateful spew is that you cannot read, you cannot research, and all you do is make up stories and try to discredit facts. You are the most uninformed individual on these threads. And if you have read many threads as I have, you know that is saying a lot. So once more, here we go.
First you state "You never mentioned the name of the independent group that we are supposed to trust, and that you report that Clinton didn't report debt under Social Security". Then you state "So, again...your statements when researched are proven incorrect. These numbers aren't from a mysterious no-name independent organization that we have to trust on your word....it is from the CBO, who you also listed".
You contradict yourself in your own words. "I never mentioned", and then "from the CBO you listed". If you further bothered to read you would have seen the other source is The Financial Report of The US. This is an audit group that is paid by the Government to audit the ACTUAL spending, to see how much and where the money went. This is done every year and they are an independent group.They were the first to discover Clinton was not reporting all expenses. To take your statement and let me change it, a PROPER search of Google would have enlightened you. But you see, you do not want to be enlightened or to learn the truth.
As for your quote from the CBO. You twist what was written. By the way, this comes from a report that was predicting what the CBO thought was going to happen to the debt in the future, not what actually has happened. What the CBO says is true. SS payroll taxes were bringing in more money than anytime in US history. Those income funds were applied to the budget revenues. What you left out from the report was this:" Perhaps more important to some policymakers, the on-budget surplus (which excludes the spending revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service) is anticipated to equal $125 billion in 2001--a nearly $40 billion increase from its level in 2000" (Source page 2 CBO report) . Note to Texas let me say it again for you:
” EXCLUDES THE SPENDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE POSTAL SERVICE”. You cannot add the revenues and not declare the expenses. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! I would have loved to declare my income and forget my expenses. I would have a hell of a net worth today. By the way, you said the CBO report you cite was not dated, ALL CBO REPORTS ARE DATED, ALL OF THEM. The report you cite was written October 2001. So once more you only report your opinion based in hate and ignore the facts or take something out of context.
Next wrong statement. Also in an actual not projected CBO report, they cite the decline in revenues and values partly on the “dot com bust which has not reached fruition.” This report is on the audit of the 2001 budget and its shortfalls. One more piece of information. Furniture.com was the first company to come clean about false revenues as they went bust. That occurred in November 2000. That was in a side note in the CBO report and I collaborated the information in several other financial sites, including Wikipedia. The bust was on from there. But false reporting was not limited to dotcoms. Many companies had to make new financial filings making adjustment in their revenues and company worth. Remember, the CBO said this was only part of the reason for a down turn in revenues for 2001.
Lastly, the most clueless statement of them all. “Unfortunately, that is not accurate. Historically, the wars were funded by supplemental budgets. Supplemental budgets provide money on top of annual spending”. DUH !!!! I told you that in my article had you bothered to read it. Here was my second sentence. “Wars have never been in any budget in American history. They are treated as a separate category outside of an annual budget. However, those costs are reported to the CBO every year”. So what part of “category outside of an annual budget” did you not understand? I also cited that the additional funds needed to pay for a war has to be requested and approved by congress.
“Obama campaign on and came through with ending the practice and including the war spending on the annual budgets, which he did in 2010”. There is no category in the budget allocating funds for war. Those funds are reported to the CBO at the end of the fiscal year so that they are applied to the expenditure category. Obama tried to not report the war expenses in 2009, taking a page from the Clinton finance book. Obama was trying to make the deficit look better than it was. In 2010, he had no choice but to report the expenses as every war time President before and after him must do. The only campaign promise Obama made was to bring the troops home and to cut the defense budget. This is not rocket science, but I guess you are not smarter than a 5th grader.
I have read a lot of your threads. All you do is try to insult (you are no Don Rickles) and spread false statements mostly based in hate and your narrow opinion. I would like to give you some advice on doing proper research, present facts, stop with the hate and opinions. But I know you would ignore it and keep doing what you do. So let me leave you with this. It is better to let people think you are ignorant than to speak and remove all doubt.
Every single post you blatantly lie.
"Perhaps more important to some policymakers, the on-budget surplus (which excludes the spending revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service) is anticipated to equal $125 billion in 2001--a nearly $40 billion increase from its level in 2000" (Source page 2 CBO report) "
Notice how you take out a word from the original and what it does to the statement: the word is "and"
The original quote from the CBO
"Perhaps more important to some policymakers, the on-budget surplus (which excludes the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service) is anticipated to equal $125 billion in 2001--a nearly $40 billion increase from its level in 2000. The on-budget surplus will continue growing over the 10-year period, CBO projects, exceeding $550 billion in 2011 and totaling over $3.1 trillion between 2002 and 2011. "
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2727&a … sequence=1
You cite it as "spending revenue", which are expenses. However, the CBO used the words: "spending and revenue." That INCLUDES expenses. Those are what accounts for SPENDING. If you don't believe me, I've include the actual CBO statement from the CBO.
Now, you are also stating that the reason we had a surplus was that Clinton wasn't counting the expenses of SS. However, the concept of a deficit is the revenue minus the expenses. If the expenses are higher than the revenue, then there is a deficit. Take a look at the CBO's actual numbers that SHOW if there was a deficit in SS in those years. You can't say they didn't include the expenses, because it clearly shows "DEFICIT", and by definition, you can't have a deficit measurement without expenses.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc108 … Tables.pdf
It's not a lie. The article you posted posits a completely different account method than the US government has ever used. In addition, the surplus numbers come from the CBO. You fail.
"Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years."
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/poli … LLPOLITICS
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/d … deral.html
Finally, yes, I misread the name you listed as the OTHER source. However, you lied again in discussing it, stating that I contradicted myself.
"You contradict yourself in your own words. "I never mentioned", and then "from the CBO you listed". "
"These numbers aren't from a mysterious no-name independent organization that we have to trust on your word....it is from the CBO, who you also listed. "
Notice the word "also."
You can't go a paragraph without a blatant lie. It...wow...just absolutely disgraceful. Disgraceful as a human.
As for your reply using a CBO report. You used the report that speculates and estimates what is going to happen in the future. Why did you not use the final accurate report like the on I used. It was based on actual numbers not estimates. And it clerly states Clinton only used the revenues never declaring the expenses. Get on board, even some of the most respected Dems have come out and said so. You have done and alway do the thing you accuse me of. Shame on you. There is no point in going on to show your misrepresentaion of facts using blogs, media, USA Today. well enough said. BTW, it was nice to see you admit you misread the other sourcce I listed. But you still do not admit to saying that I never mention the souce and then later admitting I listed the CBO. You made a good first step with your admission, so leave the dark side and come over to the good side.
You LIED in your QUOTE. I presented your exact statement and then the ACTUAL statement with the link. You just move on. AV - this is like debating a 4 yr old. You just don't get it. You have been defeated, entirely, and in all accounts. You have been proven to be a person who posts flat out lies, and I have shown so, along with sources to prove it. What do you do? Ignore it. Yeah...your a grownup. Ridiculous.
It ws you whi is inacurate. You did supply a link to a report that shows estimates!!!!!!!! I showed and quoted the revised actual report. Do you understand the difference of a report that predicts the future as oppose to one that shows what actually occured. This is not a war, people do not get defeated here saying you defeat someone shows you have an agenda, and yes we all see it. I have recieved several emails from people basically laughing at you. By the waqy, if you are so right all the time, why do you delete responses on your hubs, afraid to let everyone see how wrong you always are? here is qa secret, the cats out of the bag, we all know.
Man, I don't feel good and I just responded to your post on my hub...so seriously! Are you kidding me? I want to buy that you are just misinformed, but dude, you are lying, I mean flat out lying, quotes to the wrong people to prove your point, linking a graph that actually proves you were wrong, lying about the reasons for the surplus, changing words in the CBO statements, lying about why Republicans blocked the 911 bill, lying about who put in the provision to have First Responders get checked on a terrorist watch list, etc. It is difficult when it shows that you aren't misinformed. You appear to be actually getting informed and then misrepresenting to prove your argument, as if we can't go check it in 3 minutes. It is quickly moving from ill-informed ideologue to propagandist. Not good.
I am no longer responding to this. All you do is spew misinformation and try to deflect the fact that you got called on the carpet. I am not like the other hubbers that will just name call. I told you numerous times that every statement IS A FACT AND IS VERIFIABLE.
I verified that they were false, and proved it. Everyone can read dude.
All you verified is you are not capable of a two way conversation. I feal sorry for you. Do you act this hateful around your famoly, I would say friends but I doubt you have any. I also have to say, if you have the degrees you claim to have, it sure does not look like it
The culpability in the Hurricane Katrina matter has become a polarizing issue. On one side, you have people who want to pin everything that went wrong during and especially after Katrina on the President. It is fairly easy to do when you have media-types that are more than happy to make those connections and emphasize any shortcomings as the sole responsibility of the President and the Federal Government.
Meanwhile, on the other side, there are those who look at the matter and the on-goings in an honest way and look for accountability from everyone, not just the head of the government (sugar-daddy) that will save us all. The Constitution expects the States to have the first go at governing their State. As it were, Louisiana, and the Democrats in charge of the State, was being contacted by the White House and the Federal Government extensively prior to a weather event that was predicted to be awful and on a direct course to New Orleans.
The failure is with the leadership of the city of New Orleans and Louisiana, who assured the federal government that they were ready. And when their failings started to come to light (school buses parked and flooded, misappropriations of federal funds for levees et al), they projected the failures on to the federal government. The media couldn't believe their fortunes as this story line of class warfare practically wrote itself.
Recently, near where I live, Joplin Missouri has been devastated by an F5 tornado. There was little warning in comparison (24 minutes rather than 48 plus hours) and many people were killed. Many more are still without homes, jobs, clothes, drinkable water, food etc. But members of the State, have come together and that city is already rebuilding. Obama made it back into the country a week later to give a speech and tour. I understand that it is hard to cut trips short for every thing that could happen back in the States, but the media only understands that for Democratic Presidents. There is a template to follow and they follow it like a machine in a factory. Republicans--bad, evil, greedy, simple, cronies. Democrats--enlightened, educated, smart, for little guy, above human trappings of greed.
Convoy of Hope (out of nearby Springfield), countless individuals all over the State, Church groups and volunteers have donated time to get them back on their feet, but no one is sitting around pointing fingers and assessing blame.
The real difference is our media will shape the news and make the story line. Too bad you are another fish on their line.
Side note: The Army Corps of Engineers continues to make bad decisions. The decision to blow up the levees in Missouri to save Cairo, Illinois has political considerations all over it. Cairo is a fading Victorian style town with a population of around 8000. The people that populate it are a favored-class. The levee destruction flooded thousands of acres of Missouri farmland that A) won't produce yield this year B) will have to be claimed on insurance. So let's see, food prices go up (supply down) and insurance premiums go up (large man-caused disaster). But we sure saved the political class from being demagogued by the media which is more than willing to confer victim status on people who are not self-reliant, pay their own damn bills or heaven forbid can take care of themselves.
Nice comments! just one thing, Obama did not cut his trip short to come home and check on Joplin. It was cut short due to unsafe fliying conditions caused by a volcano eruption that filled the sky with smoke and ash
NICE! you schooled that Mr. Knowitall! He will probably skip this post or give some lame a$$ response....Watch! GOOD JOB!
Thanks Danny. I do not mind someones opinion, but it must be based in fact, not the hatred that one side has for another.
Yeehaww! Except it was inaccurate. No, I am not shocked that you didn't even put forth the effort to check before your congratulations.
You see, that is the problem...you aren't looking for truth or accuracy, you are looking for whatever confirms what you already believe. There is a word for that...and it isn't good.
No Tex, it was you that was totally inacurate and misleading. But with the threads I have read that you wrote, we have come to expect no less. As for what I believe, I do not believe in anything. Thats why I am an Independent. I also do not trust anything. So I do a lot of research on all subjects, I look for facts not other peoples opinions. Since I am confined to a bed for now, I have all the time in the world to research issues. It is amazing the information and reports that can be found when you search properly. They are done by the Government, research companies, Universities, National Archives. I also do not take anything I read out of context, shame others cannot make that claim.
The word for that is DemoLibTardism, which is the same mental aberration that allowed Obambi (may he run again) to become POTUS, and Moochelle (may her stylist mourn in Spain) to become FLOTUS.
It's also why Wee Willy Weiner, that twit who Tweets, that Darling Democrat Dirty-boy, was EVER elected to Congress.
When we discovered a Republican Senator was doing the HiedyHo tap-a-toe in public men's room stalls, we (conservatives) ran him out of office on a rail. Compare that to Barney Frank's boyfriend running a gay bondage prostitution ring out of Barney's government paid-for apartment. Those infected with DemoLibTardism circled the wagons, just like they always do.
DemoLibTardism must effect eyesight too, because those infected always see, only see, what they want to see. Like Obambi's impeccable pre-Presidency list of stunning accomplishments and qualifications. Of which there aren't any.
...and yes Danny, I am called a knowitall, because compared to you, I possess godlike knowledge. To normal people who actually do their own research, I am just a normal guy. Do you see where that puts you on the scale? Not good.
I once thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken. By the way, since you may not get it, being known as a knowitall is an insult. Why, because knowitalls do not know anything. Good luck with that title, I think you earned it.
sure it is little because he is a far left idiot! it wouldn't be if he was a republican, We would have lovemychris screaming in 80 posts how the repubs are hypocrites and evil etc... And I would have bet it would not be long before you responded. predictable
But the republicans are hypocrites!
They preach freedom and put everybody in chains.
more lies John! when will you learn? Again for the hundred time show me proof where socialism worked for a decent size country!
I can't Danny, because no country of any size has tried socialism.
Many have gone down the road of a mixed economy and they are generally successful and good for the people, but none have ever tried pure socialism.
Russia wasn't socialism?? and I'm talking at least 75% which anything over 50% would qualify as socialism.
No, there was nothing socialist about Russia beyond the name.
Not even 1%. They were state capitalists.
Main article: List of current communist states
A map showing states who currently declare themselves to be Marxist-Leninist.
People's Republic of China - (Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó) (since October 1, 1949)
Cuba - Republic of Cuba (República de Cuba) (since January 1, 1959) 
Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic. (Sathalanalat Paxathipatai Paxaxon Lao) (since December 2, 1975)
Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Cộng hòa Xã hội Chủ nghĩa Việt Nam) (officially in reunified Vietnam since July 2, 1976, but in the north since 1954) 
A map of countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist definition (in the west known as, "Communist states") at some point in their history. The map uses then-current borders. Note that not all of these countries were Marxist-Leninist at the same time.
Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (April 27, 1978 - April 28, 1992)
Albania Socialist People's Republic of Albania (Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë/Republika Popullore e Shqipërisë) (January 1, 1946 - March 22, 1992)
Angola People's Republic of Angola (República Popular de Angola) (November 11, 1975 - August 27, 1992)
Benin People's Republic of Benin (République Populaire du Bénin) (November 30, 1975 - March 1, 1990)
Bulgaria People's Republic of Bulgaria (Narodna Republika Balgariya) (September 15, 1946 - December 7, 1990)
Chinese Soviet Republic (Zhōnghuá Sūwéi'āi Gònghéguó) (November 7, 1931 - October 10, 1934)
Republic of the Congo People's Republic of the Congo (République Populaire du Congo) (January 3, 1970 - March 15, 1992)
Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Československá socialistická republika) (July 11, 1960 - March 29, 1990)
Ethiopia People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (September 10, 1987 - May 27, 1991)
Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic Finnish Democratic Republic (Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta) (December 1, 1939 - March 12, 1940)
East Germany German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) (October 7, 1949 - October 3, 1990)
Greece Political Committee of National Liberation (Greece) (December 24, 1947 - August 28, 1949)
Grenada People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada (March 13, 1979 - October 25, 1983)
HungaryHungary People's Republic of Hungary (Magyar Népköztársaság) (August 20, 1949 - October 23, 1989)
Cambodia Democratic Kampuchea (April 4, 1976 - January 7, 1979)
Cambodia People's Republic of Kampuchea (January 7, 1979 - October 23, 1991)
Mongolia Mongolian People's Republic (November 24, 1924 - February 12, 1992)
Mozambique People's Republic of Mozambique (República Popular de Moçambique) (June 25, 1975 - December 1, 1990)
Poland People's Republic of Poland (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) (June 28, 1945 - July 19, 1989)
Romania People's Republic of Romania (Republica Populară Romînă) (December 30, 1947 - December 21, 1989)
Somalia Somali Democratic Republic (Jamhuuriyadda Dimoqraadiga Soomaaliya) (October 21, 1976 - January 26, 1991)
Soviet Union Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)
Tuvan People's Republic Tuvan People's Republic (Tuva Arat Respublik) (August 14, 1921 - October 11, 1944)
North Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa) (September 2, 1945 - July 2, 1976)
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (Jumhūrīyah al-Yaman ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha'bīyah)(November 30, 1967 - May 22, 1990)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija, Социјалистичка Федеративна Република Југославија, Socialistična federativna republika Jugoslavija) (November 29, 1943 - October 8, 1991 / April 27, 1992)
These are countries whose constitutions make references to socialism, but do not subscribe to Marxist-Leninist ideology. As such, they represent a wide variety of different interpretations of the term socialism. Countries such as Egypt and Libya, for example, have adopted different versions of Arab socialism as their ideology at some point in their history. The Republic of China, ruled by the Kuomintang party adopted Chinese socialism. Tanzania, on the other hand, adopted African socialism as its official doctrine.
Map showing countries whose constitutions contained some references to socialism (under a non-Marxist definition) at some point in their history.
 Constitutional references
Algeria Algeria - People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-Jazā’irīyah ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah ash-Sha’bīyah) (since 15 September 1963)
Bangladesh - People's Republic of Bangladesh (since 16 December 1971) (Gônoprojatontri Bangladesh) (see Constitution of Bangladesh)
Egypt - Arab Republic of Egypt (Jumhūriyyah Miṣr al-ʿArabiyyah) (since 11 September 1971) (see Constitution of Egypt)
Guyana - Cooperative Republic of Guyana (see Constitution of Guyana)
India - Republic of India (see Constitution of India) (since 15 August 1947)
Libya - Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Al-Jamāhīriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah al-Lībiyyah aš-Šaʿbiyyah al-Ištirākiyyah al-ʿUẓmā) (since 1 September 1969)
North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk) (since September 9, 1948) (see: Constitution of North Korea). In 1992, all references to Marxism-Leninism were removed from the constitution and Juche became the official philosophy.
Portugal - Portuguese Republic (since 1974) (see Constitution of Portugal)
Sri Lanka Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (since 7 September 1978) (see Constitution of Sri Lanka)
Syria - Syrian Arab Republic (Al-Jumhūriyyah al-ʿArabiyyah as-Sūriyyah) (9 March 1963) (see Constitution of Syria)
Tanzania - United Republic of Tanzania (since 26 April 1964)
Bolivia - Plurinational State of Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia) (see Movement for Socialism (Bolivia))
Nicaragua - Republic of Nicaragua (República de Nicaragua) (see Sandinista)
Venezuela - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (República Bolivariana de Venezuela) (see Bolivarianism)
Burkina Faso Burkina Faso (4 August 1984 - 15 October 1987)
Burma Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (2 March 1974 - 23 September 1988)
Cape Verde Republic of Cape Verde (República de Cabo Verde) (8 July 1975 - 22 March 1991)
Chile Socialist Republic of Chile (República Socialista de Chile) (4 June - 13 September 1932)
Ghana Republic of Ghana
Guinea People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea (République populaire révolutionnaire de la Guinée) (1958–1984)
Guinea-Bissau Bissau-Guinea (24 September 1973 - 17 February 2000)
Iraq Republic of Iraq (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-ʿĪrāqiyah) (14 July 1958 - 16 July 1979)
Kenya Republic of Kenya (Jamhuri ya Kenya) (6 December 1969 - 12 January 1992)
Madagascar Democratic Republic of Madagascar (Repoblika Demokratika Malagasy) (21 December 1975 - 19 August 1992)
Mali Republic of Mali (République du Mali) (20 July 1960 - 19 November 1968)
Mexico Mexico (1 December 1928 - 1 December 2000)
Nicaragua Republic of Nicaragua (República de Nicaragua)
São Tomé and Príncipe Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (República Democrática de São Tomé e Príncipe) (12 July 1975 - 3 April 1991)
Senegal Republic of Senegal (République du Sénégal)
Seychelles Republic of Seychelles (Repiblik Sesel) (5 June 1977 - 26 July 1992)
Sudan Democratic Republic of Sudan (Jumhūriyyat as-Sūdān ad-Dīmuqrāṭīyah) (1969–1985)
Suriname Republic of Suriname (Republic Suriname)
Tunisia Tunisian Republic (Al-Jumhūriyyah at-Tūnisiyyah) (1957-1988)
Uganda Republic of Uganda (15 April 1966 - 25 January 1971)
 Former states
United Arab Republic United Arab Republic (Al-Jumhūrīyah al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥidah) (1958–1961), now Syrian Arab Republic and Egyptian Arab Republic
Zanzibar People's Republic of Zanzibar (Jamhuri ya Watu wa Zanzibar) (1964), now part of Tanzania.
These are short-lived political entities that emerged during wars or revolutions (mostly in the aftermath of World War I) and declared themselves to be socialist under some interpretation of the term, but did not survive long enough to create a stable government or achieve international recognition.
Alsace Soviet Republic (November 9–22, 1918)
Asturian miners' strike of 1934 (de facto) (October 5–18, 1934)
Azerbaijan People's Government (November 1945 - December 1946)
Bavarian Soviet Republic (Bayerische Räterepublik) (April 6 - May 3, 1919)
Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic (May - September 1919)
Bukharan People's Soviet Republic (October 8, 1920 - February 17, 1925)
Chinese Soviet Republic (Zhōnghuá Sūwéi'āi Gònghéguó) (November 7, 1931 - October 1934)
Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (February 12 - May 1918)
Estonian Workers' Commune (Eesti Töörahva Kommuun/Эстляндская Трудовая Коммуна) (November 29, 1918 - June 5, 1919)
Far Eastern Republic (Dalnevostochnaya Respublika) (April 6, 1920 - November 15, 1922)
Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic (January 28 - April 29, 1918)
Galician Soviet Socialist Republic (July 8 - September 21, 1920)
German Socialist Republic (Räterepublik) (November 9, 1918 - ?)
Hunan Soviet (1927)
Hungarian Soviet Republic (Magyar Tanácsköztársaság) (March 21 - August 6, 1919)
Khorazmian People's Soviet Republic (April 26, 1920 - October 20, 1923)
Limerick Soviet (April 15–27, 1919)
Lithuanian-Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (Lietuvos-Baltarusijos Tarybinė Socialistinė Respublika) (February 27 - August 25, 1919)
Republic of Mahabad (Komarî Mehabad) (January 22 - December 15, 1946)
Mughan Soviet Republic (March - June 1919)
Soviet Republic of Naissaar (December 1917 - February 26, 1918)
Paris Commune (La Commune de Paris) (March 18 - May 28, 1871) (first socialist republic in history)
Persian Socialist Soviet Republic (June 9, 1920 - September 1921)
Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (Chính phủ Cách mạng lâm thời Cộng hoà miền Nam Việt Nam) (April 30, 1975 - June 2, 1976)
Slovak Soviet Republic (Slovenská Republika Rád) (June 16 - July 7, 1919)
Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic (April 30, 1918 - October 27, 1924)
Democratic Republic of Yemen (May 21 - July 7, 1994)
Sometimes the little things are the best things
Yup. It's looking like the left IS that brave. What an excellent time to be alive!
Whups. Michele Bachmann is evidently on the cusp of announcing HER candidacy for President. Let the Left's penchant for misogyny commence.
It's looking more and more like Habitat for Humanity is getting new leadership come 2013. THIS one already has a Peace Prize, and everything!
Please, please run Palin or even Bachmann - I will contribute MONEY to their campaigns. The laught will be worth it, plus on the upside it guarantess another four year for Obama.
I always get a chuckle from these threads. It's all about left/right, isn't it?
It's really not.
The writing is on the wall. Unless the GOP gets on the ball and comes up with somebody who can raise more than a billion dollars to run against Obama, it is academic.
Do you mean to say that the White House is only for sale? That it goes to the highest bidder?
Or, even more significantly, that the American people have no will or discernment, and elections fall to He Who Spends The Most, because they're so stupid?
I think if enough personal investigation is done, there is plenty of area to suspect there is a connection between the money trail and the decisions that are being made on our d behalf.
Read "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins to get an eye opening view of the connections now coming to daylight.
Geez, the mans name is Obama with an A. It's so crazy to me how so many people want to blame our current President for things he did NOT create he simply took over the office of mess. The high gas prices are NOT a result of his administration but rather tired *** Bush. As far as high taxes, he's got to compromise somewhere otherwise the greediness of the wealthy business people will force them to hurt our economy more by taking whats left overseas. He has a helluva job at his hands trying to please ALL and has done good in his term thus far, only thing he has not produced so much is more jobs. No one has ever criticized or disrespected any president the way they have Obama. Clearly as a whole people, were not moving forward but backwards...quickly.
Obama has done a lot of good things based on the limitations that he inherited and a less than agreeable democratic majority in the beginning and the contentious GOP majority of late.
Should we have bailed out wall street? I guess time will tell. Should we continue these endless wars at our own economic peril? We spend 17 times more that all other militaries combined and still have no remedy to the causes. I am glad Obama does not engross himself with the inflamatory gay and abortion issues that the politicians wish to throw out there to derail the harder ones.
I think we can do better but I don't see it coming from the likes of Romney, Gingrich or Palin who seem to be seeking an occupancy of the White House rather than any leadership. Obama may be the best we can get.
The unfortunate reality is that "We the people" do not run this country or the government. Wall street and other foreign banks have us by the short hairs and unless more of us wise up to it there will be little change.
This was not an overnight development. It began when we lost control of the currency and have been complacent in effecting any change to gain it back. The banks funded the two world wars because of excessive spending by their countries on their military proliferation and we the US are in the same boat. Read about the Central and Federal Reserve Banks and their beginnings and it will make your blood boil when you discover the blatant criminal acts that have taken place over the last hundred years. The Federal Reserve Banks inception was an abomination to due process.
Thats why I say Obama probably is the best we can get for now but that is from the benevolent grace of our International Banking Institutions that we have what we do now.
Think of it. The Wall Street Elite held us hostage to bail out their criminal acts and not one of them have gone to jail in the process. Obamas top financial people and advisors are from the Central and Federal Reserve Bank. Larry Summers headed up much of the deregulation furror under Clinton.
A running joke on the hill is about the the United States of Goldman.
I watched that HBO special the other night. It was good.Let's face the facts both parties are duplicitous in this. Dodd and Frank had like thousands of banking lobbyist giving their input on the financial reform bill. And the DNC chair Wasserman Schultz is a big fan of the banks too. Like that Evan guy who is on here regularly I am becoming a budding anarchist.
Party politics is the least of the problem when it comes to the fincial mess we are in now.
I also watched the HBO show "Too Big To Fail" the other night and will read the book as soon as I finish two others I am reading now.
As Hank Paulson ran the Treasury you can see how all the factors surrounding it gave way to one man dictating what was to be done. The SEC guy was comical.
That is on such a small scale compared to the power the British and German banks hold and their willingness to weild it. I loved it when the Brits essentially told us to bite them when apprised of our meltdown. They couldn't have been bothered less.
" No one has ever criticized or disrespected any president the way they have Obama. "
Which leads me to believe Donna lived on Mars through both the Bush and Reagan Presidencies. The Mainstream American Media has had a "slobbering love affair" with our Bungler-in-Chief since well before he was elected.
ANY dissent against his Chicago Thug methods of governing are automatically labeled as RAAAACIST. Even when Americans of African descent are the ones calling him out as a Crappy President, this idiot gets a Race Card pass.
Next, you'll be telling us what an honest and diligent-about-the-truth a documentarian Michael Moore is.
Any polls or other data to support your ridiculous assertions....
No, I didn't think so.
Just more wingnut fantasy.
P.S. Reagan is ineligible to run in this election.
This is the same thing you wrote before the last election and had your a$$ handed to you on a platter! never learn! The economy is screwed, gas is high and YES he could have helped by letting us drill here so that is a LIE. His foreign policy sucks, He will lose a big portion of the jewish vote. DONE! People gave him a chance and many do not want to say it in public on fear of the RACE BS coming out but he is done! just like last election.
You've only been here 4 months, so you have no idea what I said prior to the last election unless you have opened a sock-puppet account against the TOS-for which you should be banned.
BTW, Obama won the last presidential election. I guess you missed it.
Yes--why are we discussing Repub issues? Why is their agenda the driving force?
I was just watching msnbc...they had 2 Repub freshmen on, and the next segment was Palin...I could watch Fox if I wanted that!
Bias every where you go.....when does Olbermann's show start? I need representation! It is NOWHERE to be found!
Citizens United.....making the mark for Republicorp.....all over the place.
you have over 8,000 posts and can easily look back! and the last election was in November of 2010.
Obama was not a candidate in 2010. See, the way our election system works is....
Never mind. You wouldn't understand.
the last election that we voted was 2010. I know you want to forget that election since you got your a$$ handed to you on a silver platter. Yes the Presidential election is every four years, I know. The same thing will happen again, People have opened their eyes!
No they haven't. They think they have because their right eye is open. The left is still shut. They still can't see half the picture....and it is the most devastating half.
This one they ignore.
Hey Danny, Obama will win the Jewish vote back. You see when he goes to Israel later this year, he will have a speech and in it he will reveal his Jewish roots. Somewhat along the lines of what he did in Ireland and the UK. Is there anything he is not? Oh yea, a good President. Election slogan:
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, not going to happen. Obama you are out of here.
The guy is spouting moronic rhetoric. Obama could have stopped the gas prices by letting us drill huh? How long does it take to build a rig, get it into the ground and pumping? Did you look that up? Do you look up anything? Immediate help by drilling is ignorant, that and we only have 1 yr worth of oil for our country if we drilled everything right now. 1 year! That affects the price by a few cents. In fact, there isn't a report out there that claims that domestic drilling will affect the gas prices by ANYTHING more than a few cents. You don't know how speculators work, and why some are on trial RIGHT NOW for the previous gas price spike. The ignorance is shameful, shameful to Americans and to breathing people.
Tex, the Left has been working tirelessly to stop us from drilling, by way of environmentalist wackjobism, for decades. Had we been able to drill and make Nuclear Power Plants to the extent which we could have for the last 30 years, EVERYTHING in our economy would cost less than half of what it does today. Except perhaps the government.
With new horizontal drilling technology, it is believed that from 175 to 500 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil are held in the Bakken Oil Formation's 200,000 square mile reserve.
The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007, which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion dollars overseas, building palaces in Dubai & Iraq, and propping up unfriendly regimes around the world. If 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the Bakken, the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 TRILLION dollars.
Think that might help stabilize the US trade deficit or debt problems? It would absolutely cut the cost of oil in half, Globally, in very little time.
200 billion (200,000,000,000) barrels divided by 14 million (14,000,000) barrels per day comes to 14,285 days. That's over 39 years, and does not count Alaska, the Gulf, or the Pacific coast.
Where did you get this "Only a year's worth" figure?
Great read, your facts are right on. But it is falling on deaf ears. Tex will spew some hate, twist the facts and try to insult you.
Yes, all that foreign oil is yours and you'll fight anybody who tries to take a share, eh?
Wait. John... What??
Please tell me who we have fought because they "tried to take a share" of foreign oil. Or do you mean to say that Saddam was merely "trying to take a share" when he invaded Kuwait?
I'm afraid you've just lost a shite ton of credibility points, Mr. Holden. Thus far you've been an earnest, honorable guy, making your case with as many facts as you could gather. I respected that.
PLEASE tell me what the heck you mean with this statement.
Oh John, this is beneath you. After all NATO is murdering Libyans so oil flows to the UK and France.
You need to get your mind around the fact that this guy could win. Whistling past the graveyard on this one is going to get him elected again. What needs to happen is conversations with people who don't realize what is happening under this President's leadership.
You and I both would agree this President is an amateur who is in WAY over his head, but there are countless others who need to be made aware of that fact.
If that realization is not recognized by enough people, this guy will likely win again. It is hard to beat incumbents (especially with the media cheerleading for him)
All excellent points, Elenox. And on top of all that, it's also a blast to point these things out with ridicule and derision.
Our current President is a walking parody of himself. A disingenuous thug-puppet who is arrogant, condescending, self-serving and destructive. By his own hand, he has created an economic environment which cannot help but cast the greatest nation in the history of the world into financial ruin. All with malice aforethought.
It is our responsibility, as thinking men, to shout his crass buffoonery from the rooftops.
Don't our Liberal friends tell us that Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism?
Sure, I'm always positively swayed by ridicule and derision!
Oh hang on a minute, if somebody treats me with ridicule and derision I conclude that they have nothing to say worth listening to.
Are you secretly President Obambi, John? Because, my ridicule is reserved for THAT buffoon. I thought you were just a regular guy with a Socialist point of view and an internet connection.
If you're him, you and I need to sit down and have a long talk about a great many things you're doing to destroy our country. We'll start with all the new, totally uncountable "Tzar" positions you've appointed, work our way through the Health Insurance Reform bill you PROMISED would be available for everyone to read on the internet for 5 days before you signed it, and eventually you'll have to explain to me how putting the nation into the deepest debt anyone has ever seen (or even imagined) is a "good thing" and where all the unspent Stimulus money actually is.
On the odd chance that you're only John, how about you just explain to me how ridicule and derision from the Left about G Dubya and Sarah Palin are completely acceptable. It's almost a requirement that you say nasty things about people like that, to prove how informed and sophisticated you are to one another.
Do you mean to tell me that the Leftists here in the forums, who habitually deride Conservative speakers, have "nothing to say worth listening to"?
I see you're back too crunchy.
I think someone had us both banned....now isn't that something?
Well hello, lovemy. I wasn't banned. I've been working and playing. Coming in here to ruffle feathers is just a minor pastime for me.
I'm sorry if you were banned. You're just stating your point of view to the best of your ability.
There are people out there who HATE that you, a woman, have that right. Whole countries and regions filled with stinky little fellows who would bind you tight and toss rocks at you til you were dead. Just for opening your mouth or daring to contradict them.
There are a great many Men here in America who feel you should get to say whatever you feel, as often as you like. Even if we don't agree with what you're saying.
Some of us have even gone so far as to visit the stinky little fellows where they live, and stop them from ever coming here with their misogynist, backwards, violent, oppressive ideas. So that ladies like you can sleep peacefully, knowing that when you awake your neighborhood will be exactly as it was when you went to bed.
We take no joy in doing those things we wish NO ONE had to do. We think of it as a sacred honor, though. Because we value your life far more than the stinky little fellows do, and that we simply cannot abide.
I'll vote for Obama whenever he runs for anything. I really like the guy. He is intelligent, sincere and competent. I think his policies have been pretty moderate and what is said against him is just demagoguery.
On the money! The economy is not a mess he made. Nor are the wars and excesses which caused the economics meltdown within the housing industry.
He inherited all of this and has done a great job of running the country despite the intellectually challenged calling him a Muslim, a racist, not an American citizen, etc. and blocking anything that would bring America in line with this century and the other developed nations, some of which have had free health care for 40 years.
These intellectual pygmies have killed the country and will continue to do so as seen on these forums.
It is a great shame they don't see it from a distance and notice that they have killed their own country with hate and loathing because of their thinly disguised racism.
Racism is no longer acceptable as a public position but it is rife in the States. I know because as a visitor I have seen it in the streets time and again.
What a shame that many Americans have dumbed down so far they can't see what is bloody obvious to the rest of the world.
Some people here are dead against universal healh care, as you well know, because it's another area where government steps into. But these people have no problem with attending a public school, go to a library, or pay less for postage at the post office (The United States has the lowest postage cost in the world because it's subsidised by the U.S. Government) and sign up for Medicare (which pays 75% of the hospital bills here). If a patient can not pay for a hospital bill, it's picked up by the government. It's illegal for a hospital to turn away a patient because they are unable to pay for services. If a patient finds themselves in a situation where they get seriously sick and rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills, they simply declare bankruptsy, simple as that. There are certain things that the private sectore should not be running like prisons, local public services, public schools, etc. Can you imagine oils companies running the military? People are scared of the word "socialism" and they don't have a clue what it means. Socialism existed in this country since it was founded.
No kidding. A country is NOT a business! ...where the bottom line is all that matters.
These Robber Barons have always destroyed anthing good America represents.
And now they are just running rampant! Because THEIR little money-train is being halted.
It's like pulling teeth. They are obstinate, childish, boorish and entitled.
And their money buys them a lot....loyalty, patronage and gvt seats.
The worst is the people who support them....like a herd of nasty, spitting holier-than-thou's.
Dont' see nor care what these goons have done and are doing to America....
Then have the nerve to call OTHERS un-American! Even the president of their country!
This election is going to be awful. I already can't STAND the distortions and lies coming out of the R candidates.
But I love what Obama said to Ryan: "You want to talk about demagoguery? I’m the death-panel-supporting, socialist, may-not-have-been-born-here president,”
Look for more of the same...only nastier and uglier and more subtly racist.
And watch what they do to each other too....
Great! Just what the forums needed.....
A forum thread that leads with "god" and goes into politics.
You make an excellent point, Cags. I hadn't looked at it that way.
Politics: Effects our lives everyday.
Religion: Effects our lives for eternity.
Those are two subjects which should rarely ever be brought up by intelligent, reasonable people, and absolutely have no business being in the same sentence. My humblest apologies to your sense of decorum.
Love your profile pic, BTW.
It just demonstrates your inability to see beyond your actions. Thank you for showing others.
This is true. This is pure conjecture unsubstantiated tripe.
Your second mistake, thinking that people who are any form of religion or of religious belief, are reasonable?
You don't need to apologize.
Evidently, my deft application of satire was lost on ya there, Cags.
If Liberalism were a religion (and they do share marked similarities), your description of the non-reasonable religious adherent would absolutely apply.
Still love the profile pic, though.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
Good definition John. But it's all talk. When Liberalism gets put to the test it fails everytime.
Liberalism fails - just ask California.
Vote for Ron Paul.
I live in California Evan it is pathetic out here except for the weather.
Except that by definition, we are and were founded on liberalism. It might be intelligent to differentiate between classical liberalism, liberalism, and United States progressive/liberalism. Liberalism by definition is the importance on liberty and individual rights, on market competition, and intellectual liberty. We are, as a country, founded on the precept of liberalism. Now US liberalism has a few additions, like equal rights, government regulation, market regulation, etc.
We weren't founded on today's liberalism. Today's liberalism is Statism, and the Constitution is clearly an anti-big-government document.
You should actually read it. The Constitution was a great step forward from the Neanderthal society you so strongly advocate.
Psst - the Constitution is ANTI government.
Read Article 1 Section 8, and realize that those are the ONLY powers the Federal Government has.
In fact, everyone who argues that "the general welfare" means "anything it wants to legislate" would have been ridiculed by the very people who were pro-big-government.
James Madison ridiculed those who didn't want to sign the Constitution because of the General Welfare clause (out of fear of big government) as having poor reading skills, and not understanding the usage of semi-colons.
The Constitution is CLEARLY an anti-government document that was designed to restrict the powers of government.
Yes, it was a jump in power from the Articles, but all in all it was a MUCH more restricted government than the Monarchy of England from whence the colonists seceded.
In order to form a more perfect union.
Evan, you comments are dead on. You have indeed read the Constitution.
Evan shouldn't have stopped after reading the Constitution. He needs to read all the amendments and all the Supreme Court Constitutional law decisions.
Yes, as you well know the Constitution created the Supreme Court and gave it the final say on the meaning of the Constitution and the constitutional validity of actions by the Congress and the executive branch.. It's not infallible, but a Supreme Court decision is the final word until it's reversed.
No it didn't.
It gave the supreme court the ability to rule on the constitutionality of CASES.
It can't make an entire thing like "abortion" unconstitutional, it can only rule that in one case the act of abortion carried out was unconstitutional.
Those that can change the constitution are known as the "legislative branch".
Nice try though.
No, when liberalism gets put to the test, the people implementing it fail.
Wouldn't those be Libs John ? That would be yes !
A hollow argument Tony. They may be liberals, they may not. The might just see it as an easy route to power.
I read on these forums about Republicans doing stupid things but nobody believes that they are typical or representative of all Republicans.
That's the exact same argument made for Communists.
"Don't blame communists, blame Hitler! don't blame communism, blame Chairman Mao! Don't blame Communism, blame Che Gueverra. Don't blame communism, blame Lenin, Stalin, and all the rest of the twits."
"Communism is great in theory." But liberals insist on never leaving it to theory. How about this one - "Gravity is good in theory and better in practice."
Then show me where, in the communist manifesto, the practices of Stalin etc were approved!
Some anarchists resort to extreme violence Evan, would you accept then that anarchism was all about violence?
You are absolutely correct, Beta. Hitler was a Socialist, not a Communist. But that's like saying you're a Crip, not a Blood.
Both are gangs that rape, murder and commit atrocious crimes. On the same streets and at the same time. But, don't you dare call one the other.
They have, like, totally different colored handkerchiefs!
Hitler was not a socialist.
He hated socialists and socialism.
Nothing he ever did or said could be even vaguely associated with socialism.
An article only a history revisionist could love. Your basic premise is that all things bad are of the Right. Because the Left "feels" like it's always got the very best intentions, and tossing out empty accusations of racism and hate against your detractors is the first, last, and only play you've got in your book. The classic Guerrilla strategy of accusing your enemy of atrocities you've just committed.
Never mind the KKK was a Democrat organization. Never mind the concept of War Socialism was a Democrat Party Plank. Never mind that Voting rights for women and minorities were brought to us by the Christian Right. As long as you keep your Democrat voters deeply uneducated, and beholden to their Party for all their needs, you'll get them to vote for inept bunglers whose only goal is the destruction of America, so they can rebuild it in their Socialist Utopian vision.
So, when Hitler changed the name of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" down to it's more easily pronounced "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) or Nazi Party, he was completely fooling himself about the name? Hated them so much he named his party after them?
Hitler could have run as VP to Obambi, he was so deeply Left. Vegetarianism. Darwinism. Occultism. Universal womb-to-the-tomb Health Care.
Your Leftist fantasy that Hitler wasn't everything the Left wishes it could be, never stands up under scrutiny. The American Left is filled with the barbarous acts of men like Bill Ayers, Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. Men whose manifestos read like a wish-list for the ACLU or the Open Society Institute.
Did you even bother to read to link I posted?
How do you get to the assumption that I believe that all things bad are of the right?
I think your rant about guerilla strategy is rich coming from you when you have to insist against all the evidence that Hitler was socialist, just because an admission that he was extreme right might just make the right less than lily white.
No, don't never mind that the KKK was a democratic organisation, it is a classic illustration of the deceptiveness of names.
No, he didn't name his party socialist because he was one, he named it thus to make the people believe that he was one. None of his actions towards workers had even a hint of socialism in them, that was explained in the article you didn't bother to read.
"Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist."
Hitler was not deeply left, he was deeply right, he was not a conviction vegetarian, he had a phobia about meat. Darwinism isn't the sole preserve of the left, most right thinking people on the right believe in Darwinism.
How about I produce some names, hey look Ted Bundy was a republican, that proves that all republicans are serial killers!
I did indeed read the whole article, and it is classic revisionist spin-doctoring.
I said that your basic premise is that the Right is where the evil lies, and you were kind enough to confirm it. Allow me to parse your sixth and most damning paragraph:
"Worker Ownership of the Means of Production" is at the very heart of Marxist Communism, NOT American Conservatism.
Private individuals (purported to be in control) frequently controlled by the Nazi Party or the State. State owned or controlled capital is a Socialist mainstay. The very heart of "True" socialism despite all claims to the contrary. Coming out 70 years later and saying "Well, that's not TRUE socialism" is intellectually disingenuous and morally reprehensible.
Racism has been the hallmark of the American Democrat Left for over 200 years. I'll reiterate: The KKK is a Democrat organization. In 1964 Republicans condemn Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Byrd was a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Klegal. The Act was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate, and opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.
Eugenics comes down to us through Margaret Sanger, the lady who gave us Planned Parenthood, and the current Abortion Epidemic. The LEFT is for abortion, and Planned Parenthood was created to give us "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." Which is why you will almost always find abortion clinics in the Minority districts of any given city.
Much of the rest of the paragraphical statement is backwards and/or misleading. Hitler's contemporaries would later (after his death) point out that he had no central political theme, other than what he felt he needed to say to obtain his goals at any given time. The list provided in your article is cherry-picking at it's best.
Bundy was not a Republican. He too, like Ted Kaczynski, was a devout Socialist/Communist. But he DID admit to a deep pornography addiction in his final interview. Porn is always protected by the Left as a freedom of speech issue, isn't it?
Hitler was an Uber-Lefty, feted by the American Left during the late 30s as a brilliant economist who put Germany back on it's financial feet. Stephen H. Norwood's just-published, brilliantly researched, utterly thorough and morally upsetting "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses" (Cambridge University Press) shows how the Left got it wrong in the 1930s.
A chilling chronicle of pro-Nazi enthusiasm, shabby indifference, and amoral tolerance toward Hitler in elite American academe of the 1930s, depositing fact after sordid fact before the reader in a way that leaves its implications for then and today overwhelming.
Academia IS where you can find most Socialists, isn't it? Learning to be Elite, going to the right parties, attending the right meetings, hating the Unwashed Masses for attempting to think for itself, that sort of thing?
I rather think it is you who is engaging in classic revisionist spin-doctoring.
Nowhere do I say that the right is where the evil lies, if you think that I am then you are as guilty of misunderstanding me as you are of believing he was a socialist.
How is my sixth paragraph damning unless you didn't read or understand it. State control of industry is not socialism, worker control is, and worker control was not practised in Nazi Germany.
Hitler may have been feted by the left, he was most certainly feted by the right http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/se … ndworldwar
And really, the rest of your post is reaching so far that it stands best on its own as evidence that Hitler was not a socialist and you are a little too desperate to believe that he was.
Oh, and Ted Bundy, search as hard as I can and I find no evidence that he was socialist/communist and plenty of evidence that he was a republican, even being groomed as a politician at one stage.
You are basing this entirely off of being ridiculously uneducated. Because I call you Ted, doesn't mean you are Ted. You can say the word "socialist" as many times as you want, but any article, any movie, any documentary, any and every single description and interpretation of the Nazis leads to fascists, not socialists, or communists. It is a fact that socialists/communists were arrested in the very beginning.
The Democrats of yesteryear are not the Democrats of today. The parties have changed many times over. The Democrats of Jefferson lived on for years, populated during the 1800s and early 1900s by extreme racists. Horrible people, many of them. The Republicans of Lincoln are not the Republicans of today either, not the politics or policies. Same with the Democrats. Your party was created essentially in the 50s, peaking its ideology into the Goldwater campaign. My party was created with Roosevelt. My team fought for civil rights. Your team still has a problem with it. You should look at it more as conservatives vs liberals, as opposed to party names. I can't think of a time in history where conservatives were the good guys. Can you?
Learn more, try harder. Your understanding is simple and lives on the periphery of what is actually going on.
I know you neocons love analogies, breaking complex ideas down to egocentric "down home" stories. SO....think of it as going to the drug store to buy some allergy medicine. You might not know this, but you don't always have to buy the expensive medicine. Just because Advil Cold and Sinus says it treats your sinuses and you have a stuffed up nose, and "I don't have an allergy problem; my eyes aren't itchy. I have a stuffed up nose"...you can also get the Ibuprofen Allergy generic...because they both have the same amount of ibuprofen (active ingredient in Advil), and the same amount of pseudoephedrine (the decongestant), and you can save $3.25. Don't believe the packaging...read the ingredients mate. You'll learn more.
Actually, he wasn't a socialist, not in the slightest bit. He was a fascist as can be seen in EVERY WWII AD the US MADE! Where in the world do you get thi....ahh, the National Socialist so and so...you really believe it is a "revolution in toilet paper" when they tell you that on a commercial don't you. The packaging doesn't mean much big guy. This is pathetic. Did you read ANYTHING about the war in your life? How do you get this far and not know the basics? Then again, that seems to be a pattern with you neocon folk. Hitler arrested the socialists dude, and before the Jews. Crunchy, watch a movie or something. I mean, this isn't hidden knowledge. Put some effort into it at least.
You're right, he probably wasn't.
But if you notice, he's one of the lesser murderers on that list. Mao, the communist, was responsible for over 100 mill deaths. Stalin and the Soviets killed WELL over 50 m.
Hitler was small potatoes compared to the Socialists.
Joseph Stalin was a corrupt bureaucrat that warped the Socialist ideals of Marx and Lenin (and other Marxists) into a totalitarian regime where the state controlled absolutely everything. Communism by default is highly against a state even existing. Stalin was not a Communist or a Socialist by any means. He was a fascist that used Communist imagery and ideology to control everyone and everything.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_Stalin_Fa … z1O48ybgEM
LMC, you can't argue or debate with somebody who insists that Hitler was a socialist, and then argues that he wasn't as bad as socialists!
Left-wing group who is opposed to the right-wing gvt are "disappeared" into the prison gulag....
Their children are stolen, and adopted out to right-wing parents wanting children.
Their birth-families are just now discovering this, and want to find them...not the birth-parents...they are long-since dead,
due to the humane and liberty-loving right wing.SNARK
Don't EVER tell me about the wonderful right wing fascists.
Prop Duet 2, Operation Gladio, Iran/Contra, Likud. 'Nuff Said.
Not all gvt's.
I hear quite a bit of good about the Scandinavian ones...
Even a Monarchy was praised....Monacho.
It's just when greed and avarice creep in, that's when they suck. And Capitalism invites greed and avarice.
Just look around you.
Where does the huge income gap come from?? Greed and avarice. People thinking they are better than others, and so deserve more.
Evan - I get your movement on the statements, but be upfront man, he got you there. That was exactly what you did.
Fine - let's leave hitler out of the whole damned conversation.
Mao - socialist - killed over 100 mill
Stalin - socialist - killed over 50 mill
Guevera - socialist - pulled the trigger killing hundreds
... so can we NOW debate the issue, now that I didn't mention Hitler (even though hitler used the guise of socialism to win)?
OK, if we let you pretend that they were socialists, can we then include in the debate the many millions killed by capitalism?
Though the man Che Guevara helped to displace, Batista, was responsible for around 20,000 deaths!
Ah but then Batista wasn't a socialist and had the full support of the US.
Whether the US supported a tyrant is not the question.
Nor is the question whether the person before the socialist was a murderer.
The question is: "did the socialist murder a huge number of people?".
And the answer is yes.
like i said earlier "that's what they always say about Communism"
Very true. I am huge liberal, and not on the side of either.
Isn't that indicative of a problem with liberalism and yet liberals insist on the rational superiority of their policy failures. Again and again liberalism fails and yet liberals insist on the superiority of their "rational" positions. Liberals insist that their policies, though consistent failures, are more rational and superior to any others. Can't you see how superior and rational liberal positions are even when they fail?
Isn't there a well worn Einstein quote about liberalism? Oh, no I am wrong. It is about insanity. Six of one....
Isn't that indicative of a problem with capitalism and yet capitalists insist on the rational superiority of their policy failures. Again and again capitalism fails and yet capitalists insist on the superiority of their "rational" positions. Capitalists insist that their policies, though consistent failures, are more rational and superior to any others. Can't you see how superior and rational capitalist positions are even when they fail?
Hm, works rather well doesn't it?
Indeed, you could equally well subsistute Republican and it would stand equally well.
Funny thing is free markets - which in some sense is actually redundant - do work and are a natural system based in natural realities of supply, demand, opportunity cost, marginal utility, etc...and most of all the great reality of a finite universe, scarcity.
All these things exist and influence the natural world with such power that the attempt to control them results in distortions that play havoc with markets.
Where ever the liberals vision of utopia leads him disaster ensues. It is a pattern repeated on nearly every imaginable scale and scope, across all times and places. The failure to identify the limits to which the State can interfere in the market has produced shortages and surpluses time and again.
So, tell me one country that has a free market because right now I can't think of one.
Sadly it is a sliding scale but if any country comes close it is Hong Kong.
Is there such a thing as a liberally conservative rightwing republican/christian? Seriously, most of those definitions refer to something the majority of decent people would believe is a good trait. Most reasonable people would also agree that most of those definitions are the exact opposite of what a republican believes. That would seem to indicate that republicans are at heart, just plain lousy people. What grinds at most republican's knowledge that the democrats are the only thing close to a union fighting for the rights of all Americans. The republican party has aligned itself on the corporate side oin this battlefield for our rights as American citizens. The republican party is using the tea party/town hall meetings as a form of strike busters. The republican party promised jobs as the focus of the mid term elections. They have provided no jobs, instead they cost thousands the job they had. They offer no explanation as to why the tax cuts implimented under Bush have produced no jobs. They threaten to shut down the company if the workers insist on having any rights left. The only problem is they think America is the business they control. How many promises have the repububs followed thru with and how many of them actually benefitted the country as a whole. I think you will find that the majority of the results won by the republican party have been for the benefit of corporations. It is the American people who lose everytime and they cant wait to lose the next thing the repubs want. That felt like a rant, my bad. It didn't start out that way. honest.
The Truth hurts, especially when it's in plain sight,,,,
Stump? You'll be easier to read when you learn the concept of the "paragraph." In the mean time, I believe THIS is what you were trying to say:
I have always found it strange that Republicans think they can claim Christianity based upon a single argument: abortion. Jesus by his actions and quoted words was about helping the poor (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, public libraries, food stamps, HeadStart, Planned Parenthood, etc), sacrificing one's self for another (marginal tax rates, Universal Health Care, etc), turning a cheek (not wanting to bomb absolutely anyone who sticks their tongue out at you, not allowing the crazed spending in the Pentagon, etc), and to be honest, flat out socialism...there were several times everyone was told to put in all they had, and it would be divided "each according to his need." That is flat out socialism. However, you base your ownership off of what, abortion? Gay marriage? I'll ignore the judge not thing, as that is too easy. The gay thing goes to Leviticus, and in the same chapter it says it is just as much of a sin to touch or speak to a woman during her period, to wear blended clothing, etc. If you are willing to deny people the right to spend their lives together in marriage based upon this, then why not if you wear blended clothing too? Ever touch your wife during her visit? See the irony? I doubt it.
The abortion debate was spoonfed to you in the late 70s by Schaffer, Fallwell and Robertson. Schaffer's kid has since come out and explained how ridiculous and hypocritical their efforts were, and Fallwell and Robertson are two of the worst people in the country. I doubt too many people would argue with that. Also, the debate brings into question the definition of what life is...unformed or not? At what month? The moment of conception? It would be murder right? Okay...well, if God is to judge the wicked, and you are for capital punishment, than isn't that murder? God commanded people in the Old Testament to rip open pregnant women and smash the babies on rocks, to hide in the bushes to wait on young girls to rape them. I can give you these citations if you are too lazy to look them up for yourself. SO, Jesus wiped away those commands, those commandments with a new single commandment right? Love one another even as I have loved you? Remember that one? How do the Republicans fair at that one? How do the moneychanger gift shops in those megachurches, filled to the brim with your supporters fair in that one? This entire party is a comic.
You assume that those government programs "for the poor" actually DO help the poor.
The seen vs. the Unseen, my good sir.
First, I have to admit I know very little of the bible, in fact I know less than little. So I guess you figured out I do not believe in God. So God or religion never enters my mind when I am thinking, reading, researching an issue in order to form an opinion. It does bother me when someone tries to use the bible as an item to back their argument when it is clear they know very little about it too. Here we go. So based on your answer Jesus created Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, public libraries, food stamps, Head Start, Planned Parenthood? A figure head that is against abortion is for Planned Parenthood. Ok I did not know that.
You stated that “Okay...well, if God is to judge the wicked, and you are for capital punishment, than isn't that murder? God commanded people in the Old Testament to rip open pregnant women and smash the babies on rocks, to hide in the bushes to wait on young girls to rape them. I can give you these citations if you are too lazy to look them up for yourself. SO, Jesus wiped away those commands, those commandments with a new single commandment right? Love one another even as I have loved you?"
First, if God is a murderer as you stated, I do not think a murderer can sit in judgment of other murderers. And since you pray to God and he grants you forgiveness for your sins, who forgave God of his? I was glad you showed one instance where God wants murder. But is it not true, God oversaw and ordered many murders in the Old Testament? Is that the action of a supreme being? Now like I said I do not know much so I could be wrong but wasn’t it Moses at Mt Sinai that had the 10 commandments given to him by God? I do not think Jesus wrote any of the commandments. .
Like I said, I do not know the bible so I do not use it in my responces. But I do deal in facts, not opinions.
I appreciate someone who ignores religion in decision making. Kudos. Now, you are playing Republican pin the tail on the logic game. Because I state that Jesus was for certain things as an ideology, doesn't mean he created it, so making the statement that I claimed said cause/effect is simply being a child, and purposefully misleading. Very weak.
Now, because Jesus issues a new covenant with the people with a single commandment, and states that he is wiping away the covenant by Moses, doesn't mean that Jesus must have taken then original 10 commandments. Again, your cause/effect is chillingly inaccurate and shows that you are either a propagandist who misleads on purpose, or wildly lacking in common logic skills. I fear both actually.
However, I do know the Bible, and deal as well in facts. I addressed your "facts" earlier in the post...looking forward to your explanation. As for this...come on man, what was really going on? Was it a blatant misleading con of a post, or was it just wildly poor cause/effect skills? Maybe you took a bong hit beforehand and can't handle your stuff. I am not sure bro. I write better when I do. To each his own
I read your home page. I see you are in Dallas, I live in Plano. I understand now where some of your views come from. Dallas is a Dem city. Not that is a bad thing. I am just pointing it out. Plano is heavy Repub. I am lost as an independent up here.
I did say right off I do not know the bible and will never read it. The few things I know I picked up listening to people argue about religion. And as you know, living here in the bible belt there are a lot of arguments about religon. Trust me, I stay clear of it and just listen. So forgive me if anything I wrote about the bible was wrong. But I have a question. If Jesus replaced the ten comandments, why do people say to live by them?
I do not play Repub or Dem games. I am a very logical individual. Logic is not a pin the tail game. If the President and congress could use some logic, things would be much better. I always have questions. So over the years I have learned to question everything. Plus I grew up in NY, we trust noone.
As for addressing facts in an earlier thread, I hate to tell you but go read my response. I corrected all the incorrect statements that were in your thread, which was almost the whole thing.
Lastly. I know you try hard at the Don Rickles humor, let me tell you, it does not work for you. Do not call me Bro. You have not nor could ever earn the right to be my Bro. My bros are back in NY. I lost 343 of them on 911, I have lost thousands since, they almost lost me, most others still serve answering alarms. Unless you have served with us, you cannot understand the meaning of brotherhood. And do not ever again accuse my of taking a bong hit. I lost an Aunt and an Uncle to drug abuse. I take that very seriously. Almost as seriously as my patriotism which is extremely strong.
I do applaud your calm manner in writing however. I would like to thank you for that. I apologize that over the months of being on here and engaging in these little debates, I have lost hope in actually having people admit if they are wrong in the search of actual truth. I would love to. Prove me wrong man, that is the point of political debates in general. I love it...that is how I became this way. I used to be a die hard conservative. However, over time...I have learned that most don't care, will continue to mislead and flat out lie in order to point a finger. That has led me to get on here to vent and relax...yes, I am a horrible person that relaxes by discussing politics and pointing out where people are wrong about something I care deeply about. I do recognize that this practice is not healthy and shows I have many anger issues I direct into this...not good for me man, not good. Maybe I should try yoga.
I do understand the thread and hubs here can be very trying. But it is no excuse to attackor be hateful. You have spewed hate before anyone said anything negative to you. In fact there are many threads when you are making your first contact you start with the insults and hate. Perhaps that is why you get the responses you do. I have seen some people admit when they get something wrong. Problem is when people like LMC spew opinions that are so far fetched, even if you show her the facts and cite the source, she blows you off and comes back with more narrow minded responces. There is nothing wrong with political debates. They can be quite informative. I admit I have learned things here and even have started to really see into the minds of some of the hubbers.
You are right that there are those who do not care, mislead, twist facts, take things out of context, or use sources like media reports or political blogs as factual information. I admit they try my patience. But I do not respond with snide comments unless they shot across my bow first. I do not fire unless fired upon. And lastly, I do not think you are a horrible person. Horrible people do not have a passion as you do for this topic. As for your anger issues, you look like a young person in your photo. Mellowing out comes with age. Try Tai Chi. I use to use it when in the fire service. It helped me to slow my breathing so I could get more air time from my tanks in a fire.One more thing, despite some of the responses I have read, I always give respect to the writer, even when they attack me, I respectfully answer them and I am also respectful when I zing them back. You cannot take this personal. One thing I have learned in life, respect goes a long way.
I am sure we will be answering each other again in the future. I look forward to it
They don't have to do anything personally to me. They are propagating lies and misinformation to the detriment of my country, my future and the future of my family. When you come on here and lie about things, or misrepresent, or present claims that you might not understand...which harm my country, then you ARE doing something personal enough to me, not you personally in this context, but in general.
I fight this fight not because I am angry, or because I am a bleeding heart, or a tree hugger, but because I actually care about your kids, about you, about my family. My economic perspectives are not to make things easy for the poor, but because I believe them to be economically sound. Are deficits horrible? Absolutely...at least to an extent, extending a deficit to stimulate the economy, to keep money flowing during a freeze, then minor is understandable and needed. What we have isn't. I get that. However, the deficit spending was needed when you are losing 700,000 jobs per month and there was a credit freeze to the point that company's were not making payroll. Were two unfunded tax cuts? Nah, I don't think so...particularly at a time when personal income taxes are lower than they have been in 60 years, and the major corporations are paying an average of 2.2% in corporate taxes, while Republicans give tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. I do get on here and vent though. I get out quite a bit of anger I build up during the day, but the anger is only from and channeled through political arenas. I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Phil Henry, Michael Savage on occasion, NPR, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and that new guy who replaced Olberman who's name I can never remember. SO, I inundate myself with this stuff constantly. Because I care about it so much and believe it so important, I get pissed.
Now on a personal note...I am 34, so I appreciate if that is young. That makes me feel good. I feel old. My neck hurts.
Personally, I can't get you figured out. You appear to be a nice guy...calm, well mannered, and polite. You claim you look stuff up to find out if you are right, which hey, who am I to claim you don't? The problem is, in your posts, there are really easy verifiable falsehoods. You leave words out of quotes that change the meaning to your point; you attribute quotes to people who never said them. You claim the direct opposite of what happened with regards to why Republicans blocked the Zagroda bill, and who put the provision about them being checked on the terrorist watch list in. Over and over again these things are so outlandishly false, and so easy to check, that I can't get passed how much it seems intentional. How can anyone be so false unless they are actually trying to be? I can't get it, while you are so nice and seem like a good guy.
As for the respect issue, I am torn here on this as well, and hopefully I am just looking at it wrong. I find neocons to be directly causing harm to not only the country, but the world, in both economic and social arenas. The statements thrown around about birth certificates and FEMA camps, and defending invading Iraq, and them wrapping it in a blanket of patriotism and in the name of a God is a tough thing to swallow when they are so wrong, so heinous in their results, and so inherently egotistical. That is very disrespectful to me, in my mind...to all of us. Someone arguing over whether deficit spending is great. That is an issue. We can debate that. Arguing over whether having a safety net like SS or Medicare is economically viable is a great debate. However, when the debate goes into changing actual history, ignoring data, and basically reacting, then I can't do anything other than explain how ignorant it is...and prove it. My claims usually end in the sound of crickets, when eventually they won't acknowledge they were wrong and go on to find another way they can point the finger at Obama, think up another clever name for him, playing in the sandbox with the other children. Prove me wrong man. That was the original point of this, an exchange of ideas in search of something true or a middle ground. When I get defeated, I admit it. I don't keep going and break down my argument to "nuh-uh." The problem is, neocons on here don't win the arguments...seemingly because their arguments are wrong.
Well if being angry is your excuse for what you do, so be it. But do not tell me you fight for your country. You have no clue what it takes to fight for your country and for the honor of your family. I noticed in all your ranting, you say nothing about honor.
You need to stop accusing people of lieing when you are not accurate about a suject. You say you want to fight the wrongs. Then where were you when the Zagroda bill was being voted on. I am highly insulted by congress and the President for allowing the provision you say I lie about. I never made any statements about the name of the person who put the rider on the bill, it is inmaterial. The fact is it was voted into law. That means all who voted yes and Obama for sighning it were for the rider. Just so you know, I will not be submitting any information. I gave all for 15 years and this is how my country treats me? And I never said the oppisite of what the Repubs did. I looked at the video you sent me to see and Coburn clearly states in 2 seperate interviews "that congress should spend as much as needed. It was not about money, there are many issues wrong with this bill"
I could go on but I have had enough. You went off an a tanget in your thread. Take some advise from you elder( since you posted your age, I am 51) learn to chanel your anger. otherwise you will be dead from a corenary by the time you are 40. I was serious, do not take this seriously. I agree these issues you stated and many more are very important. You said several times I seem calm. I am very calm, something else I have learned to do. People here will respect you and take you more serious if you try it. Nothing is ever gained by using insults. As the old commecial once said" try it youll like it". OK that was before your time.
Here is a description of liberalism from America's premiere playwright, David Mamet. After sending decades immersed in the most liberal profession - the theater - he has come to his senses.
"Liberalism is a religion," he writes. "It affords a feeling of spiritual rectitude at little or no cost. Central to this religion is the assertion that evil does not exist, all conflict being attributed to a lack of understanding between the opposed. Well and good, but this does not accord with the experience of anyone."
That;s an interesting description. It has nothing to do with what I associate liberism with. I know for a fact that evil exists. All one needs to do is locate the nearest rightwing christian conservative organization and you found it. It's not a lack of understanding between the apposed in a conflict, it's a decision between obeying commands from above or thinking for one's self. Conservatism seems to require the faithful to accept any and all lies no matter how many decades they have been told the same lies. Aconservative still repeats the mantra that states the tax cuts for the wesalthy will create jobs. The fact that they haven't done so in the 10 years of their existance is not relevant to the mantra. Just keep on sayin it and it might happen some day, LMAO if you believe this one or any of the other hundred zingers they got. That's a conservative estimate on my part, BTW.
OMG, has this definition been distorted. Let us all applaud the digitally signed PATRIOT ACT, the end of Freemen in the U.S.A.!!
I thought liberals were against Bush's Fascist, Oppressive, Tyrannical, Freedom Ending atrocity of Constitutional infringement!!
You see, you gain no ground with me, with regards to the particular topic....
The "left" is no better than the "right" and the "right" are just as bad, if not worse than the "left".
It's all about politicians doing whatever they can to separate or divide the population, so unity cannot ever be possible.
It's odd that 98% if not 100% of the pathetic people in office are religious to begin with....so that alone should tell you something.
You want to talk politics? Bring something more than the sad usual argument of left versus right.
I agree... I have been called all manner of evil, by both sides, for just trying to provide facts. I got heavier arsenal fire from individuals who associate with Republicans merely because they couldn't refute me. It's a no-win situation for we who don't belong.
The need to categorize people must end.
Ya have a point there, Cags. Everyone SHOULD be moving in the same direction, thinking the same thoughts and working towards common goals.
Therefore, I shall not rest until the entire world sees things, feels things and does things the way *I* perceive as absolutely the best way. So stop with all this Leftist drivel and join me in Global Unity:
"One World, under Crunchy, with Liberty and Justice for All."
Petroleum Production will ramp up all over the world, so energy will be inexpensive and Innovators will have better access to private money to fund their dreams.
Taxes will be LOW and flat, so every man and woman can keep far more of what they themselves produce, which always tends to promote efficiency and productivity.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases." ~Thomas Jefferson~
So naturally, we'll keep the government small, fearful of the people it governs, and barely funded. It's MY government, and *I* always have to live within my means, so it should too.
You on board with me, Cags and co?
Dude, even your quotations are built on lies. Are you from the Onion? Is this a joke?
"a basic web search on key phrases from the quote shows that this has been widely (though unreliably) attributed to Thomas Jefferson. A useful tip-off that this is questionable, besides the sound of the language, is that none of the Jefferson attributions cite a source. This is an example of what has been called the "echo effect" of the web (though it is certainly not new to this medium), whereby faulty information gets repeated , especially when it suits an ideological purpose, without fact-checking. Eventually you have dozens of websites, filling the first several pages of search results, repeating baseless information."
Do you put even the slightest effort into these posts? That quote was attributed to Jefferson, Reagan, Goldwater....it is based on a Gerald Ford quote from 1974. Seriously man...how are you going to debate when your posts are a wicker basket of hypocrisy, leaking all over the place? WEAK!
Thank you, Tex. I found the quote on a Thomas Jefferson Quotes page at Goodreads.com. I had no reason to believe it was anything other than as presented.
I sincerely appreciate you setting me straight on that. And, if I might paraphrase Barbara Streisand when she publicly stepped on her tongue over a completely false, never heard ever before Shakespeare quote... Even if he didn't say it, it still rings true.
WOW Mr. KNOWITALL met his match! Good job with this sad individual. All he does his ridicule people in every post. Glad To see you school him, I seen him write he was teaching history and made half truths about Israel, Now I see he is into logistics which means he is probably working for UPS or the like. Next he will state he was a scientist and knows the true creation of humans. He must really be one miserable person to have to degrade others to make himself feel good. I kinda feel bad for him. very sad
What are you on Danny?
Striped Crunchie accepted that they where wrong and that somehow in your book translates as "WOW Mr. KNOWITALL met his match!"
Unless of course you meant Striped had met his match!
It was nice of Striped to write that though. That is cool Striped...rarely to people own up on here. I never understand why. Thanks man...
...and nice of John as always. And yes Danny, I USED to teach various history survey classes as a grad student, but now I run a logistics company, or manage the operations at least. I definitely don't run it...the people who do are much smarter than I....usually. I did get a B.A. in history and then an M.A. in history, write basically a book for a thesis, and had to defend it verbally in front of a very cynical panel of real know-it-alls...who definitely all knew more than me. See what education does? Neato huh?
There was only one perfect man, and I am SOOO far from anything even close to perfect. I always like hearing new facts, Tex. Thank you, once again.
Other than naming the wrong man as the quoter, are you with me on the rest of that post? You only addressed the Jefferson issue, which might lead some to believe you have no other problems with small government, low taxes and the like.
Shall we proceed in unity?
atheists make me laugh. Thanks for tickling my funny bone. I haven't had a good laugh in days. You guys are so much funnier than liberals they are so serious.
Yeah, I know, some of the make me laugh too. I guess, you posted to my post for some other reason than to post this comment? I only say that, because I am not atheist.
Such a witty comment. Where do you find the time?
Oh, I am sure that's a lie or at least a stretch of truth(white lie). Not too surprising.
I find both of them quite funny at times. Just like I find your posts to be the same.
But, I am sure, you posted to my post, as I said. So clarify? Because, you've obviously not a clue, either about my religious position and/or my political position.
Perhaps I was wrong. You do seem to be rather serious.
When I am with friends and family, there isn't a need to be serious, unless it is specifically warranted. However, dealing with some of the people who come into HP's forum, serious is all there is, especially when "religion" and "politics" are being discussed.
Why? Because, it needs to be. There isn't anything that is actually funny about the problems in America and I am done putting up with those who choose to talk the talk, instead of walk the walk.
If you're not going to part of the solution, then you are against a solution arriving, then that makes you a problem.
I do find it amazing that you believe in a solution when what you are witnessing is humanity's baser nature asserting itself. We are finished as a free people. When the American revolutionary spirit faded so did the prospects for liberty. It is only a matter of time before Americans are in the streets demanding to be cared for as pets just as Greeks are now.
Interesting statement. So, I guess, you will remain a problem. Good to know for future communications. Thank you for the warning.
Just another stick in the pudding. I have seen, heard and read enough to conclude that we are finished. It is okay just hold on and remember to breath. Do you have your towel? Fold it and put it under your head when you lie down. Don't panic. People lived for a very long time making babies, having friends and getting drunk even during the height of Soviet communism.
See you on the potato line, comrade.
Too late. Americans ARE behaving as pets. Why not, the system is geared for it.
Be careful, I am a liberal atheist. I will tickle your funny bone one minute and wack you in the kneecap with an oversized wrench, the next. JUst to make it hurt more, know that it will be a union made wrench. I used to use a wrench made by the Palin company but it kept quitting halfway thru every job it undertook.
Stick with the atheist grumbling that is when you guys are funniest. Any direct attempt by an atheist to be genuinely funny usually misses.
The funniest atheist was Douglas Adams. I am not sure if he was a liberal.
Liberals (and atheists too, evidently) will always tell you who they fear the most. They never do it directly, and they seem to feel Saul Alinsky's "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it..." is always the best response to that which they fear.
Every day from the Left I hear anti-Palin muck-raking, which leads me to believe they KNOW how big a Force she is. They do not automatically knee-jerk negative connotations about Bob Dole or Bobby Jindal, because neither one is a serious threat to their messiah.
If Sarah Barracuda were as laughable and insignificant as they want to portray her, she would get as much attention from the Left as the Right currently gives John Edwards. Their very attempts at humor only prove how nervous and anxious she makes them.
If you want to know who NOT to pick for the Republican candidacy for President, look for the people the Left tells you "have a shot" at it. They never EVER want to actually see a winner enter the ring against them.
Anyone here know anything about politics? IF you would notice, all of the ones who have announced their run for the POTUS, are not democrats. Here is why: A democrat sits in the OVAL. IF: Obama had announced that he would not seek re-election, then the field would be wide open, and it would look like 2 teams lining up for the world series. Of course Obama is running. And the dems would look stupid AND divided to run someone else against him, just as no GOPers ran against Bush in his second run. It simply isn't done. Class over. Remember to read the next chapter, we'll have a snap quiz on Tuesday.
The Democrat Party is under no obligation to run Obambi for a second term. Any serious Democrat contender is welcome to announce he (or she) is running for the Democrat nomination, and make as good an effort as they see warranted. It's just standard practice to run your sitting President, because conventional wisdom holds that he is the best candidate a Party can field.
Fortunately, Presidents like Obambi and Jimmycarter, while very appealing to their kook fringe base, never really have a chance for a second term. Even against the RINO McCain, the Dems didn't really win the "landslide" they'd predicted (hoped for). Nothing at all like the drubbing Reagan gave to Carter, then Mondale. Or the shellacking GHW handed to Dukakis.
I'm very excited for the Left to keep Obambi as their guy. I only hope I can still afford the party I'll have to throw when he loses.
I have never seen a person so transparent in their hypocrisy in pointing the finger, while being the epitome of the very accusation.
I did say: It's simply not done. Hasn't in my lifetime. Been around half a century.
What I think is hilarious is 99% of liberals have never read a word of Alinsky, while 99% of Republicans have.
Funny, Just for laughs I emailed 15 Dems yesterday. So far only 9 have responded to my question about Alinsky. All 9 answered the same. Looks like you were wrong again.
At last a thing upon which we can agree. Who has that kind of time to squander?
I dunno, I think we've managed agreement once or twice before
I'd be interested to see the sort of leading question he asked . . . no, sorry, I wouldn't.
I have crossed smashing my head against walls off my list. I have little time to waste on changing made up minds. I do like flexing some word and thought muscles but draw the line at ramming headlong into ideological walls. I find that quite dull.
The question was quite simple. Have you heard of or read any of the published works of Saul Alinsky?
Reveille for Radicals
John L. Lewis: An Unauthorized Biography
Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals
I am not bored. First it is real easy to email congressman. It took about 10 to 15 minutes. And I do have a lot of time on my hand I have been in a hospital since December so I have a lot of time on my hands. Thats why I can do indepth research on a subject and write the facts. Its just a shame those with closed or made up minds do not accept it. Tex is one of those. Making a statement of nonfact, which he is the king of, was interesting to me. So I decided to check it out, but of course there is no way of knowing if his claim of 99% was true. That is not something that can be found in a report, it was strictly an opinion. So I emailed them I did not waant to email them all, so I email the first 15 on the directory. Truthfully, I did not expect to get any responses
From Tex, Would that not show that Liberals just vote without any knowledge? He just proved that republicans know about things and liberals do not! pretty sad if you ask me. They do not even know what the socialist party is trying to do.
you couldn't afford a union wrench! maybe a wench.
Atheists make you laugh? People believing in talking donkeys, living inside of a fish for 3 days, and living hundreds of years with giants is cool, but Atheists make you laugh? Hmmm....very strange statement.
That's the way it is. It's funny to believe what "I" don't. We call that winning by ridicule.
Did Obama live inside a fish? Well, then he's obviously not a true democrat. They would have stayed there.
"I was there when GHW barfed next to the Japanese PM. He was ill, but still trying to respect the Office of the President. GHW was mortified, and accepted the PM's teasing when the Rice Soup they offered him was "grown in Japan."
I heard he may have been poisoned. Also, Laura said she and George may have been poisoned once too.
"Laura Bush is suggesting she, her husband, and several aides were poisoned during a 2007 visit to Germany for the G8 summit -- one of several new details in the former first lady's forthcoming memoir, "Spoken from the Heart."
Due to be released May 4 but acquired early by The New York Times, Mrs. Bush says she and former President George W. Bush became mysteriously sick on the Germany trip to such a degree that the president became bedridden. According to Mrs. Bush, doctors and the Secret Service investigated the possibility that a poisoning had occurred but were unable to make a definitive conclusion."
Some researcher says that the 2 factions who run everything are 1.Rothschilds, and 2.Rockefellers...
Can't remember which faction Bush senior is loyal too...he's a Knight of Malta...if that means anything.
But I read they fight each other for power and dominion.
Thanks for the link and the news, lovemy. I'm not really sure how it pertains to this discussion, but it was interesting to watch. I'm also not at all sure what you were trying to imply. Am I remiss or responsible for a President feeling ill? Is Laura Bush silly to think someone might want to poison her? What's your point?
As far as the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, two "maybe" power broking families, I'm not much of a Da Vinci Code conspiracy type. For blatant string-pulling and influence peddling, we need look no farther than George Soros, the deep pockets openly behind our current Bungler-in-Chief. George is the whip-hand and funding source for a great many Leftist organizations that are all clearly in the tank for Obambi.
If you really want a "Global Conspiracy" to sink your teeth into, look to Islam. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and a funding network that puts the Rothschild fortune to shame, all with the written, clearly stated goal of World Wide Islam. The return of the Caliphate and Sharia as the only legal authority used anywhere in the world.
There, lovemy, is a grand, secretive, truly bent on world domination "conspiracy" for you to worry about. This one even has its own websites and political policy statements, so you don't have to surf www.I'manutjobwithtoomuchtimeonmyhands.org (or Huffpo) to get the latest innuendo.
No thanks. I do not subscribe to your world view.
And I would geuss Soros is in the Rothschild Cabal...
making him a Zionist: The real threat in my world view.
"When young Gyorgy Schwartz enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1947 he changed his surname to Soros. In 1956 Soros settled in NYC. George Soros then built his multi-billionaire international hedge fund called the Quantum Fund.
Geroge Soros is known for saving George Bush Jr from a 1990 bankruptcy. Soros still works with Bush Sr in the Carlyle Group a powerful financial organization & international weapons dealer controlled by the Rothschilds who own Vickers Munitions Here."
GEEEE! I never heard about Soros when W was president!
Guess Zionism knows no political ties, huh? Just National. And NOT to my country.
Try again hasbarat....you people are transparent.
Since we were told by a Navy intelligence analyst that Bibiguns sent Orley Taitz here....all these anti-Obama bloggers, you can bet, have the same tie. And like I said, it's NOT to my country.
Lovemy, I really want to make sense of what you're saying, if only to, well, make sense of what you're saying. Have you been drinking? I did warn you about getting your info from places like Huffpo.
George Soros was born to Tividar and Erzebat Schwartz, non-practicing Jews, in Budapest, Hungary on August 12, 1930. Tivadar was an attorney by profession, but the consuming passion of his life was the promotion of Esperanto―an artificial, “universal” language created during the 1880s in hopes that people worldwide might be persuaded to drop their native tongues and speak Esperanto instead―thereby, in theory at least, minimizing their nationalist impulses while advancing intercultural harmony. In 1936, Tivadar changed his family surname to Soros―a future-tense Esperanto verb meaning “will soar.”
Both the ACLU and HRW (two VERY Leftist organs) have long promoted one of the central contentions of Soros's Open Society Institute: the notion that America is institutionally an oppressive nation and a habitual violator of human rights both at home and abroad―indeed, the very antithesis of the type of “open society” Soros reveres. Where did you get that Soros ever did ANYTHING to help out a Bush?
Consider first the ACLU, whose advisory board once included the former Weather Underground terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers, from whose home Obambi announced and launched his political career. The ACLU has opposed virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government, depicting those measures not only as excessively harsh and invasive generally, but also as discriminatory against Muslims in particular. Moreover, the organization has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to limit the government's ability to locate, monitor, and apprehend terrorist operatives. It consistently depicts American society as one that is rife with intractable racial injustice. And it works tirelessly to protect illegal immigrants against “governmental abuse and discrimination.”
These (and many other) ACLU activities and policy positions are entirely consistent with those of Aryeh Neier and George Soros, as evidenced by the fact that between 1999 and 2008, OSI awarded $8.69 million in grants to the ACLU Foundation.
Those seem to be the people who share your "world view" lovemy, and they are also the people who pull Obama's strings.
Well, I guess he's an equal-opportunity guy, huh?
He did after all help littel George, AND is part of Carlyle Group...with Bush's and Bin-Ladens.
And I agree with the ACLU....and do not read Huffpo.
So, as you see---I do not agree with your world-view, never will.
None so deaf as those who cover their ears and scream LALALALALALA. Ain't that right, lovemy?
I'm impressed that you're not a Huffpo reader. Now, if we can only stop you from spending all your time at www.I'manutjobwithwaytoomuchtimeonmyhands.org
Or better yet, post a link to some news article where Soros gave a flippin' DIME to a conservative of any stripe... George Soros is the billionaire who publicly stated he would spend $25mil of his own fortune to ensure G Dubya never got a second term. http://www.newsweek.com/2004/10/17/rich … usade.html
Bring facts to the table, lovemy. Persuade me with logic and truth, not innuendo and half-truth.
I'm not trying to persuade you of anything.
You are convinced of your world-view, just as much as I am mine.
Nothing I say will convince you otherwise, nor will you me.
I just admit it---you act like you have an open mind. You don't. You think you know the answers. I say you don't.
I keep hoping you'll express your actual World View at some point, lovemy. So far though, you've only made off-the-wall statements having zip to do with the conversation, and said you disagree with me.
About what, exactly? Seriously. Have you been drinking?
"In 1984 Bush merged Arbusto with another one of his companies,
Spectrum 7. In 1985, Spectrum 7 lost 1.6 million dollars. Bush was doomed for failure. The oil boom in Texas had long ended. The next year Spectrum 7 owed over 3 million dollars. Then as if there was really a stroke of luck, Billionaire financier George Soros bailed him out and bought his company for 2.25 million. Bush made 600,000 dollars out of the deal, including a seat on the board of directors making 120,000 dollars a year. In 1989 after Spectrum 7 merged with Harken energy, Harken lost 12 million dollars. In 1990 Harken lost 40 million
dollars. (Unger, 118)"
'House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties',by Craig Unger
Stroke of luck, huh? Not on your life. He's playin you MATE. Are you on drugs?
its not possible because of bad policies of him, he even dont know what decision he have to take, I am not against but many time media prove it he is fail to answer questions about his activities
Whoa! The Bush's played us all!!!
"On June 22nd 1990 Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harkens stock for $848,560. It turns out Harken's second quarter losses were 23 million dollars. It was at this point that the SEC decided to investigate Bush for insider trading. However Bush declined to hand over any documents citing Attorney Client privilege. August 21st 1991 the SEC decided not to charge Bush with insider trading.
It turns out that the Chairman of the SEC, Richard Breedon, was a former lawyer from James Baker's law firm Baker-Botts, and had been nominated by Bush's Father, the President at the time, to the post as head of the SEC. (124) James Baker was Bush's father's Secretary of State. Furthermore the SEC's generalcounsel, James Doty also belonged to James Baker's lawfirm. Doty later recused himself. Doty also represented Bush when he tried to buy the Texas Rangers Baseball team.
Bush's lawyer Robert Jordan was law partners with Doty and Breedon in the Baker-Botts lawfirm. Bush later appointed him to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia."
well well well.
hoohooo--you wanna talk about Soros!!!! At least he wasn't the prez, and a crook!!
Where is your outrage for Clinton when she was investigated by the SEC for insider trading but no charges were filed? She turned $1,000 into $100,000 in less than1 year. Bush owned his stock for a little over 6 years and sold it to pay off a loan to purchase the Texas Rangers. One more thing, you insinuate that the company went into major distress after Bush sold his stock at $ 4 per share. He stock was worth $ 8 less than a year later. IF bush would have waited, his profit would have been twice than what it was. Do not take my word for it. Here are the facts:
Spectrum 7 purchase
George W. Bush ran an energy company called Spectrum 7 during the 1980s. In the mid 1980s the oil market was in a terrible slump, with prices going lower daily. The firm was in serious financial trouble until, that year, another company, a distressed oil properties specialist Harkin Energy, purchased Spectrum 7. Part of the attraction for Harken's management to buy Spectrum 7 was having Mr. Bush on its team — his father was then Vice-President, he had extensive "connections," and knowledge of the oil and gas business. Harken Energy offered Mr. Bush a seat on the board of directors along with stock worth about $500,000 at the time. Additionally, Mr. Bush received a consulting contract worth between $80,000 and $120,000 annually.
In 1987 and 1988, George W. Bush dedicated himself (and much of his efforts) to the presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, his father. Fortunes turned for Mr. Bush, and the following year he invested in the Texas Rangers. To help pay for the investment in the baseball team, he borrowed a sum of $600,000 dollars; to pay off the loan, he sold his stock in Harken Energy. That investment paid off handsomely for him, not only monetarily. As team owner, the popularity derived from his public persona lead to the invitation to run for governor of Texas and ultimately, two terms as President.
Bush's stock sale
George W. Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken Energy at $4 a share on June 22, 1990, for a grand total of $848,560. Two months later, August 20, Harken announced a larger than expected loss for the previous quarter. Surprisingly, the price of the company's stock shares barely went down at first, following these two negative, or "bearish," events. In the ensuing months, Harken's stock price did drift ever downward to $1.25 by the end of the year. The stock price then recovered its value and more the following year, however. Strange behavior for the stock. The sale of the large block of shares had become widely publicized and allegations of the use of insider information and improper stock transactions were leveled at Mr. Bush.
Mr. Bush has denied any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, an investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was initiated. The investigation focused on three questions surrounding the transaction and the president's actions - Was there prior knowledge of the loss reported in August? Did Mr. Bush attempt to avoid the loss of value of his property based on insider's information? And, did the August announcement of a bigger than expected loss lead to a loss of value of property for investors in the company?
The SEC's exhaustive investigation examined thousands of pages of documents. Additionally, and in an unusual move, Mr. Bush waived client-attorney privileges so the attorneys could be questioned, with no doubts remaining on the subject. Regarding whether Mr. Bush knew in advance about the losses, the SEC investigators found that, "The evidence establishes that George W. Bush was not aware of the majority of the items that comprised the loss Harken announced on August 20." The SEC investigators concluded that the loss resulted from write-downs and expenses that occurred after he sold his stock. Basically an outsider, Mr. Bush did not usually receive the Executive Committee's Weekly Flash Reports on the company's financial condition. In short, concluded an SEC investigative memo, George W. Bush was not particularly informed about the company's finances.
Regarding whether the stock was deliberately sold in time to avoid losing money before bad news was made public, the SEC found that Mr. Bush did not initiate the sale, but was contacted by a stockbroker who offered to buy a large block of Harken stock. There was evidence that before selling the stock, company Board Member Bush checked with inside and outside company executives, fellow directors and legal experts concerning the sale of his stock. The SEC report read, "In light of the facts uncovered, it would be difficult to establish that, even assuming (Mr.) Bush possessed material nonpublic information, he acted with sentience or intent to defraud".
Whether the news of Harken's unexpectedly large loss hurt the company's investors unfairly was quickly discarded after the SEC examined Harken Energy's share price just before and just after news of the loss was made public. Though the price dropped about 20% that day, the move downward was not immediate, and the price rebounded to $3 the following day. If indeed the announcement had caused a loss of confidence in the company, SEC investigators reasoned, the stock would most likely have fallen down immediately and stayed down. "The conclusion of the Office of Economic Analysis is that, because the price of Harken did not immediately react to the earnings announcement and there is no news that explains Harken's return to its pre-announcement price of $3 on August 21, 1990, the earnings announcement did not provide investors with new material information," the SEC wrote. Moreover, the stock rebounded the next year and hit $8 a share.
Hilary was not president for 8 years, nor was her father a president before her. Nor did her father work for the CIA, nor were her father's friends in charge of the SEC when she was investigated.
I am focused on Bushco. Will be until those criminals are held to account. YOU can focus on Hilary if that floats your boat.
You cannot have it both ways, if Bush was guilty, so was Hillary. Period. who was what, whos father was what is inmaterial. Insider thrading is insider trading. Ask Martha Stewart
By the way LMC, you were the one who brought the subject up. I just showed the facts of the issue
And I told you, I am focused on Bushco. You want to make Hilary your thing...go for it.
And it's funny you see nothing wrong with all these inside connections that were going on in the gvt of a country.
It's called corruption.
And I'm talking since the 1970's.
That is fact also.
Show me where I said I see nothing wrong. Face it, All politicians have inside connections as you call them. Like that is something new. But once more you cannot have it one way, if one is guilty they all are guilty.Bushco is long gone, Obamaco is in office now. Time to move on. And I only focus on my Kids. I could care less what the rest of them do, including Hillary unless she runs against Obama. I would not have voted for her if she was the nomine but She has earned my vote. I thought she was going to be a joke in the Obama administration. But she has really grown and I believe she would be a better POTUS than Obama.
A ham sandwich would be a better president then Obama!
Danny. That's just silly. A ham sandwich! Obambi could beat a ham sandwich. Unless it had, you know... Cheese on it. Then he'd lose. But only if it was a melted slice of American cheese. Or, maybe a thick slice of Swiss.
But a regular, ordinary no cheese day old white bread no mayo no mustard dry ham sandwich, HE COULD BEAT. So you take that back!
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Saudi Prince the 2nd biggest contributor to Fox Snooze? And didn't Fox Snooze do this:
SOROS DONATES A LOT OF MONEY? HOW ABOUT MURDOCH DONATING AN ENTIRE NETWORK TO THE BUSHIES?
FOX News Decries Dems Getting Soft Money Support From Billionaire George Soros, But Fails To Mention The Billionaires, Such As FOX Owner Murdoch, Who Have Been Giving Republicans Countless Billions In Soft Money Support For Years Now
by Betsy R. Vasquez
What we need is Ron Paul to be our President. Or a resurrection of JFK...
I can't speak for Texasbeta, but I think his point was that some people (hubbers) use Christianity as a shield to justify their political positions. When, in fact, their positions cannot be justified by the Bible -- at least not the New Testament. In fact, they are rather selective in which parts of the Bible they select vs. neglect.
And the overarching point is that if Jesus were here today, he would not be a member of the Tea Party.
But that's just my interpretation.
Meanwhile, keep up the great work on the fact-finding and analyses. Most refreshing! .
Nothing matters for the republicans from now on. Romney is their leading candidate.
Romney as President..... that would almost be worthwhile just for the belly laughs!
None of those countries were socialist, and many weren't republican, though they claimed to be.
Danny, first learn what socialism is before you embarrass yourself following other people's agendas.
It is public fact that those countries claim to be socialist! so now you want to argue with known facts? Why would they claim to be and not be??? and I'm embarrassing myself? John you can google it! why because you want full 100% socialism? 50% socialism doesn't work never mind 100% Remember you will always run out of other peoples money!
I guess the republican party isn't really republican either? Just because they claim to be doesn't mean they are.... is that right John?
You tell me!
Oh, by the way, you didn't provide a link for your list, however, I think I found it, and the bit you missed off it;-
"This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism."
See that Danny, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so … _countries
if a country claims to be...they are! and your going to tell me out of all those countries, none of them are socialist????
Ah ha, so I had found the same list, in which case all I can do is repeat;-
"This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism."
Will Romney win? Will America be run from Salt Lake City by a mormon fundy?
I don't think so, but the embarrassment in the republican circles will be fun to watch.
Romney has been on both sides of every fence available, but I feel confident his peers will tell him what he believes this week.
Romney is a weather vane politician. When the wind blows the vane moves. I doubt that he will get the nomination but you won't like who does. It will most likely be someone with more spine and less interest in a social welfare state than Romney.
I can't think of another candidate other than Ron Paul.
If you are talking about the loony tongue talking fundy nut case Palin, then I have to say that if she gets in that is proof to me that America is finito.
If the public are partisan to that degree then I am buying more gold. A lot more gold!
My guess is you would see Australia as socialist. Good social security, free health care, reasonable politics.
............also the strongest economy of all the developed nations.
You could say pretty much the same about Germany as well, though I would call them mixed economies, a distinction that eludes Danny.
A lot of things seem to elude Danny.
Obama is trying to drag America screaming in to this century.
Not many successful modern countries are without free or subsidised health care.
America will change or die.
I keep hearing from the Obama haters that he is responsible for the financial mess the country is in, yet he was not incumbent for the cause. That was the previous government and the mess is huge.
Then they put as many obstacles in his way as they can to stop him from fixing it.
The republicans are probably going to lie and cheat themselves and America in to a third world country within the next 2 to 3 years.
My predictions have been spot on for the gold price for 2 years by following the politics of America, and I sincerely hope I am wrong about the situation going forward on this matter of world importance.
Blaming the previous administration is a slight of hand. The spending started going out of control after the mid-term elections of Nov 2006. From Jan 2007 to the Jan 2010 mid terms the democrats owned both the House and the Senate. They were so comfortable with their position that the failed to even generate budgets after Bush's last year in office. The spending in terms of welfare, etc. expanded gigantically in that time. The Bush Administration warned Congress in 2007 that the financial situation with Clinton's Fair Housing Act was in a dangerous situation with a lot of high risks loans in the float. But, these loans were all guaranteed by the Feds so the dems just shrugged their shoulders and ignored it. Bush's spending is pretty that of a war president and yes, it did cost some money to fight the war on terror but then what you have proposed at 9/11...shrugging your shoulders and going back to the White House to plan your next golf game? Sadam Hussein played a bad poker hand if what he says is the truth. He attempted to spread the rumor of WMD's to suppress Iran from attacking Iraq. In the process, he gave America good cause to believe him especially after the events of 9/11. Keep in mind Hussein's actions in the earlier Gulf War...he was not to be believed. Afghanistan was a must. It was stronghold for terrorism training and would be much worse today had we not gone there. The reality is that you always pay a price for war and sooner or later that involves the lives of people. Had we not shed blood on the grounds of Afghanistan then possibly we might have shed even more blood of innocent people on the shores of America. That point quickly became obvious to Obama after he took office and failed to pull out of Afghanistan. In terms of Iraq, we have invested far too much in it to quit now and leave it to civil war. We must stabilize that government if Iraq is to provide crude oil to the world demand, otherwise the entire world suffers at some point. Our national debt has increased by roughly four trillion dollars since the democrats gained control of both houses in 2007 and skyrocketed when Obama came into office. Obama's stimulus package was a total waste of taxpayer money going too often to far fetched ideas or symbolic gestures for the greening of America. Some lined the pockets of big unions...i.e. the bailout of GM where the America taxpayer only lost 14 billion dollars...why did we lose anything?? Why isn't GM paying back that money? Gold prices will continue to climb as investors look for places to hide. The treasury continues to drive that worry by continuing to print money and dump it into the economy to stave off inflation. Meanwhile, short term speculators are playing with oil futures to the tune of about 20% of the production. There is such a surplus of oil on the market that producers have no place to put it....yet they speculators are sitting on it hoping to drive the prices higher. Now that demand is dropping, they are losing their nerve and we are seeing some sell off...which is finally driving the price down a bit. Again, they will not let the price reach its own level but will reverse their buying again to artificial drive the fuel prices up in the fall. Each time this happens, the price of diesel fuel goes up and the so does the cost of transportation in terms of both truck shipments and the railroad. That shows up on our grocery shelves ,in retail stores, etc as higher prices to the consumer. That becomes real inflation yet the government is convinced they are controlling inflation by printing more money when in fact all their are doing is destroying the value of the dollar on the world currency market. As the dollars becomes weaker, Wal-Mart buys less goods in Asia for the same amount of money...that means high shelf prices to the consumer in the end. That is inflation at work so the government smoke up our rear to say that they are "managing inflation". We have two major problems....the total national debt size and how to effectively reduce it and the annual budget deficit which is running around 1.5 trillion a year in the red. The dems refuse to recognize a need to reduce spending thus both the annual deficit continues to increase as does the national debt. Eventually our debt ratio exceeds the value of our gross domestic product. In the accounting world, that is the same as saying that your debts have exceeded your assets and you are basically bankrupt. The left side of the aisle refuses to recognize this dilemma and wants to take every proposal (such as that of Paul Ryan) and demonize it then scare the hell out of every senior citizen who depends on either Medicare or Social Security in their later years. This is is damn near bordering on treason as the misinformation is intentional put out to mislead those individuals and skew the vote at the polls. Obama and his liberal cronies are extremely responsible for where we are today. They took action with their stimulus, they promised results that they did not even come close to achieving yet tossed away the better part of a trillion dollars in the process. Then Obama wants to toss more money into infrastructure on to highways and bridges, etc. when we already tax the hell of fuel to support those repairs yet far too much of the money never sees the infrastructure stream...it gets pissed away just like the Social Security funds. Obama is, without a doubt, a socialist in every aspect of life except maybe religion where he tends to be a closet Muslim, if that. His actions so reflect what George Soros wants to do to America that it goes beyond coincidence....he is playing out the same tune in America that was played for Greece and other European countries who are now broke. Socialized medicine will not cure America nor will it cure the ills of the medical industry. Competition in a capitalist environment will do that but Obama is driving the ship in the other direction and he will continue on that path as long as America allows him to stay in office. If this guy were a conservative or a Republican, the libs would be call for and possibly instigating impeachment proceedings against him right now. His actions on Libya are basically a nose-thumb to Congress on the War Powers Act but let's see who has enough balls over there to do anything about it. This country cannot exist without respect for The Rule of Law....Obama is spitting in the face of that Rule and he damn well knows it yet no one is calling his hand. What will his next level of escalation be? One can only guess.
Please Dear God let the Republicans run Palin or Christie! Obama would guarantee to win and we'd get a good laugh in the mean time!
That's the spirit, Paul! You keep that Obambi doofus as your front-runner.
Got a question for ya though, Mr. Wingert. Lets say for a minute that I wanted to know who Paul Wingert was: What he stood for, what kind of person he was, how smart he was and generally if he was good guy or not.
Only, instead of letting Paul speak for himself, I only spoke to people who hated Paul so deeply they'd be happier if he were dead. Preferably after a lot of pain. You know; ex-wife's family after an ugly divorce level hate.
And even if I screwed up and heard something good Mr. Wingert said himself, I immediately had one of those people who hate him with frothing mouth tell me what THEY think he REALLY meant when he said that, and how stupid it was to their way of thinking.
Do you believe I'd have a reasonable opinion of good Mr. Wingert? Or is a shite load more likely that I'd have a completely skewed negative outlook about someone who I never really got to know a true thing about?
You only know Sarah Palin through the prism of a media which hates and fears her desperately. Are you sure that's how you want to determine your opinions?
Yes, the "media" trembles at the sight of this blithering idiot of Wasilla.
(especially Katie Couric who shows her fear by timidly asking, "which magazines do you read")
She reads "all of them". Every single magazine publication ever printed. lol
Fear is not always expressed by timidity, gentlemen. All I hear from the Left's major media is how absolutely unelectable Sarah is. And damn it! Why won't she come on their shows anymore?? (Because, she is so very good for their ratings.)
These are the same media outlets who swore Nixon, Reagan and Both Bush's could NEVER get elected. They also swore that new kid Obama stood NO chance against Hillary.
I just read an article about Sarah saying "Paul Revere warned the British." An obvious verbal typo, much like Obambi saying he'd campaigned in 57 states, and had 1 left to go. http://youtu.be/EpGH02DtIws
The reporter was frothing at the mouth about how she SHOULD have answered the question, and how obviously this proves she's an idiot (I also recall Right Wing Conspiracy nuts frothing that Islam has 57 states and this proves Obambi's a Muslim!).
But did any of you hear it reported when Obambi said "my policies will necessarily make energy prices skyrocket" during his campaign? Or that his policies would "bankrupt the coal industry"?
The media doesn't fear Sarah personally (well, she's got a conceal/carry permit, maybe they do), they fear what her candidacy will do to their anointed messiah's house of cards.
Obambi has set our economy up to fail, big-time. NO first-term President except Reagan has survived with unemployment over 8%, and your messiah, despite all media reports to the contrary, will never enjoy the popular support Reagan had.
Polls only and always say what the pollster wants them to:
by My Esoteric 20 months ago
Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President. To make their blockade more effective, they also promise to investigate Clinton for...
by Alexander A. Villarasa 4 years ago
The eminent essayist, author and political commentator Charles Krauthammer posited that the ongoing persistence of the disaster that is ObamaCare, could or would start the unraveling of American Liberalism and Progressivism. Quite a leap this idea of Krauthammer's , liberals have...
by Readmikenow 3 weeks ago
I'm sure anyone who has seen my responses on HubPages knows I'm a conservative. I also have relatives who are liberal, gay as well as a recent revelation of a transsexual. So, how do we all get along? We discuss politics but realize family is more important than politics. At...
by Nick Lucas 6 years ago
Do you think political correctness has gone to far and caused many problems?
by Billie Kelpin 10 months ago
Do left-handers tend to be liberal in politics? (i.e. Are Left-handers, left?) .I'd estimate that 7/8 ths of the left-hander I know are liberal Democrats. Seven of the last 13 left-handed Presidents, starting with FDR were Democrats. (BTW - Considering that only 10-13% of the population is...
by John Wilson 20 months ago
Why is it, the "tolerant" democrats break the laws and burn other peoples property? Always, always??I've never seen a bunch of GOP members burn a downtown, burn the American flag, destroy other peoples property.But the democrats seem to do it on a regular basis while calling themselves...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|