|
|
Post by rick on Feb 16, 2010 18:07:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jj on Feb 16, 2010 19:40:00 GMT -5
 Appears as though the "retards' are attempting to take over the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 16, 2010 19:42:59 GMT -5
Appears as though the "retards' are attempting to take over the government. They already have. That's why the people are speaking in Massachusetts and all of America will speak again this November very emphatically, and of course in 2012. And why the dimocrats are dropping like flies because they don't want to get massacred. |
|
|
|
Post by indyvalpo on Feb 20, 2010 10:14:29 GMT -5
I don't know which is more crazy, a bunch of conservative nobody's sign some sort of pledge that no conservative currently in office will actually follow or that people actually fall for this crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 20, 2010 14:04:36 GMT -5
I don't know which is more crazy, a bunch of conservative nobody's sign some sort of pledge that no conservative currently in office will actually follow or that people actually fall for this crap. It's more accurate to say that American voters are the ones who fell for the real crap. And many,many independents are coming to realize that. They have buyer's remorse big time - and for good reason. We have an inexperienced and radical socialist trying to ruin the country. The tea party movement, a grass roots movement, was born out of the realization that 0bama is way too extreme and is threatening what is right and good in this country, especially our individual freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 7:41:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Feb 22, 2010 9:13:21 GMT -5
Rick, Why are you spewing all of this Sarah Palin-esque drivel about what some opinion polls show about President Obama? I do appreciate your opinion on your political views, but what I wonder most is why you're not spewing more about the real "faces" of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? These two are the main reason why the Democratic Party is losing American people to either the conservative viewpoint or the middle of the road-independent views. I have felt, since the Democrats had the majority, that the real problem with our government is these two members of Congress striking fear into new senators and the people of America. They seem to be the only ones who speak to the President about what he should do. They might be the Socialists/Liberals that need to be out before anything happens to President Obama, who is doing what he is able to do to clean up the mess of the last 8 years that the Republicans set us up for, with the billions and billions of dollars we sent to Al Qaeda, that they recycled against us. I know, if I had a vote in either California or Nevada, I wouldn't elect either of these two crack pots back into Congress, especially knowing the kinds of power trip they salivate in. I would only like to know why you're spewing out all of this garbage opinion on President Obama, instead of finding the real trash on the two people who have some of the biggest influences on the decisions made in Congress? |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 9:32:25 GMT -5
Rick, Why are you spewing all of this Sarah Palin-esque drivel about what some opinion polls show about President Obama? I do appreciate your opinion on your political views, but what I wonder most is why you're not spewing more about the real "faces" of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? These two are the main reason why the Democratic Party is losing American people to either the conservative viewpoint or the middle of the road-independent views. I have felt, since the Democrats had the majority, that the real problem with our government is these two members of Congress striking fear into new senators and the people of America. They seem to be the only ones who speak to the President about what he should do. They might be the Socialists/Liberals that need to be out before anything happens to President Obama, who is doing what he is able to do to clean up the mess of the last 8 years that the Republicans set us up for, with the billions and billions of dollars we sent to Al Qaeda, that they recycled against us. I know, if I had a vote in either California or Nevada, I wouldn't elect either of these two crack pots back into Congress, especially knowing the kinds of power trip they salivate in. I would only like to know why you're spewing out all of this garbage opinion on President Obama, instead of finding the real trash on the two people who have some of the biggest influences on the decisions made in Congress? 1. President 0bama is a radical socialist who wants bigger and bigger government to do more and more to confiscate our money to give to those who don't work. He fired a private CEO, and took over by force an automobile company. 2. He is spending more money and straddling our children with unsustainable debt, his irresponsible and reckless spending will create more debt than nearly all of the debt since the beginning of this country. 3. He promised with his porkulus plan that the unemployment rate would not go above 8% if only we rushed it through without debate. The unemployment rate recently went over 10% He doesn't know what he is doing and he is bankrupting our country. He is not a leader and he's an extremist. Those graphs represent the reality of how most Americans feel about this empty suit. Do you think it's Harry Reid's or Nancy Pelosi's fault that his approval numbers are dropping like a rock? Americans aren't stupid. Fool them once, shame on 0bama, fool them twice shame on them. How's that for starters? |
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Feb 22, 2010 12:42:38 GMT -5
I'll happily let you continue to spew the Republican excuses for why they screwed up in the first place. Most of this wouldn't happen, if real oversight had appropriately been taken by the Bush administration, but since most of America's problems had nothing to do with oil or Iraq/Afghanistan, it was ignored like it didn't exist. Now we're having to pay for it, and we're taking it out on the man who is attempting to do something about it, but is getting read the "riot act", by two veteran politicians who are taking advantage of their positions in Congress by making Obama do what is hurting our country, according to what all Republicans keep trying to say about how government is doing.
I feel it would have been worse with McCain/Palin because the questions that needed answered most would have been dodged more than ever. Palin would have used her metaphors and analogies in considerably more inappropriate and confusing manners than she already has, and the USA would have been in much worse shape than it was in the Bush War/Administration era.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 12:48:26 GMT -5
I'll happily let you continue to spew the Republican excuses for why they screwed up in the first place. Most of this wouldn't happen, if real oversight had appropriately been taken by the Bush administration, but since most of America's problems had nothing to do with oil or Iraq/Afghanistan, it was ignored like it didn't exist. Now we're having to pay for it, and we're taking it out on the man who is attempting to do something about it, but is getting read the "riot act", by two veteran politicians who are taking advantage of their positions in Congress by making Obama do what is hurting our country, according to what all Republicans keep trying to say about how government is doing. I feel it would have been worse with McCain/Palin because the questions that needed answered most would have been dodged more than ever. Palin would have used her metaphors and analogies in considerably more inappropriate and confusing manners than she already has, and the USA would have been in much worse shape than it was in the Bush War/Administration era. You have dodged refuting my observations, attempted to change the subject, and have resorted to the typical 0bama defense, it's George Bush's fault. You cannot justify bad policy and behavior by pointing to other bad policy or behavior. What about 0bama's debt, not GWB's? GWB's debt pales in comparison. I know you libs and 0bama still think GWB is president but 0bama owns his own debt run up and it has nothing to do with what GWB did or did not do. You will happily LET me continue.....? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 13:18:21 GMT -5
To be a LIBERAL today, you have to believe:
That the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding rather then a lack of morality.
That trial lawyers are selfless heroes, but doctors are overpaid.
That global temperatures are affected more by Yuppies driving SUVs than by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun.
That guns in the hands of the law abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Al Queda.
That businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
That self-esteem is more important than doing anything to earn it.
That there was no art before federal funding.
That the NRA is bad, because it stands up for certain parts of the constitution, but the ACLU is good, because it stands up for certain parts of the Constitution.
That taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
That the most troubling thing you can find in a public school is a child praying.
That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas aren't.
That any change in the weather is proof of global warming.
That national wealth is determined by what we consume, not by what we produce.
That the only wars in which America should become involved, are those in which our national security is not at risk.
That perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable if a Republican, like Richard Nixon, commits them, but harmless, private matters if a Democrat like Bill Clinton commits them.
That we can have a strong military without spending money on it.
That the way to improve public schools is to give more money and power to people who have misused it in the past.
That a mother can be trusted to decide whether to terminate the life of her baby, but cannot be trusted to choose her child's school.
That hunters and fishermen don't care about nature, but pasty-faced activists, who rarely leave the Upper West Side of Manhattan, do.
That a bureaucrat living in Washington can make better decisions about how to spend your money than you can.
That Hillary Clinton is a wonderful example for young women of feminist independence, even though almost everything she's gotten in life is a result of her marriage to Bill Clinton.
That being a movie star makes you qualified to speak out on public policy.
That a handful of religious wackos, living in rural Texas, are more of a threat to public safety than terrorists who plant bombs in major cities.
That cigarette and liquor advertising must be banned because it causes kids to smoke and drink, but we don't need to worry about adultery, promiscuity, and violence in television programming because kids aren't affect by what happens between the commercials.
That passing new laws is a better way to prevent crime than enforcing existing ones.
That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried is because liberals like you haven't been in charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by valporun on Feb 22, 2010 13:28:09 GMT -5
1. President 0bama is a radical socialist who wants bigger and bigger government to do more and more to confiscate our money to give to those who don't work. He fired a private CEO, and took over by force an automobile company.
Right now, we need the bigger government to deal with the lack of oversight in the areas where oversight was needed most, including the CEOs of the automobile, oil, pharmaceutical, and banks, because they were allowed to continue doing their jobs, and creating the problems that President Obama is radically doing what should have been done to keep these people working and for responsible money matters to be treated properly. Yes, he's having to confiscate the money to do this, but that's because if he doesn't confiscate the money, on a temporary basis, then our unemployment and debt ceilings will blow up much more than they already have, and the banks and auto industry will end with a drastic close and people without money to cover the high insurance rate that would come from the dangerous cars being put out by companies having to use extremely faulty parts in the cars that Americans would drive.
2. He is spending more money and straddling our children with unsustainable debt, his irresponsible and reckless spending will create more debt than nearly all of the debt since the beginning of this country.
Sometimes you have to spend some money to put real controls on the things that should have been controlled by the leaders we were supposed to trust to be CEOs and the men in charge of how these areas/companies/businesses actually work, but because they were too busy sending the money other places to save a buck or two, or because the government sent the money to enable other countries to be so strong, Obama is having to accrue this debt to potentially show how America can recover. If he has to spend the nation into debt, how is that different from the CEOs and business leaders doing the exact same thing, using the same taxpayer dollars that Obama is using, to pay down some of these sky high debts because they failed to pay their loans to America because they chose instead to pay a CEO $18 million dollars a year to just sit in a chair somewhere in a building and fill his calendar with lunches, dinners, and expensive trips to "relax", and call it a bonus just to keep them with the company?
3. He promised with his porkulus plan that the unemployment rate would not go above 8% if only we rushed it through without debate. The unemployment rate recently went over 10%
How many governors and state congresses rejected stimulus dollars because they didn't feel they have a need for it? That's money that could have been used for replacing roads and other road projects that would create jobs that would keep that 8-10% unemployment rate down to maybe 5%. If they saw some of the roads in their states, they might actually realize that they could have used a few million of those billions of dollars to create jobs across their state to reduce the jobless rate, and even possibly help the economy in the state because people will trust driving on those better roads to spend the money they've made in the job that was created with those economic stimulus dollars that the governor or state congress wanted to reject.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 14:01:31 GMT -5
No we don't need bigger government and it wasn't lack of oversight that contributed to the financial crisis, it was the government itself with the Community Reinvestment Act placing pressure on financial institutions to make low-income loans to people who had no business owning a home because they neither could afford it, didn't have a job, or were of questionable character. The democrats, in their attempt to provide housing opportunities to everyone once again ended up hurting the people they were trying to help. And people like Raines, Dodd, the housing queen Barney Frank and other democrats were getting huge kickbacks or salaries to perpetuate this. (See video below) Later on, banks started making loans to anyone with a pulse and buyers got greedy because housing prices were going up like gangbusters and they ended up buying houses they knew they couldn't afford. So in significant ways, government intervention led to the crisis and more governmental oversight by corrupt politicians is not the answer. Financial institutions were forced by the government to have over 50% of their portfolios with low-income folks in depressed areas and they had to make those loans by law or face the wrath of ACORN, (taught by 0bama) who falsely pressured and accused them of redlining. And 0bama is not helping matters when he gives freebies (our money) to irresponsible homeowners who bought more home than they could afford. 0bama is rewarding bad behavior and punishing those who worked hard to play by the rules and didn't greedily buy more of a house than they could afford and who made their payments on time. You libs live in a fantasy world and think that all business is bad and evil. Studies have shown that there is five times more corruption and fraud in government programs than in the private sector. Government is not god. It has a limited function. Our form of government, a constitutional republic, should be a protector of rights, not a provider of benefits. Government is the problem, not the solution. I hope I'm not thinking too much. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 14:20:12 GMT -5
Here is typical class warfare being spewed by a lib. 0bama is recklessly ramping up the debt. You don't spend what you don't have. And you definitely don't propose massive spending during a recession! If you take a vacation and come back later to find that the folks in your household have been spending money they don't have and have been running up the credit card (as 0bama accused Bush of doing), you don't then go out and obtain 20 more credit cards and start spending what you don't have like 0bama is doing. No, you start looking for ways to pay off the debt by cutting spending, not increasing it with more credit card debt. Here is a side-by-side comparison graph of Bush's actual debt in eight years and 0bama's first budget and projected debt prepared last year. Note the estimates of both the CBO and the White House itself. This is just crazy and there is no need for it. He is bankrupting this country and if this madness continues, we are headed for third-world status, which is what socialists would prefer, the maximizing of misery just so they can enviously confiscate money from more successful people than themselves: From the Washington Post:  Gee, I hope I'm not thinking too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on Feb 22, 2010 14:27:25 GMT -5
You have not admitted that 0bama didn't know what he was talking about last year when he feverishly attempted to rahm his porkulus bill promising that if we did that jobs would be gained and unemployment would not go above 8%. (Currently around 10%)
The all-knowing messiah was dead wrong and it would have been better for the economy (per some studies) if nothing would have been done. That pork-filled mess was running over with paybacks to unions and liberal special interests and other pork given to districts in which democrats voted for it. And 0bama promised - to get himself elected - that there wouldn't be any pork and that he would go through the budget line-by-line to remove it.
There are several more lies and broken promises. If you'd like to know of others that 0bama has broken, I'd be happy to provide them - I'm just getting revved up.
Forgive me if I'm thinking too much.
|
|
Appears as though the "retards' are attempting to take over the government. 