The thing I don't get is how Americans can whine about $4/gallon gas when we Swedes just sit quietly and pay double that thanks to our gas taxes. Now that the gas prices hit 15 SEK/liter (about $9.5/gallon) we're starting to get a bit worried though.
- Status
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 640
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]Oh the irony I never really understood how people could even think Obama wasn't born in the US when his birth certificate clearly identifies him as a Hawaii native...Besides, I never got the point of having to be born in the US. Basically, a person who moved to the US when he was, say, 6 can never become president, no matter how competent he is? Seems a bit strange for a nation that apart from 1% natives is made entirely from immigrants...[/citation]
I got a birth certificate that says I was born in the French Canadian part of Hong Kong.
Also, the "1% natives" is a load of crap. If you're born on this soil, you're not an immigrant. You may be DESCENDED from immigrants, but that's not the same thing, peck.
I got a birth certificate that says I was born in the French Canadian part of Hong Kong.
Also, the "1% natives" is a load of crap. If you're born on this soil, you're not an immigrant. You may be DESCENDED from immigrants, but that's not the same thing, peck.
Here's one you leftist-statist clowns really can't refute:
The insane amount of vacationing this guy has had. I hear he broke the record for most
vacations taken a long time ago... are you proud of that? Is THAT what you voted for, a sloth?
Or maybe the fact that NASA now exists to make the Muslim world feel better about the contributions it has made? Are you proud of that?
Or the stimulus spending from Bush which Obama COULD HAVE STOPPED but chose to continue? How's that for change?
Seriously though, it's the PEOPLE who are to blame for electing this fool.
Hopefully they will care more about the issues and research BEYOND the mainstream media once this guy is booted out.
But then again, who am I kidding? Nobody besides him cares enough to even ANNOUNCE his or her candidacy for president.
The insane amount of vacationing this guy has had. I hear he broke the record for most
vacations taken a long time ago... are you proud of that? Is THAT what you voted for, a sloth?
Or maybe the fact that NASA now exists to make the Muslim world feel better about the contributions it has made? Are you proud of that?
Or the stimulus spending from Bush which Obama COULD HAVE STOPPED but chose to continue? How's that for change?
Seriously though, it's the PEOPLE who are to blame for electing this fool.
Hopefully they will care more about the issues and research BEYOND the mainstream media once this guy is booted out.
But then again, who am I kidding? Nobody besides him cares enough to even ANNOUNCE his or her candidacy for president.
[citation][nom]BillehBawb[/nom]Here's one you leftist-statist clowns really can't refute:The insane amount of vacationing this guy has had. I hear he broke the record for most vacations taken a long time ago... are you proud of that? Is THAT what you voted for, a sloth?Or maybe the fact that NASA now exists to make the Muslim world feel better about the contributions it has made? Are you proud of that?Or the stimulus spending from Bush which Obama COULD HAVE STOPPED but chose to continue? How's that for change?Seriously though, it's the PEOPLE who are to blame for electing this fool.Hopefully they will care more about the issues and research BEYOND the mainstream media once this guy is booted out. But then again, who am I kidding? Nobody besides him cares enough to even ANNOUNCE his or her candidacy for president.[/citation]
Actually we can refute it, he's taken less vacation days than any of the the last 4 presidents. This what annoys me about you right wrongist, you don't evn bother looking up anything you just let your mouth spew nonsense all on it's own, here is real analysis of Obama who in fact does not take more vacations than his predecessors!
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
Actually we can refute it, he's taken less vacation days than any of the the last 4 presidents. This what annoys me about you right wrongist, you don't evn bother looking up anything you just let your mouth spew nonsense all on it's own, here is real analysis of Obama who in fact does not take more vacations than his predecessors!
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
What makes me sad is that these people are the people that are going to be voting in the next election i mean seriously we wonder why this country has such bad leadership all we have to look at is who voted for the leadership well anyone who voted for The Big O go look in the mirror now me on the other hand did not vote for either of the McCain or Big O mainly the reason i dident vote for McCain was i was afraid he would expire in office and we would be left with Palin who cant even stop her underage daughter from getting knocked up from an guy that is to told her her anyway by Alaska's own laws her daughters BF should be locked up and be registered as a sex offender and the reason i didn't vote for Big O as there was to much hype in his campaign he was going to change things but never really went into real detail of how he was going to the media is this country elected him long before anyone ever went to vote. like i said what makes me sad and a big scarred is that people that post on here are going to vote
[citation][nom]secolliyn[/nom]What makes me sad is that these people are the people that are going to be voting in the next election i mean seriously we wonder why this country has such bad leadership all we have to look at is who voted for the leadership well anyone who voted for The Big O go look in the mirror now me on the other hand did not vote for either of the McCain or Big O mainly the reason i dident vote for McCain was i was afraid he would expire in office and we would be left with Palin who cant even stop her underage daughter from getting knocked up from an guy that is to told her her anyway by Alaska's own laws her daughters BF should be locked up and be registered as a sex offender and the reason i didn't vote for Big O as there was to much hype in his campaign he was going to change things but never really went into real detail of how he was going to the media is this country elected him long before anyone ever went to vote. like i said what makes me sad and a big scarred is that people that post on here are going to vote[/citation]
Again, you are talking in generalities, specifically, what do you not agree with in terms of how has run the oval office, has he improved the economy , yes, has he reduced unemployment, yes, has he avoided getting us into anymore astronomically costly wars, check yes, ... is the overall health of the nation greater than what it was when he took office, yes, and this is not my opinion, gdp, has gone up , unemployment has gone down, the US has added jobs 13 months in a row, I was disappointed that helathcare did not have a public option, as basically, in it's current incarnation is a money grab for insurance companies, but atleast pre-existing conditions can now not be right for refusal. Oh ... and taxes, Obama gave the largest middle class tax cut in history, yes, people, the largest ever, .... but I know, he's done so much bad, right???? Instead, telling me who you would have voted for, tell me your policy positions, tell me what specifically in Big O's decision making have you not agreed, and tell me why empirically, not in terms of opinion, I want facts, i.e. the dollar is weaker, the country is poorer based on this stat, or something solid, like a fact, before you make another claim about Big O is so bad. You know why birther issue is so big, because, at the end of the day, just like I refuted the claim above that Obama vacations alot, with a simple, fact check, it's too easy to prove that Obama has done a good job on the real issues, so of course, the birther issue because important, because, ti's not meant to discuss the issues , it's meant to play to the right wing racist islama-phobic, we hate minorities, and they are ruining this country propoganda machine. So, while, you keep telling me you hate Obama and how bad of president he is with zero evidence to support it, I'll keep slapping you in the face with cold hard numbers and facts proving the exact opposite. I'm ready when you ... draw!
Again, you are talking in generalities, specifically, what do you not agree with in terms of how has run the oval office, has he improved the economy , yes, has he reduced unemployment, yes, has he avoided getting us into anymore astronomically costly wars, check yes, ... is the overall health of the nation greater than what it was when he took office, yes, and this is not my opinion, gdp, has gone up , unemployment has gone down, the US has added jobs 13 months in a row, I was disappointed that helathcare did not have a public option, as basically, in it's current incarnation is a money grab for insurance companies, but atleast pre-existing conditions can now not be right for refusal. Oh ... and taxes, Obama gave the largest middle class tax cut in history, yes, people, the largest ever, .... but I know, he's done so much bad, right???? Instead, telling me who you would have voted for, tell me your policy positions, tell me what specifically in Big O's decision making have you not agreed, and tell me why empirically, not in terms of opinion, I want facts, i.e. the dollar is weaker, the country is poorer based on this stat, or something solid, like a fact, before you make another claim about Big O is so bad. You know why birther issue is so big, because, at the end of the day, just like I refuted the claim above that Obama vacations alot, with a simple, fact check, it's too easy to prove that Obama has done a good job on the real issues, so of course, the birther issue because important, because, ti's not meant to discuss the issues , it's meant to play to the right wing racist islama-phobic, we hate minorities, and they are ruining this country propoganda machine. So, while, you keep telling me you hate Obama and how bad of president he is with zero evidence to support it, I'll keep slapping you in the face with cold hard numbers and facts proving the exact opposite. I'm ready when you ... draw!
So, the birther issue can die already,
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/04/25/ac.tuchman.birther.part1.cnn
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2011/04/25/ac.tuchman.birther.part1.cnn
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 330
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]BillehBawb[/nom]Here's one you leftist-statist clowns really can't refute:The insane amount of vacationing this guy has had. I hear he broke the record for most vacations taken a long time ago... are you proud of that? Is THAT what you voted for, a sloth?Or maybe the fact that NASA now exists to make the Muslim world feel better about the contributions it has made? Are you proud of that?Or the stimulus spending from Bush which Obama COULD HAVE STOPPED but chose to continue? How's that for change?Seriously though, it's the PEOPLE who are to blame for electing this fool.Hopefully they will care more about the issues and research BEYOND the mainstream media once this guy is booted out. But then again, who am I kidding? Nobody besides him cares enough to even ANNOUNCE his or her candidacy for president.[/citation]
Um bush shattered the record for vacation days taken.. I'm not sure if that actually matters at all. I have no idea what the whole nasa thing meant unless it was a moronic bash on his religion which only makes you look like an ass. The difference from the Bush and obama stimulus spending was obama made them pay it back which is almost all paid back which is something bush didn't do. So whatever obama has spent on it is irrelevant considering its no longer an outstanding debt.
You sound like a person thats mad at life and just spews propaganda to make your self feel better. Though I'm with letting all these companies fall and losing another few hundred millions of jobs. I don't agree with giving money with out forcing being paid back. Maybe if a group of people in the government would let him pass a bill you might see him doing something other then passing butchered bills through that aren't going to do a whole lot of good because it doesn't make rich people more rich.
No one can compare the "obamas war" as its put with iraq. #1 major difference is they asked the UN for help and the world was for it. In iraq we committed what the world would call war crimes by invading a sovereign nation.
But like many i knew obama would be a one term president. I knew he would never be able to fix the past 8 years in 4 and everyone would blame it all on him like it was his fault he was given a destroyed country to fix. Honestly i don't see any pres in the next 8 years REALLY fixing everything that was broken. But the next pres wont have as many issues as obama has had trying to pull us from hell. Once bush started borrowing money from china it was all over. Between that and our broken illegal central banking system and bush's idiotic presidency this country is in big big trouble and its going to take a lot of time to fix it. And all the retards are always going to blame the current pres whoever it might be for nothing more then to be a mouth piece for whatever party they like. Democrat and republican there have been plenty of good presidents but when you pass the buck to another because of ones faults simply because they aren't of your party then your just a moron.
Um bush shattered the record for vacation days taken.. I'm not sure if that actually matters at all. I have no idea what the whole nasa thing meant unless it was a moronic bash on his religion which only makes you look like an ass. The difference from the Bush and obama stimulus spending was obama made them pay it back which is almost all paid back which is something bush didn't do. So whatever obama has spent on it is irrelevant considering its no longer an outstanding debt.
You sound like a person thats mad at life and just spews propaganda to make your self feel better. Though I'm with letting all these companies fall and losing another few hundred millions of jobs. I don't agree with giving money with out forcing being paid back. Maybe if a group of people in the government would let him pass a bill you might see him doing something other then passing butchered bills through that aren't going to do a whole lot of good because it doesn't make rich people more rich.
No one can compare the "obamas war" as its put with iraq. #1 major difference is they asked the UN for help and the world was for it. In iraq we committed what the world would call war crimes by invading a sovereign nation.
But like many i knew obama would be a one term president. I knew he would never be able to fix the past 8 years in 4 and everyone would blame it all on him like it was his fault he was given a destroyed country to fix. Honestly i don't see any pres in the next 8 years REALLY fixing everything that was broken. But the next pres wont have as many issues as obama has had trying to pull us from hell. Once bush started borrowing money from china it was all over. Between that and our broken illegal central banking system and bush's idiotic presidency this country is in big big trouble and its going to take a lot of time to fix it. And all the retards are always going to blame the current pres whoever it might be for nothing more then to be a mouth piece for whatever party they like. Democrat and republican there have been plenty of good presidents but when you pass the buck to another because of ones faults simply because they aren't of your party then your just a moron.
splediferiousone
Distinguished
- Jan 22, 2009
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
4. He has forced the healthcare industry to compete. This means that if you don't have a job. You can get your own health care coverage for about $100 a month, this is a change that has already happened. Look it up, I've already seen the rates I could get if I wasn't employed but since I am employed my coverage is a lot better for roughly the same price.
Wow so that is why my premiums have gone up 30 percent since the passage of the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT. SILLY ME.
Wow so that is why my premiums have gone up 30 percent since the passage of the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT. SILLY ME.
[citation][nom]splediferiousone[/nom]4. He has forced the healthcare industry to compete. This means that if you don't have a job. You can get your own health care coverage for about $100 a month, this is a change that has already happened. Look it up, I've already seen the rates I could get if I wasn't employed but since I am employed my coverage is a lot better for roughly the same price.Wow so that is why my premiums have gone up 30 percent since the passage of the AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT. SILLY ME.[/citation]
Your premiums went up because the healthcare industry as any corporation can charge whatever they want, they are a corporation they are not in the business of providing healthcare insurance or even jobs, nor are they in the business of doing it for cheap, they are in the business of making money for their share holders. And as it stands since insurance companies make deals with the state (because it's how they can bankrupt in one state, ala Louisiana not have to the pay) and then keep operating without impunity to the rest of the business, and generally states 1 or 2 insurers in that state, and they all charge roughly the same. So, there is actually, little competition in the health insurance industry. And the government can not tell a private corporation what it can charge, however, what it could have done, was create a public option and co-ops where they can control prices, so basically, it would force insurers to either start lowering their premiums or people may choose to the public option. But you were too busy caught up in socialism and death panels to understand what was being done. Healtchcare cost go up because there is no pressure to reduce them, there aren't enough people in 1 system to make a difference (because you are insured by state, rather than a national network because that's the only way the insurers can pull the bankrupting bit) , and insurers have no reason to lower cost. So, do me a favor, instead talking about how a bill doesn't help you, try and understand what the bill is trying to do. It actually irks me because 90% people couldn't tell you what was even in the healthcare bill but they were against, they couldn't tell you why they were against a public option but they where. Oh , and the forced insurance, that actually was a Bob Dole idea from 1993 as opposition to Clinton care, but the GOP all of a sudden tried to say look that's not right, so if it was not right this time around even though you came up with it some 20 years ago, why did the GOP fight for higher penalties on people who didn't carry insurance. Dude, do me a favor, and go do some research on the subject you have such strong feelings about.
Your premiums went up because the healthcare industry as any corporation can charge whatever they want, they are a corporation they are not in the business of providing healthcare insurance or even jobs, nor are they in the business of doing it for cheap, they are in the business of making money for their share holders. And as it stands since insurance companies make deals with the state (because it's how they can bankrupt in one state, ala Louisiana not have to the pay) and then keep operating without impunity to the rest of the business, and generally states 1 or 2 insurers in that state, and they all charge roughly the same. So, there is actually, little competition in the health insurance industry. And the government can not tell a private corporation what it can charge, however, what it could have done, was create a public option and co-ops where they can control prices, so basically, it would force insurers to either start lowering their premiums or people may choose to the public option. But you were too busy caught up in socialism and death panels to understand what was being done. Healtchcare cost go up because there is no pressure to reduce them, there aren't enough people in 1 system to make a difference (because you are insured by state, rather than a national network because that's the only way the insurers can pull the bankrupting bit) , and insurers have no reason to lower cost. So, do me a favor, instead talking about how a bill doesn't help you, try and understand what the bill is trying to do. It actually irks me because 90% people couldn't tell you what was even in the healthcare bill but they were against, they couldn't tell you why they were against a public option but they where. Oh , and the forced insurance, that actually was a Bob Dole idea from 1993 as opposition to Clinton care, but the GOP all of a sudden tried to say look that's not right, so if it was not right this time around even though you came up with it some 20 years ago, why did the GOP fight for higher penalties on people who didn't carry insurance. Dude, do me a favor, and go do some research on the subject you have such strong feelings about.
virtualban
Distinguished
- Feb 16, 2007
- 625
- 0
- 18,930
The government is supposed to be by the people for the people. If the 98% people want the rich to pay more taxes, and the 2% rich want not to, as stated earlier, they can go and have a country of all rich. But contrary to what stated earlier, the rich have a way to make it happen. They can have legal immigrates go there and work for them (including firemen, police, teachers, plumbers etc.), and be granted a small piece of land to work/produce and live and benefit from the rich country and leadership. That translates into people living in the property of the rich people that own the land. Sounds familiar? It has happened in the past, and history taught us that this was very near to slavery. What is important, though, is that history has taught us that this is not the form of relationship between leaders and people that makes for happy masses (leaders being owners also), also not the way to go for best progress. So, such rich people would end up being surpassed by the "by the people, for the people" groups.
History has had it's extreme cases. Current situation is, though, that the US were leaders in world economics, better than all the EU states taken together, but then the EU states are stronger in their E Union form even if weaker in their separate form. That's a big economical debate to be talking here, and not as interesting as the philosophical debate of where the world led by the rich would go.
Since there is no longer slavery in the historical sense, the rich need to compromise and make the workers happy, even if they go and buy a state and live there owning and leading. Currently they are influencing one of the biggest democracies of all time. And with very good reason (they want to keep their riches and gather more). The 2% rich have their reasons for such influence, government and propaganda. The 98% "normal" dream of becoming rich, wish to reward people for the success (very good points), and wish to encourage people to work to become rich (arguably good point). But the influence of the rich does not end there. The influence of such "for the rich, of the rich" country could extend to other ways of controlling the environment, the country, other countries, even the world. That's a fearful prospect, and a good philosophical question on how to have a "best in prosperous scale, but still filled with happiest people around" organization of economy/state/leadership.
It has been fun to read all the comments in this thread, from the supporters with arguments of each side, to the brainwashed people that can't argument to save their live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g
^^ the secret of Oz for those who have seen it. Just another viewpoint that may be enlighting for those who have not.
History has had it's extreme cases. Current situation is, though, that the US were leaders in world economics, better than all the EU states taken together, but then the EU states are stronger in their E Union form even if weaker in their separate form. That's a big economical debate to be talking here, and not as interesting as the philosophical debate of where the world led by the rich would go.
Since there is no longer slavery in the historical sense, the rich need to compromise and make the workers happy, even if they go and buy a state and live there owning and leading. Currently they are influencing one of the biggest democracies of all time. And with very good reason (they want to keep their riches and gather more). The 2% rich have their reasons for such influence, government and propaganda. The 98% "normal" dream of becoming rich, wish to reward people for the success (very good points), and wish to encourage people to work to become rich (arguably good point). But the influence of the rich does not end there. The influence of such "for the rich, of the rich" country could extend to other ways of controlling the environment, the country, other countries, even the world. That's a fearful prospect, and a good philosophical question on how to have a "best in prosperous scale, but still filled with happiest people around" organization of economy/state/leadership.
It has been fun to read all the comments in this thread, from the supporters with arguments of each side, to the brainwashed people that can't argument to save their live.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g
^^ the secret of Oz for those who have seen it. Just another viewpoint that may be enlighting for those who have not.
virtualban,
And that is the point. IF you've read Machiavelli's the prince, that is the main point, convincing the 98% that they should benefit the rich to be rich, because, it helps the state and yourself. It doesn't it helps some guy get rich, and it may or may not benefit you, but that's neither here nor there to the person in power, ultimately, it's about retaining that power, and the greatest myth the US has pulled is that if you work hard you will be rewarded. Slaves worked hard, poor people work hard all the time, the fact is in a capitalistic system not everyone can have, but more importantly the more you have the more capital you have access the easier it is for you to acquire more and ultimately, since capital is fixed, it means someone else can not have. Capitalism is predicated on there being a large pool of unwealthy or poor people, everyone, can not prosper no matter how hard they work, or the system wouldn't work.
But, back to more common sense, I don't see how these average joes , like "average joe" thinks his agenda has anything to do or is inline with with someone like Dick Chaney. Dick Chaney doesn't sit around fighting to ensure you get more of your money, he sits around figuring out how he can make more money for himself, period. Running his businesses and prospering. Average joe neither paid huge taxes, wasn't licensed, didn't own a business ... but was complaining abut taxes he didn't even pay on his imaginary business, the irony is that taxes are lower now than they were even under GW Bush.
This goes to show you, it's not about reality at all , but perception. I still don't understand how someone who is average or poor would complain about a public option, a cheaper, cost to him, or complain about free education, or ... any of that, the people in masses are always powerful, but as individuals are nothing compared to the pull of someone with alot of capital. The rich would never vote against their own interest, did you see them turning down bailout money, but ask that same GOP member if he would have taken the money, he would say oh ... no, this is wrong, te government should never be for me, ask a rich guy if he has the same mentality. He uses whatever he can to get wherever he can.
And that is the point. IF you've read Machiavelli's the prince, that is the main point, convincing the 98% that they should benefit the rich to be rich, because, it helps the state and yourself. It doesn't it helps some guy get rich, and it may or may not benefit you, but that's neither here nor there to the person in power, ultimately, it's about retaining that power, and the greatest myth the US has pulled is that if you work hard you will be rewarded. Slaves worked hard, poor people work hard all the time, the fact is in a capitalistic system not everyone can have, but more importantly the more you have the more capital you have access the easier it is for you to acquire more and ultimately, since capital is fixed, it means someone else can not have. Capitalism is predicated on there being a large pool of unwealthy or poor people, everyone, can not prosper no matter how hard they work, or the system wouldn't work.
But, back to more common sense, I don't see how these average joes , like "average joe" thinks his agenda has anything to do or is inline with with someone like Dick Chaney. Dick Chaney doesn't sit around fighting to ensure you get more of your money, he sits around figuring out how he can make more money for himself, period. Running his businesses and prospering. Average joe neither paid huge taxes, wasn't licensed, didn't own a business ... but was complaining abut taxes he didn't even pay on his imaginary business, the irony is that taxes are lower now than they were even under GW Bush.
This goes to show you, it's not about reality at all , but perception. I still don't understand how someone who is average or poor would complain about a public option, a cheaper, cost to him, or complain about free education, or ... any of that, the people in masses are always powerful, but as individuals are nothing compared to the pull of someone with alot of capital. The rich would never vote against their own interest, did you see them turning down bailout money, but ask that same GOP member if he would have taken the money, he would say oh ... no, this is wrong, te government should never be for me, ask a rich guy if he has the same mentality. He uses whatever he can to get wherever he can.
virtualban
Distinguished
- Feb 16, 2007
- 625
- 0
- 18,930
enforcer22
Distinguished
- Sep 10, 2006
- 330
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]fball922[/nom]1. I agree its driven by consumption, so tax that way with the Fair Tax.2. European Union is not a country, dumbass. A coalition of nations had to offer something comparable to the US. Additionally, "CORPORatiONS ARE EVUL" is not a valid argument to describe what caused the economic meltdown. You point at corporations, I point at the rules those corporations were forced to abide by with a lack of oversight to begin with.3. It makes no sense to say the poor and middle class have more disposable income to spend with. Do you know what disposable income is?4. Has not introduced any spending programs? What about the new healthcare program? Am I not understanding you, or are you just thick?5. I don't really get what you are saying, but what I am saying is that Obama is a hypocritic who took the Nobel Peace Prize then bombed a sovereign nation. That's all. Its indicative of his character.6. Read it and weep: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/2 [...] ma-budget/7. You cannot just dismiss this as irrelevant because it goes against you, its the whole point! Unemployment goes down in part because the WORKFORCE IS SHRINKING. "I have mind" too, and that is how math works. Under employment occurs when people stop looking for work because there is none to be had. So, if unemployment falls because under employment increases, that is not improving the economy at all...8. Fine, you explain to me Obama's logic to shut down all oil drilling off the coast arbitrarily. There was nothing to suggest the other drilling platforms had the same safety issues the BP Deep Horizon did. When a court dismissed the moritorium for lack of cause, his administration issued another. Why? We need every bit of oil we can get to keep supply up and subsequently prices down, why inhibit that? Why keep thousands of people out of work on those platforms? If that region was hurt from the spill, why take even more dollars away by keeping people from being employed on them and spending money in that region? WHY? Give me a valid reason other than to create a greater need for government intervention???9. Oh, yeah, GOP scare tactics... How about "OOOOOOOO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!" which has since been proven a complete scam. How about "OOOOOOOO WITHOUT THE STIMULOUS NOW THE WORLD WILL MELTDOWN!!!@!#" and it did anyway. Liberals are the epitome of alarmists and asshats.For the record I think Obama is an American, never said to the contrary. I'm done here, I don't know why I bother with libs as they clearly live in a fantasy world.[/citation]
And teh winner for biggest idiot is!!!! DING DING DING.
BTW the people who took away all the rules and oversight on large coperations was ragon bush and bush.
O and i laughed my balls off when you said obama prints money lol the government doesnt print money you moron. This post and that money thing are more then enough for any reasonable person to know you dont have a freaking clue what your talking about. Get a freaking clue before you spout more of your fanboyisms as fact.
O acidia the OZ thing.. great vid. People seem to forget simple facts. The rich get richer by any means possible while "enslaving" the poor I know that wasnt the direct point of the video but it kinda shows in government who is rich. If you have money you seem to vote againced anything that helps people and wont make you even more rich. course being a bank puppet might have something to do with that as well
And teh winner for biggest idiot is!!!! DING DING DING.
BTW the people who took away all the rules and oversight on large coperations was ragon bush and bush.
O and i laughed my balls off when you said obama prints money lol the government doesnt print money you moron. This post and that money thing are more then enough for any reasonable person to know you dont have a freaking clue what your talking about. Get a freaking clue before you spout more of your fanboyisms as fact.
O acidia the OZ thing.. great vid. People seem to forget simple facts. The rich get richer by any means possible while "enslaving" the poor I know that wasnt the direct point of the video but it kinda shows in government who is rich. If you have money you seem to vote againced anything that helps people and wont make you even more rich. course being a bank puppet might have something to do with that as well
He is extremely smart, for sure. He knows exactly what to do to DESTROY this country. He hates what the USA stands for (not to say he hates the USA), and he believes we need to be cut down to European size.
Facts:1. 45% of Americans pay no taxes
So, you just argued for less taxes. Why do you have a problem with people not paying taxes. I am confused.
2. European countries have enormous taxes and weaker economies. They have entitlement programs that Obama can only dream of, but many are cutting them because they are not possible to achieve in reality.
England has made some cuts in national spending but their economy has actually dipped since that time. Are you saying that Germany has a weak economy? They have less debt and deficit and much much more social spending. They do have higher taxes but they are certainly not failing. They are one of the top manufactuerers and exporters in the world!
3. There is a reason tax cuts don't need to necessarily be funded. Reagan proved that when you cut taxes, government receipts GO UP. Another Reagan myth. Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He backed off his tax cutting measures after his party lost in 1982. He backed a 160 billion dollar social security bailout. He raised the gas tax and backed the largest corporate tax increase in US history. He increased the debt from 700 million to 3 billion. Regan was, as you call it, a liberal.
4. Given the ramifications of raising/lowering taxes in 3, Obama has implemented spending programs with no hopes of paying for them.
This is what Regan did with Star Wars defense, etc., originating all of our original debt.
5. Obama didn't get us in to a "protracted war"? He has had no plan on how to handle it from the beginning. The great leader who got the Nobel Peace Prize is out bombing a sovereign nation. GASP. Do you realize that with both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were coalitions and UN statements in support of it?
Regarding the Iraq war:
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
The Libya bombings passed support of the UN security council. The Iraq invasion did not and invovled occupying a sovreign nation. The military force, as you may recall, was a "coalition of the willing", featuring powerhouses such as Poland, Australia, and Costa Rica.
6. Obama certainly has added jobs to the economy, the majority in the form of Federal government jobs. He has done very little for the private sector, but what does he care about that?7. Obama certainly has decreased unemployment, but have you ever heard of UNDERemployment? Look it up and see where we stand. The economy is getting WORSE.
Unemployment is improving. Corporations are making record profits. CEOs are getting giant bonuses. I don't see how Obama can hire employees for the private sector.
8. Obama is intentionally choking our energy supply. The EPA has forced Shell (I think) to stop drilling in Alaska and arbitrarily stopped all drilling activity in the Gulf following the accident, without plausible cause. This cost the region a number of jobs and economic activity. They have given ONE new drilling permit off the coast (I think...), yet complains about how GREED and PEOPLE WORKING THE SYSTEM are to blame for high oil prices... HA. The silly idea of green energy being a viable solution now is a complete sham, and he knows it.9. As for the national debt, here's a nice little analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc[/citation]
After the disaster in the gulf, don't you think some restraint is in order. Opening up national drilling would likely result in 5 c a gallon cheaper gasoline. Is that worth it? Price is determined by global demand. How is green energy a total sham? It is an evolving technology, but likely our only hope for the future, once the dinosaurs run out.
Facts:1. 45% of Americans pay no taxes
So, you just argued for less taxes. Why do you have a problem with people not paying taxes. I am confused.
2. European countries have enormous taxes and weaker economies. They have entitlement programs that Obama can only dream of, but many are cutting them because they are not possible to achieve in reality.
England has made some cuts in national spending but their economy has actually dipped since that time. Are you saying that Germany has a weak economy? They have less debt and deficit and much much more social spending. They do have higher taxes but they are certainly not failing. They are one of the top manufactuerers and exporters in the world!
3. There is a reason tax cuts don't need to necessarily be funded. Reagan proved that when you cut taxes, government receipts GO UP. Another Reagan myth. Reagan raised taxes 11 times. He backed off his tax cutting measures after his party lost in 1982. He backed a 160 billion dollar social security bailout. He raised the gas tax and backed the largest corporate tax increase in US history. He increased the debt from 700 million to 3 billion. Regan was, as you call it, a liberal.
4. Given the ramifications of raising/lowering taxes in 3, Obama has implemented spending programs with no hopes of paying for them.
This is what Regan did with Star Wars defense, etc., originating all of our original debt.
5. Obama didn't get us in to a "protracted war"? He has had no plan on how to handle it from the beginning. The great leader who got the Nobel Peace Prize is out bombing a sovereign nation. GASP. Do you realize that with both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were coalitions and UN statements in support of it?
Regarding the Iraq war:
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
The Libya bombings passed support of the UN security council. The Iraq invasion did not and invovled occupying a sovreign nation. The military force, as you may recall, was a "coalition of the willing", featuring powerhouses such as Poland, Australia, and Costa Rica.
6. Obama certainly has added jobs to the economy, the majority in the form of Federal government jobs. He has done very little for the private sector, but what does he care about that?7. Obama certainly has decreased unemployment, but have you ever heard of UNDERemployment? Look it up and see where we stand. The economy is getting WORSE.
Unemployment is improving. Corporations are making record profits. CEOs are getting giant bonuses. I don't see how Obama can hire employees for the private sector.
8. Obama is intentionally choking our energy supply. The EPA has forced Shell (I think) to stop drilling in Alaska and arbitrarily stopped all drilling activity in the Gulf following the accident, without plausible cause. This cost the region a number of jobs and economic activity. They have given ONE new drilling permit off the coast (I think...), yet complains about how GREED and PEOPLE WORKING THE SYSTEM are to blame for high oil prices... HA. The silly idea of green energy being a viable solution now is a complete sham, and he knows it.9. As for the national debt, here's a nice little analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc[/citation]
After the disaster in the gulf, don't you think some restraint is in order. Opening up national drilling would likely result in 5 c a gallon cheaper gasoline. Is that worth it? Price is determined by global demand. How is green energy a total sham? It is an evolving technology, but likely our only hope for the future, once the dinosaurs run out.
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Religion is listed on birth certificates? How do they know what religion I will choose when I am born?[/citation]
There is no place for religion on the Hawaii birth certificate both the original or the electronic certificatesvof live birth which are the only valid birth certificates for Hawaii so why would Obama have religion on it when no one else does in the entire state?
There is no place for religion on the Hawaii birth certificate both the original or the electronic certificatesvof live birth which are the only valid birth certificates for Hawaii so why would Obama have religion on it when no one else does in the entire state?
anonymoose227
Distinguished
- Apr 28, 2011
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]So, the birther issue can die already, http://cnn.com/video/?/video/polit [...] .part1.cnn[/citation]
Owned, can't believe people believed that.
Owned, can't believe people believed that.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Old text messages not showing up on new android phone
- Started by Weathered95
- Replies: 48
-
-
Question Asus Tuff Fx507 not recognizing new WD_Black 4tb ssd in secondary m2 slot- Started by BelgradianSalsa
- Replies: 10
-
Facebook
Twitter