PDA

View Full Version : Obama supporters come on in.......



sanfran22
07-01-2011, 10:15 AM
I've asked like a trillion times what people one here think he's done well and benificial to this country and all I hear is crickets....Sooooo I figured I'd give you all (well maybe like 5 of you;)) your own place to enlighten us.
I'll actually give you a few things myself.
I'm glad he came to his senses and didn't close Gitmo. Also glad he finally gave the green light to get Osama. Other then that, I could probably list 50 things that I think he's killing us on.....:sign0020:

mrveggieman
07-01-2011, 10:26 AM
Obama was in the seat when OBL was captured. Bush had about 8 years to do so and Obama did it in 2. He also is bringing home our troops from Iraq despite the fact that he is cleaning up someone elses mess.

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 10:31 AM
Obama was in the seat when OBL was captured. Bush had about 8 years to do so and Obama did it in 2. He also is bringing home our troops from Iraq despite the fact that he is cleaning up someone elses mess.
Lol, so those are the reasons you support him....ouch. So who's mess is he cleaning up? Congresses?He sent more troops to afghanistan. So he's bringing back the extra he sent?

mrveggieman
07-01-2011, 10:43 AM
Lol, so those are the reasons you support him....ouch. So who's mess is he cleaning up? Congresses?He sent more troops to afghanistan. So he's bringing back the extra he sent?


The last time I checked the Iraq war was Bush's problem that Obama inhereted. He was put in a no win situation. He's doing the best he can under the circumstance. How many more wars would we have got involved with if a Bush clone would have won in 2008. Oh wait don't you conservatives like war?

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 10:54 AM
The last time I checked the Iraq war was Bush's problem that Obama inhereted. He was put in a no win situation. He's doing the best he can under the circumstance. How many more wars would we have got involved with if a Bush clone would have won in 2008. Oh wait don't you conservatives like war?
You realize congress declared war right? Maybe we would just get involved in lybia and yemen without declaring war???? Oh wait.....:whistle:

Star_Cards
07-01-2011, 11:32 AM
here are some off the top of my head.

I LOVE the iraq troop withdraws. It's not as fast as I had hoped for but a start.

I also liked the build up in Afghanistan and now the withdraw after capturing OBL.

Repeal of Don't ask Don't Tell.

I'm not sure this health care bill was the correct answer or not as it seems to massive to even wrap your head around, but I do like the idea of a healthcare reform and potentially healthcare for people that can't afford it or have it through their employers. Seems like lots of work left to do, but it's a start.

I like his push to try to get politicians to come to terms across party lines. A lot of that is up to the parties themselves, though. I don't expect it to be fixed in just three years and ironically it's pretty much gotten worse, but it's a message that should continue and I don't think any President has a lot of control over if it happens or not.

While I wasn't a fan of the bank bailouts from either bush or obama, it does seem like the auto bailout has been successful to some degree. I also believe most funds have been paid back, but would have to do more research to be sure.

I like his green initiatives that have happened since he's been in office. cash for clunkers, tax break for hybrids, I think there are a few more I'd have to look up.

I'll have to take some time down the road to see if I have any additions.

Personally I feel the a president doesn't control as much as we think and a lot of inaction is attributed to the entire group of politicians and not one or one party.

There are also things that Obama's done that I don't like. Voting for a person, in my opinion, doesn't mean I agree with everything across the board. And on a side note I voted for Bush in both elections as well.

Star_Cards
07-01-2011, 11:33 AM
I won't give Obama too much credit for capturing OBL. He does deserve some but I think that operation was a long time coming and the credit deserves to go to the people doing the work... the same would be said if they got him when bush was in office. I also don;t think Obama tried to hog the credit when they did find him.

duane1969
07-01-2011, 11:37 AM
Obama was in the seat when OBL was captured. Bush had about 8 years to do so and Obama did it in 2. He also is bringing home our troops from Iraq despite the fact that he is cleaning up someone elses mess.

A) If catching OBL is Obama's best accomplishment then I consider him a total failure.

B) Obama had little to no idea as to what was going on concerning capturing OBL. If you do a little reading you will learn that the capture of OBL was thanks to hard work by our troops, military leaders and the intelligence community. Obama getting credit for the killing of OBL is so far off-base it isn't even funny. OBL would have been killed no matter who was the sitting president.

---------------------

Obama is bring home the troops when? In his presidential campaign he promised to bring home all of the troops within 6 months. 2 years later there are still 45,000 troops there. During that same time he has increased the number of troops in Afghanistan.

Sorry, no accomplishment to be found here.

duane1969
07-01-2011, 11:45 AM
The last time I checked the Iraq war was Bush's problem that Obama inhereted. He was put in a no win situation. He's doing the best he can under the circumstance. How many more wars would we have got involved with if a Bush clone would have won in 2008. Oh wait don't you conservatives like war?

You should check again. The war in Iraq started back in the late 1980's. It was called Desert Storm.

Before GHW Bush could finish the Desert Storm campaign he was voted out and this lily-livered horndog named Bill Clinton was voted in. This Clinton guy did NOTHING for 8 years to deal with the issues in Iraq except create a "no-fly zone" which was both stupid and a waste of taxpayer money. The when George W takes office suddenly it is "his war" and his fault for everything that happens after that.

Blaming anybody but Clinton for Iraq is weak at best. Clinton had 8 years to deal with the Iraq issues and he failed miserably. Anything that Bush did to resolve the Iraq issue was as a direct result of Clinton's inept handling of the situation for nearly a decade.

duane1969
07-01-2011, 11:57 AM
I LOVE the iraq troop withdraws. It's not as fast as I had hoped for but a start.

Decreasing troops in one Middle east country only to increase them in a neighboring Middle east country. Not an accomplishment IMO.

Repeal of Don't ask Don't Tell.

Not really an Obama accomplishment. Would have happened no matter what president was in office. This had been coming for quite some time. All Obama did was sign the paperwork. He didn't actively lobby against or fight against the policy.

I'm not sure this health care bill was the correct answer or not as it seems to massive to even wrap your head around, but I do like the idea of a healthcare reform and potentially healthcare for people that can't afford it or have it through their employers. Seems like lots of work left to do, but it's a start.

Since the health care bill doesn't even become in full force until 2014 and Obama and other Dems are now backtracking on many parts of the bill, it smells more like a failure than an accomplishment.

Even at that, you don't fix health care by forcing people to be on it while ignoring the issues of high costs, insurance companies that won't pay out and the lack of doctors.

I like his push to try to get politicians to come to terms across party lines. A lot of that is up to the parties themselves, though. I don't expect it to be fixed in just three years and ironically it's pretty much gotten worse, but it's a message that should continue and I don't think any President has a lot of control over if it happens or not.

NOTE: This bi-partisan "push" that you speak of did not come about until the Republicans took control of the House. Prior to that he was 100% partisan, openly challenging Republicans and making statements that made it clear he would not negotiate with Repubclicans on any major issue (see Obamacare).

He is not being bi-partisan, he is being self-preserving. His only chance at re-election is if he convinces moderates that he is not really a far-left liberal.

I like his green initiatives that have happened since he's been in office. cash for clunkers, tax break for hybrids, I think there are a few more I'd have to look up.

You are aware that cash for clunkers has been considered, by many, to be one of the biggest failures and hoaxes of the stimulus, right?

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 12:38 PM
I LOVE the iraq troop withdraws. It's not as fast as I had hoped for but a start.

Decreasing troops in one Middle east country only to increase them in a neighboring Middle east country. Not an accomplishment IMO.

Repeal of Don't ask Don't Tell.

Not really an Obama accomplishment. Would have happened no matter what president was in office. This had been coming for quite some time. All Obama did was sign the paperwork. He didn't actively lobby against or fight against the policy.

I'm not sure this health care bill was the correct answer or not as it seems to massive to even wrap your head around, but I do like the idea of a healthcare reform and potentially healthcare for people that can't afford it or have it through their employers. Seems like lots of work left to do, but it's a start.

Since the health care bill doesn't even become in full force until 2014 and Obama and other Dems are now backtracking on many parts of the bill, it smells more like a failure than an accomplishment.

Even at that, you don't fix health care by forcing people to be on it while ignoring the issues of high costs, insurance companies that won't pay out and the lack of doctors.

I like his push to try to get politicians to come to terms across party lines. A lot of that is up to the parties themselves, though. I don't expect it to be fixed in just three years and ironically it's pretty much gotten worse, but it's a message that should continue and I don't think any President has a lot of control over if it happens or not.

NOTE: This bi-partisan "push" that you speak of did not come about until the Republicans took control of the House. Prior to that he was 100% partisan, openly challenging Republicans and making statements that made it clear he would not negotiate with Repubclicans on any major issue (see Obamacare).

He is not being bi-partisan, he is being self-preserving. His only chance at re-election is if he convinces moderates that he is not really a far-left liberal.

I like his green initiatives that have happened since he's been in office. cash for clunkers, tax break for hybrids, I think there are a few more I'd have to look up.

You are aware that cash for clunkers has been considered, by many, to be one of the biggest failures and hoaxes of the stimulus, right?
Well said. I would add that I believe GM is still govt controlled correct? And I don't think they truely paid back their loans.
On healthcare, I don't think any of us on here would deny that there needs to be some things addressed. But the answer IMO was not to throw out some rediculous bill that is going to have alot more problems then we currently have. Take a look at what just happened in England. The gov't deny a new drug for cancer because the cost outweighs the benefit. It's coming here as well folks.
Also, I believe another stimulus is being discussed ans well as QE3.

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 12:47 PM
The war in Iraq started back in the late 1980's. It was called Desert Storm.

Sorry to step on your foot for this but the 1st Iraqi War began when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, not the late 80s. 1989 was when we went to Panama for a cocained dictator named Noriega. I DON'T support Obama in the least as I'm a TP member but the facts sould be right!

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 12:48 PM
Sorry to step on your foot for this but the 1st Iraqi War began when Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait in August of 1990, not the late 80s. 1989 was when we went to Panama for a cocained dictator named Noriega. I DON'T support Obama in the least as I'm a TP member but the facts sould be right!
His date is wrong, but his premise is right. It was under the first Bush when it began.

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 12:57 PM
His date is wrong, but his premise is right. It was under the first Bush when it began.

Right I never said that it wasn't. The second time around was under the younger Bush & Bosnia was under Clintons' Administration!! I was only correcting the date as my post says.

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 01:13 PM
Blaming anybody but Clinton for Iraq is weak at best. Clinton had 8 years to deal with the Iraq issues and he failed miserably. Anything that Bush did to resolve the Iraq issue was as a direct result of Clinton's inept handling of the situation for nearly a decade

Sorry again but we were out of Iraq by 1992 & Clinton came into office in Janurary of 93. So no we can't blame Clinton for any of that. The second War in Iraq was the younger Bushs' doing as he had us believe there were WMDs there which were false. IMO Clinton did more for this Country than either Bush did but that's just me. Nobody hates the FG more than I but when facts are mixed up then people seem to believe wrong!!

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 02:37 PM
Sorry again but we were out of Iraq by 1992 & Clinton came into office in Janurary of 93. So no we can't blame Clinton for any of that. The second War in Iraq was the younger Bushs' doing as he had us believe there were WMDs there which were false. IMO Clinton did more for this Country than either Bush did but that's just me. Nobody hates the FG more than I but when facts are mixed up then people seem to believe wrong!!
I think Clinton did a ton af damage to this country. Just on the Iraq front alone, he just shot a couple cruz missiles at saddam. He refused to deal with the situation that was still brewing.
He also triggered the housing crisis, dropped the morality of this country 10 fold, screwed up in bosnia ect ect......

mrveggieman
07-01-2011, 02:45 PM
Sorry again but we were out of Iraq by 1992 & Clinton came into office in Janurary of 93. So no we can't blame Clinton for any of that. The second War in Iraq was the younger Bushs' doing as he had us believe there were WMDs there which were false. IMO Clinton did more for this Country than either Bush did but that's just me. Nobody hates the FG more than I but when facts are mixed up then people seem to believe wrong!!


+1
This guy is only a rookie and is already making more sense than some of the established vets on here. :cheer2:

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 03:23 PM
+1
This guy is only a rookie and is already making more sense than some of the established vets on here. :cheer2:
Lol, when your right, your right. He does make more sense then you doesn't he.....:sign0020::winking0071:

AUTaxMan
07-01-2011, 03:29 PM
Combining all of the things you like about Obama cannot even begin to compare to his miserable failure in terms of the economy. That alone should be enough for anyone with half a brain to want to get rid of him.

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 03:36 PM
+1
This guy is only a rookie and is already making more sense than some of the established vets on here. :cheer2:
Thanks mrveggieman I just won't speak unless I know what I'm talking about. Again Clinton had nothing to do with Iraqi as the first conflict was over!! I'm a rookie but highly educated in knowing facts.

mrveggieman
07-01-2011, 03:47 PM
Lol, when your right, your right. He does make more sense then you doesn't he.....:sign0020::winking0071:

And what does that say about you if you could not get the correct start date of your beloved desert storm war? :whistle:

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 04:39 PM
And what does that say about you if you could not get the correct start date of your beloved desert storm war? :whistle:
It say's that I can read and you can't? Not sure I'm the one who brought up the date of the "beloved war". You may wanna revist that comment....

INTIMADATOR2007
07-01-2011, 04:40 PM
The next time I hear Inherated my head will explode ..lol....How do you inherate something you wanted , He wasn't crying I inherated this when he was running for office was he . He promised to fix it , Not make it 1000000 times worse .... complete Failure , And Obama backers are reaching soooo far to find anything good . lol..lol..Bring back G.Bush ..

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 04:44 PM
It say's that I can read and you can't? Not sure I'm the one who brought up the date of the "beloved war". You may wanna revist that comment....

I'm not sure who did but your post #16 claims Clinton fired cruise missles & I corrected you when Clinton (Bill) didn't have a thing to do with the first Iraqi Conflict or War as some call it.

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 04:48 PM
I never said Clinton was involved in the first war. He fired cruise missiles late in his presidency I believe when Saddam was acting up. Rather then deal with him, he fired a few rockets in the sand....

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 05:01 PM
Oh my bad I didn't see where it said "late in his presidency"

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 05:03 PM
Oh my bad I didn't see where it said "late in his presidency"
Does it need to? Did Clinton shoot Missiles at Iraq? I don't see where it says "during the first war either". I believe Duane is the one you were trying to correct...

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 05:07 PM
Does it need to? Did Clinton shoot Missiles at Iraq? I don't see where it says "during the first war either". I believe Duane is the one you were trying to correct...

He is yes that's right. I apologize to you dear sir!

sanfran22
07-01-2011, 05:09 PM
He is yes that's right. I apologize to you dear sir!
It's no problem, I was just confused that I must have said something I don't remember:sign0020:.

habsheaven
07-01-2011, 09:23 PM
At the end of the day, Obama is better than the alternative. PROVE that opinion wrong! You can't! That's all supporters of Obama have to keep in mind.

OnePimpTiger
07-01-2011, 11:02 PM
At the end of the day, Obama is better than the alternative. PROVE that opinion wrong! You can't! That's all supporters of Obama have to keep in mind.

That's great logic. So go back in time, make sure McCain gets elected, then give him a shot at it for 2 1/2 years and see how he does. You're exactly right, no one can PROVE that opinion wrong, it's scientifically impossible.

There are millions of Obama supporters who have admitted they were wrong...but there will always be some who never will, even with no reason not to.

texansrangerfan73
07-01-2011, 11:15 PM
Truth be told I think all politicians are lying, two faced crooks who will say anything to get into office.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-01-2011, 11:16 PM
It's no problem, I was just confused that I must have said something I don't remember:sign0020:.
Ha, You do have something in common with Obama ...ha,ha,...He does it everyday ..:sign0020:

greg271126817
07-01-2011, 11:23 PM
Osama Bin Obama?:whistle:

mrveggieman
07-02-2011, 11:57 AM
Truth be told I think all politicians are lying, two faced crooks who will say anything to get into office.


This is the best post that I have read on here so far. :love0030:

Theodor Madison
07-02-2011, 04:20 PM
Take anyone over Mr. Obama, No matter who he is whether he has certificate or not. Whether he votes present or absent. Even someone that is absent is better than we have Now.

duane1969
07-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Sorry again but we were out of Iraq by 1992 & Clinton came into office in Janurary of 93. So no we can't blame Clinton for any of that. The second War in Iraq was the younger Bushs' doing as he had us believe there were WMDs there which were false. IMO Clinton did more for this Country than either Bush did but that's just me. Nobody hates the FG more than I but when facts are mixed up then people seem to believe wrong!!

No need to apologize. You're incorrect. No, we did not have troops on the ground in Iraq but we were enforcing a no-fly zone from August 1992 until 1998. Call me crazy but carrying out air strikes in Iraq, killing Iraqi troops and destroying Iraqi military radar installations, qualifies as "in" Iraq in my opinion. Wanna take a guess as to who was the president during that time frame? (HINT: His name was not Bush)

The "Second" war in Iraq was an extension of 20 years of problems, not a whole new problem. I don't know how old you are but I was around when Hussein refused to let his facilities be inspected for poisons and WMDs and that wasn't in 2001, it was more like 1995 or so. I was also around when he used gases during the Iran-Iraq War. I was also around when reports came out of him testing his poison gases on small towns of Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. (Note: This is where the idea of WMDs came from, not Bush)

Also, before you continue to claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the "second" war in Iraq you might want to read up on a little document called the Iraq Liberation Act. It played a direct role in the invasion of Iraq. Want to guess which president signed it?? (HINT: His name was not Bush)


At the end of the day, Obama is better than the alternative. PROVE that opinion wrong! You can't! That's all supporters of Obama have to keep in mind.

Aliens from other universes are real. Prove that opinion wrong! You can't! So that makes me right...right?

Your logic is so flawed it isn't even funny.

texansrangerfan73
07-02-2011, 11:24 PM
No need to apologize. You're incorrect. No, we did not have troops on the ground in Iraq but we were enforcing a no-fly zone from August 1992 until 1998. Call me crazy but carrying out air strikes in Iraq, killing Iraqi troops and destroying Iraqi military radar installations, qualifies as "in" Iraq in my opinion. Wanna take a guess as to who was the president during that time frame? (HINT: His name was not Bush)

The "Second" war in Iraq was an extension of 20 years of problems, not a whole new problem. I don't know how old you are but I was around when Hussein refused to let his facilities be inspected for poisons and WMDs and that wasn't in 2001, it was more like 1995 or so. I was also around when he used gases during the Iran-Iraq War. I was also around when reports came out of him testing his poison gases on small towns of Kurds in the northern part of Iraq. (Note: This is where the idea of WMDs came from, not Bush)

Also, before you continue to claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the "second" war in Iraq you might want to read up on a little document called the Iraq Liberation Act. It played a direct role in the invasion of Iraq. Want to guess which president signed it?? (HINT: His name was not Bush)



Aliens from other universes are real. Prove that opinion wrong! You can't! So that makes me right...right?

Your logic is so flawed it isn't even funny.

Well I do stand corrected then!! I am sorry that I can't just sit around & find dirt on all our Presidents. I'm more interested in Texas & states right. I also like to support our troops in peace time & war time. :smokin:Like I stated above, "All politicians are lying, two-faced crooks you will say anything to get elected." The government hasn't been the same since Lincoln got into office in 1861!

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 12:23 AM
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 137
Compromise 40
Promise Broken 43
Stalled 69
In the Works 217
Not yet rated 2

Looks like he's doing just fine :)

ensbergcollector
07-04-2011, 01:10 AM
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 137
Compromise 40
Promise Broken 43
Stalled 69
In the Works 217
Not yet rated 2

Looks like he's doing just fine :)

wow, who is keeping this scorecard? surely you didn't think you could just post this with no supporting link?

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 02:40 AM
Surely you could look up that is it politifact

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 08:19 AM
Aliens from other universes are real. Prove that opinion wrong! You can't! So that makes me right...right?

Your logic is so flawed it isn't even funny.

No, it doesn't make you right. It means I cannot prove that your wrong. If you can't see the difference in the two, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. The logic is simple, not flawed.

ensbergcollector
07-04-2011, 10:19 AM
Surely you could look up that is it politifact

it is usually common courtesy to include link's to things that you post instead of assuming that everyone can look it up themselves.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 10:41 AM
it is usually common courtesy to include link's to things that you post instead of assuming that everyone can look it up themselves.

Are you over it yet?

AUTaxMan
07-04-2011, 12:23 PM
The Obameter Scorecard
Promise Kept 137
Compromise 40
Promise Broken 43
Stalled 69
In the Works 217
Not yet rated 2

Looks like he's doing just fine :)

All promises are of equal value, of course. :facepalm: That's obviously a terrible way to evaluate his performance. No way you're being serious.

tutall
07-04-2011, 12:41 PM
I love how really the only answer on here so far besides what Star Cards wrote is he was better than the alternative... which Habs specifically said could not be proven either way...

INTIMADATOR2007
07-04-2011, 02:03 PM
I havent seen anyone really posting anything to help out ol' Obama yet niether , Concidering how great he is , surely they can come up with something of value . Economy news, Jobs ,unemployment numbers , poll numbers , surely there's something other than ... He got Osama ....lol..

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 06:05 PM
No, it doesn't make you right. It means I cannot prove that your wrong. If you can't see the difference in the two, I am not going to bother explaining it to you. The logic is simple, not flawed.

No, you're going to have to explain...flaking out by pretending you're too good to stoop to actually proving your point doesn't work around here.

How would proving what would happen in a parallel universe be any easier than proving there isn't alien life in this universe? One involves space travel to every planet in the universe, the other involves inventing a time machine and a portal between parallel universes. Actually, it would be scientifically easier to prove there is alien life than to prove Obama has done better than McCain would have....at least space travel has been done before.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 07:14 PM
I havent seen anyone really posting anything to help out ol' Obama yet niether , Concidering how great he is , surely they can come up with something of value . Economy news, Jobs ,unemployment numbers , poll numbers , surely there's something other than ... He got Osama ....lol..

I haven't seen anyone post a reason why he's not doing a good job, other than they dont like his policy based on their personal political ideology

INTIMADATOR2007
07-04-2011, 07:28 PM
I haven't seen anyone post a reason why he's not doing a good job, other than they dont like his policy based on their personal political ideology
This thread is for something he has done good not for what he has done bad , That thread is soon to pop up , and once again point proven you can't add anything to the list , just retaleate against someone looking for the good he has done !

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 07:46 PM
This thread is for something he has done good not for what he has done bad , That thread is soon to pop up , and once again point proven you can't add anything to the list , just retaleate against someone looking for the good he has done !

I don't think I need to copy and paste the list that politifact clearly has on thier website of promises kept, IE- things he has done that are beneficial in my opinion for America.

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 08:07 PM
Looks like Obama will have a couple votes in 2012 lol. Just like in 2008 though I will not vote for him!

mrveggieman
07-04-2011, 08:10 PM
I'm going to step in. There were no foreign acts of terror that happened on US soil under Presiden Obama's watch. None of ya'll can say that about your good ole buddy GWB.

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 08:10 PM
No, you're going to have to explain...flaking out by pretending you're too good to stoop to actually proving your point doesn't work around here.

How would proving what would happen in a parallel universe be any easier than proving there isn't alien life in this universe? One involves space travel to every planet in the universe, the other involves inventing a time machine and a portal between parallel universes. Actually, it would be scientifically easier to prove there is alien life than to prove Obama has done better than McCain would have....at least space travel has been done before.

Apparently this conversation is going completely over your head. How's this?

The fact that I cannot prove you wrong does not make you right. The exact same thing applies to my initial statement about Obama. The fact that you cannot prove me wrong doesn't make me right, and I never said that it did. That is my opinion, and the opinion of many other Obama supporters.

In short, the inability to prove someone wrong does not make them right.

Understand now??

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 08:17 PM
I'm going to step in. There were no foreign acts of terror that happened on US soil under Presiden Obama's watch. None of ya'll can say that about your good ole buddy GWB.

That's true nor could Bush take out Bin Laden & probably couldn't take out a cheeseburger from a drive-thru without taking a nip from the drawer. Props to Obama for the Seals taking out the Pirates who hijacked the Maersk Alabama & Bin Laden. :boxing:

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 08:27 PM
Here is what Obama has done RIGHT, imo: <br />
<br />
1) Universal health care - all you have to do is look at the US ranking for mortality rates to know that the system is FAR from the best in the world. It...

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 08:32 PM
Repubs like to try and complain how the unemployment rate went above 9&#37;... But fail to realize that this was a guess from Obamas budget office.. based on a with stimulus V. without... Without it we would more then likely be well into the 12-15% range.

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 08:35 PM
I'm going to step in. There were no foreign acts of terror that happened on US soil under Presiden Obama's watch. None of ya'll can say that about your good ole buddy GWB.

That's true. And if the last Democratic President had taken care of Osama bin Laden when he had the chance, GWB would not have either. GWB is not my "good ole buddy," but if that argument holds any weight at all, it's against Clinton for allowing a known terrorist to walk free.


Apparently this conversation is going completely over your head. How's this?

The fact that I cannot prove you wrong does not make you right. The exact same thing applies to my initial statement about Obama. The fact that you cannot prove me wrong doesn't make me right, and I never said that it did. That is my opinion, and the opinion of many other Obama supporters.

In short, the inability to prove someone wrong does not make them right.

Understand now??

Seriously?


At the end of the day, Obama is better than the alternative. PROVE that opinion wrong! You can't! That's all supporters of Obama have to keep in mind.

That is in no way suggesting you think you're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Either one of two things: 1) You made a ridiculous claim, you got called out on it, and now you're playing semantics and backing it up w/snide comments or 2) Your support for President Obama is based on an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Which do you prefer?

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 08:39 PM
That's true. And if the last Democratic President had taken care of Osama bin Laden when he had the chance, GWB would not have either. GWB is not my "good ole buddy," but if that argument holds any weight at all, it's against Clinton for allowing a known terrorist to walk free.



Seriously?



That is in no way suggesting you think you're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Either one of two things: 1) You made a ridiculous claim, you got called out on it, and now you're playing semantics and backing it up w/snide comments or 2) Your support for President Obama is based on an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Which do you prefer?

SO your only argument for Bush's failure at taking out OBL was that.. Clinton didn't do it..? Do you try and use middle school logic in the real world too, or only on sports card forums? Lets look at the facts, under Bush America was succesfully attacked, OBL was not captured or killed. Under Obama, more HVT's including OBL have been killed or captured, and there have been no succesfull attacks on American soil.

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 08:49 PM
You might want to tell that to a few people: <br />
<br />
Ronald Coase - Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics <br />
Milton Friedman - Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences <br />
Friedrich Hayek - Nobel Memorial Prize...

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 08:49 PM
Seriously?

That is in no way suggesting you think you're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong?

Either one of two things: 1) You made a ridiculous claim, you got called out on it, and now you're playing semantics and backing it up w/snide comments or 2) Your support for President Obama is based on an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Which do you prefer?

I was simply stating MY OPINION. Of course I THINK I am RIGHT. But nowhere did I say I WAS RIGHT.

You need to stop reading what is not there.

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 08:51 PM
SO your only argument for Bush's failure at taking out OBL was that.. Clinton didn't do it..? Do you try and use middle school logic in the real world too, or only on sports card forums? Lets look at the facts, under Bush America was succesfully attacked, OBL was not captured or killed. Under Obama, more HVT's including OBL have been killed or captured, and there have been no succesfull attacks on American soil.

Actually, no. I said nothing about Bush's failure at taking out OBL. Feel free to read my comments and what I was responding to again.

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 08:53 PM
You might want to tell that to a few people:

Ronald Coase - Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics
Milton Friedman - Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Friedrich Hayek - Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Thomas Sowell - senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Just to name a few.

Is this my opportunity now to name more dissenting opinions? That would surely change your opinion.:sign0020:

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 09:00 PM
Is this my opportunity now to name more dissenting opinions? That would surely change your opinion.:sign0020:

Feel free, I'd be happy to look at them. And I'm sure you realize that's not an exhaustive list...I figured four would be sufficient to disprove "any economist knows "trickle down economics" do not work."

pr0phet
07-04-2011, 09:09 PM
The problem with this forum has become that everybody here wants to look at only a handful of things that please them. Everybody has their preference as to what matters most for the presidency . I voted for Obama and I don't think he has done terrible BUT I don't think he has been a savior. I personally feel that McCain would have kept the troops spread out in every nation in the middle east with no end in sight. TO ME, this was a major factor in my vote. I won't debate the good or the bad. There are things caused by Obama plus there are things that are out of his control.

I do agree that all politics are a bunch of crooks. All this BS about scandals and lies we have seen lately is really depressing. And that is just the news that we know about.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 09:12 PM
Feel free, I'd be happy to look at them. And I'm sure you realize that's not an exhaustive list...I figured four would be sufficient to disprove "any economist knows "trickle down economics" do not work."

How about, a large majority of economists, and the CBO in the past 10 years have disproved that supply side IE trickle down economics works. It is an economic theory that went through a 20 year test and failed.

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 09:16 PM
Feel free, I'd be happy to look at them. And I'm sure you realize that's not an exhaustive list...I figured four would be sufficient to disprove "any economist knows "trickle down economics" do not work."

Yeah, in retrospect I should have used words like "most respected" instead of "any". I must still be doing pretty good if "trickledown economics" was all you could find to disagree with in that post.:party0053:

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 09:20 PM
http://www.nypress.com/article-22306-tax-the-rich_.html

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 09:29 PM
Yeah, in retrospect I should have used words like "most respected" instead of "any". I must still be doing pretty good if "trickledown economics" was all you could find to disagree with in that post.:party0053:

Nah, I'm just getting tired...that was the easiest one.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 09:36 PM
Nah, I'm just getting tired...that was the easiest one.

ROFL, so in other words.. you can't so you're going to make a lame excuse and high tail it out of here.

habsheaven
07-04-2011, 09:43 PM
Nah, I'm just getting tired...that was the easiest one.

I figured as much. Enjoy the rest of your 4th of July. We have six :winking0071: more years to debate this.

OnePimpTiger
07-04-2011, 09:59 PM
ROFL, so in other words.. you can't so you're going to make a lame excuse and high tail it out of here.

Ya know, I was reading that joke of an article you posted and I decided it was too easy to even bother with...I figured if this is the best they can come up with, I won't waste my time. But since you asked...


http://www.nypress.com/article-22306-tax-the-rich_.html

Wow...that one's not even hard. Just to get started:

Point 1 is semantics. Ok fine, poor Americans don't pay federal income taxes. That's his only rebuttal? Because that's exactly the point everyone who says that is trying to make.

Point 2:
The wealthiest Americans don't carry the burden.

The Internet is awash with statements that the top 1 percent pays, depending on the year, 38 percent or more than 40 percent of taxes.

It's true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But people forget that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.

Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That's because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.

So he admits the top 1 percent carries the burden...and the point about SS is pointless. You know why rich people don't pay more SS? Because if they happen to draw any of it, they can't draw any more than anyone else either. SS is supposed to be a retirement fund...you pay in a certain amount, you get out a certain amount, that's how it's supposed to work.

Point 3 -
Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks to a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.

Where is he getting his number on those? Tax brackets (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)


Tax Year 2011:

If your taxable income is between... your tax bracket is:
379,150 and above .... 35%

And in general, this guy makes a lot of claims, but I see no sources, either linked in the document or in bibliography form.

That's a nice editorial piece and I'm sure it makes you feel good, but next time, at least pick something based on actual sources.

sanfran22
07-04-2011, 10:52 PM
http://www.nypress.com/article-22306-tax-the-rich_.html
Lol....that's all that needs to be said. What a joke....You realize that federal tax receipts went up during Bushes tax cuts right?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals_trying_to_revise_the_history_of_bushs_tax _cuts/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421815/posts

I'm just wondering when liberals will realize the keynsian liberal agenda just doesn't work (unless you wanna live in china or the old ussr):smash:

sanfran22
07-04-2011, 10:56 PM
We need this country to run more like a business rather than a community organizer way of doing things.....Not sure if anyone on hear has dealt with community organizers but let me tell you from experience. They are some shaaaady folks.

AUTaxMan
07-04-2011, 11:23 PM
Good concept. No way to pay for it. Terrible implementation, and it's driving up health insurance premiums. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Important to some people. Most don't really care. I don't have a problem with...

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:24 PM
Ya know, I was reading that joke of an article you posted and I decided it was too easy to even bother with...I figured if this is the best they can come up with, I won't waste my time. But since you asked...



Wow...that one's not even hard. Just to get started:

Point 1 is semantics. Ok fine, poor Americans don't pay federal income taxes. That's his only rebuttal? Because that's exactly the point everyone who says that is trying to make.

Point 2:

So he admits the top 1 percent carries the burden...and the point about SS is pointless. You know why rich people don't pay more SS? Because if they happen to draw any of it, they can't draw any more than anyone else either. SS is supposed to be a retirement fund...you pay in a certain amount, you get out a certain amount, that's how it's supposed to work.

Point 3 -

Where is he getting his number on those? Tax brackets (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)



And in general, this guy makes a lot of claims, but I see no sources, either linked in the document or in bibliography form.

That's a nice editorial piece and I'm sure it makes you feel good, but next time, at least pick something based on actual sources.

So your going to try and argue this article with a link to Money Chimp, and because there is no biblography? But you havne't posted a single source yet. Typical....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 11:28 PM
Wasn't the Bushes in cohoots with the Bin Ladens? Something with oil & construction?

AUTaxMan
07-04-2011, 11:30 PM
So your going to try and argue this article with a link to Money Chimp, and because there is no biblography? But you havne't posted a single source yet. Typical....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

Given the time, I could rip your article to shreds. No way I'm changing your opinion, however, so I'm going to enjoy a cold one instead.

tutall
07-04-2011, 11:32 PM
So your going to try and argue this article with a link to Money Chimp, and because there is no biblography? But you havne't posted a single source yet. Typical....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

Gibbs... is that you?

and redsoxx... lets make this easy... I know you like to wrong color of sox but what has Obama done that you agree with. I dont need articles... I dont need high ranking officials quotes... What has he done that has made you happy and your life a little bit easier?

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:35 PM
Lol....that's all that needs to be said. What a joke....You realize that federal tax receipts went up during Bushes tax cuts right?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/liberals_trying_to_revise_the_history_of_bushs_tax _cuts/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421815/posts

I'm just wondering when liberals will realize the keynsian liberal agenda just doesn't work (unless you wanna live in china or the old ussr):smash:

Can you support that claim?

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 11:36 PM
So who here really supports Obama??? Show some hands

Biggtyme
07-04-2011, 11:38 PM
http://whatthe™™™™hasobamadonesofar.com/

sorry for the bad words but its a small list i came across that is somewhat enlightening i am not sure how much truth there is in it all and i am sure its skewed but kinda gives you an idea.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:39 PM
Gibbs... is that you?

and redsoxx... lets make this easy... I know you like to wrong color of sox but what has Obama done that you agree with. I dont need articles... I dont need high ranking officials quotes... What has he done that has made you happy and your life a little bit easier?

Made conservatives turn into blabbering idiots who's "strongest" argument against the President was if he was really American.... then got handed their asses when he released his birth certificate.

Thats just 1 thing for right now.

tutall
07-04-2011, 11:39 PM
and also from your politifact.... ...

Barack Obama "What I have done -- and this is unprecedented ... is I've said to each agency ... 'look at regulations that are already on the books and if they don't make sense, let's get rid of them.'"

Which gets him a rating of Liar Pants on Fire

Promises kept....
Release oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Support network neutrality on the Internet
We will kill bin Laden

Promises Broken
Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
Enact windfall profits tax for oil companies
Restore the Great Lakes
Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners
Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize
Restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups


Those are on the most recently rated list... See why you canty always believe in numbers?

tutall
07-04-2011, 11:41 PM
Made conservatives turn into blabbering idiots who's "strongest" argument against the President was if he was really American.... then got handed their asses when he released his birth certificate.

Thats just 1 thing for right now.

ok... thats a weak one... Ill give you half a point on that one....How about something HE has done... not his handlers... plus the only people who got their asses handed to them were Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump.... no one else really cared

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:42 PM
Good concept. No way to pay for it. Terrible implementation, and it's driving up health insurance premiums.



Important to some people. Most don't really care. I don't have a problem with it.



Meh. No real numbers to back this up. Impossible to determine number of jobs that would have been lost without it. Cost taxpayers at least 14 billion. Applying my general (and usually pretty accurate) maxim that government understates losses and potential costs by about half of the actual number, it's probably closer to double that figure.



Brilliant economists on both sides of this issue agree to disagree. No way to predict what would have happened without the stimulus, but pretty much everyone except Paul Krugman is saying that the stimulus didn't really do anything but prolong and worsen an already-existing terrible problem.



How has he made it better? <are you really this obtuse ?

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:45 PM
ok... thats a weak one... Ill give you half a point on that one....How about something HE has done... not his handlers... plus the only people who got their asses handed to them were Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump.... no one else really cared

Unfourtunetly for you I'm not going to sit here and make a list so you can give me points on if you agree with them or not. I've already stated you can see the points where I support obama on politifact. If that's to much work for you then that's on you.

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 11:46 PM
Made conservatives turn into blabbering idiots who's "strongest" argument against the President was if he was really American.... then got handed their asses when he released his birth certificate.

Thats just 1 thing for right now.

I admit I was wrong on that one!! I still believe & hope he is a 1 term president.

texansrangerfan73
07-04-2011, 11:48 PM
He'll probably win another term though since he don't wanna sign an immigration bill but I think the states will do what's right in that fight.

AUTaxMan
07-04-2011, 11:54 PM
<are you really this obtuse ?

Typical liberal response. Resort to name-calling instead of arguing the issues.

redsoxx11
07-04-2011, 11:58 PM
Typical liberal response. Resort to name-calling instead of arguing the issues.

Typical conservative response, trying to avoid being wrong by blaming someone else for their mistakes.

BTW, if asking you if you are obtuse, is name calling.. I have a hurt feelings report for you to fill out.

tutall
07-05-2011, 12:02 AM
Unfourtunetly for you I'm not going to sit here and make a list so you can give me points on if you agree with them or not. I've already stated you can see the points where I support obama on politifact. If that's to much work for you then that's on you.

The whole point of this thread was asking what he has done that you agree with.... You came in... make no sense at all... I just posted things from politifact that he has failed on and you made no attempt to rebuke them.... so you agree with not closing gitmo or changing oil tax write offs? I guess we do agree on some things then...

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 12:05 AM
Typical conservative response, trying to avoid being wrong by blaming someone else for their mistakes.

BTW, if asking you if you are obtuse, is name calling.. I have a hurt feelings report for you to fill out.

I'm not trying to avoid being wrong. I'm right. If I'm not, tell me why, and not just that I am.

tutall
07-05-2011, 12:07 AM
Typical conservative response, trying to avoid being wrong by blaming someone else for their mistakes.

BTW, if asking you if you are obtuse, is name calling.. I have a hurt feelings report for you to fill out.

really? The Obama admin has blamed the Bush admin for every single thing that has happened.... If that is really the case then couldnt it be said everything that went wrong on Bushes watch was actually caused by Clinton? I mean 9/11 happened 9 months into his presidency... That had to of been Clintons fault right?

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 12:10 AM
really? The Obama admin has blamed the Bush admin for every single thing that has happened.... If that is really the case then couldnt it be said everything that went wrong on Bushes watch was actually caused by Clinton? I mean 9/11 happened 9 months into his presidency... That had to of been Clintons fault right?

Had they not been provided with any intelligance, but the Bush admistration was and did nothing about it.

tutall
07-05-2011, 12:14 AM
Had they not been provided with any intelligance, but the Bush admistration was and did nothing about it.

where did you find information about that? And do you think any intelligence was given to Obama regarding OBL? And if so can we credit the kill to Bush?

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 12:41 AM
On Obama getting Bin Laden , Wasn't it G.Bush's policy that Obama follwed to get Osama ? I will give Obama credit on this one but all he did was get out of the way and follow Bush's lead .... If there is something else Obama did to get Bin Laden please enlighten me .

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 01:02 AM
Your confusing policy with continuity of intelligence

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 01:04 AM
............

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 07:33 AM
Wasn't the Bushes in cohoots with the Bin Ladens? Something with oil & construction?


http://www.oilempire.us/bush-binladen.html

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 07:35 AM
So who here really supports Obama??? Show some hands


I do. I voted for him in 2008 and will vote for him again in 2012. :cheer2:

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 07:37 AM
ok... thats a weak one... Ill give you half a point on that one....How about something HE has done... not his handlers... plus the only people who got their asses handed to them were Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump.... no one else really cared


I beg to differ. Some people on this forum were adamant that President Obama was not born in the United States. Those were the same people who still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy.

tutall
07-05-2011, 07:40 AM
I beg to differ. Some people on this forum were adamant that President Obama was not born in the United States. Those were the same people who still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy.

my bad.... Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and a few people who blindly follow things those two guys say....

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 07:49 AM
I do. I voted for him in 2008 and will vote for him again in 2012. :cheer2:

Why will you vote for him again?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 08:56 AM
Why will you vote for him again?


To be perfectly honest all of the republican canidates are garbage. I would love to see either a republican or a 3rd party canidiate for that matter that would make the election more competitive. Not that I want to see President Obama lose I just believe that competition makes a better product.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 10:54 AM
To be perfectly honest all of the republican canidates are garbage. I would love to see either a republican or a 3rd party canidiate for that matter that would make the election more competitive. Not that I want to see President Obama lose I just believe that competition makes a better product.

What makes each of them "garbage"?

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 10:55 AM
What makes each of them "garbage"?
He won't answer that. He never does when I ask....:smash:

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 11:05 AM
He won't answer that. He never does when I ask....:smash:

And no matter what I say you will continue to wear your political blinders. Your GOP can do no wrong in your eyes.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 11:06 AM
And no matter what I say you will continue to wear your political blinders. Your GOP can do no wrong in your eyes.
I don't recall saying that. But ok. Why don't you just answer the question? Because you don't know what you believe??

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 11:06 AM
And no matter what I say you will continue to wear your political blinders. Your GOP can do no wrong in your eyes.

Will you please answer my question with respect to each of the candidates?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 11:23 AM
Will you please answer my question with respect to each of the candidates?

Let's start with Herman Cain. This is a guy who is a minority himself who says that he does not feel comfortable making a muslim a federal judge or giving them a job in his cabinent. He will make muslims take a special oath if they want to be a part of his cabinet. Who does this guy think he is? How does he get off thinking that he can make up his own rules as he goes? "There is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government,"

Next let's talke about Michelle Bachmann and her complete lack of knowledge of economics and how minimum wage works. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005

Also what about your girl Sara Palin who thinks that North Korea is our alley. "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

Need I continue?

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 11:30 AM
Let's start with Herman Cain. This is a guy who is a minority himself who says that he does not feel comfortable making a muslim a federal judge or giving them a job in his cabinent. He will make muslims take a special oath if they want to be a part of his cabinet. Who does this guy think he is? How does he get off thinking that he can make up his own rules as he goes? "There is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government,"

Next let's talke about Michelle Bachmann and her complete lack of knowledge of economics and how minimum wage works. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005

Also what about your girl Sara Palin who thinks that North Korea is our alley. "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

Need I continue?
Please do...I think you may be the one that does not understand economics. Look alittle deeper into Bachmanns statement and see what you find...I'll give you a head start with an old article that seems to make sense...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 11:35 AM
Let's start with Herman Cain. This is a guy who is a minority himself who says that he does not feel comfortable making a muslim a federal judge or giving them a job in his cabinent. He will make muslims take a special oath if they want to be a part of his cabinet. Who does this guy think he is? How does he get off thinking that he can make up his own rules as he goes? "There is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government," OK. Why is Obama better?


Next let's talke about Michelle Bachmann and her complete lack of knowledge of economics and how minimum wage works. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005 Please elaborate on what is wrong about her statement. Why is Obama better?


Also what about your girl Sara Palin who thinks that North Korea is our alley. "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010 So she made a dumb comment. Why is Obama better?


Need I continue?

You need address the other candidates as well and explain why Obama is better. Also, can I just cherry-pick a single thing about Obama and give that as the reason why Candidate X is better than Obama, or do I need to evaluate the candidates as a whole?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 11:36 AM
Please do...I think you may be the one that does not understand economics. Look alittle deeper into Bachmanns statement and see what you find...I'll give you a head start with an old article that seems to make sense...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html


I find it real ironic that the same people who are against min wage and health care already have their salary and benefits paid for by the tax payers and couldn't care less about weather the people who vote for them have health care let alone eat. There is an old saying that all of us are only 1 or 2 paychecks away from being homeless. Be mindful of who you vote for and understand that just because you vote for someone they do not have your best intrests at heart.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 11:56 AM
I find it real ironic that the same people who are against min wage and health care already have their salary and benefits paid for by the tax payers and couldn't care less about weather the people who vote for them have health care let alone eat. There is an old saying that all of us are only 1 or 2 paychecks away from being homeless. Be mindful of who you vote for and understand that just because you vote for someone they do not have your best intrests at heart.
I hope you practice what you preach and actually study what you are voting for. Secondly, I don't think anyone is "against healthcare" like you say. We all have vastly different ways to achieve it....

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 12:27 PM
OK. Why is Obama better?

Please elaborate on what is wrong about her statement. Why is Obama better?

So she made a dumb comment. Why is Obama better?

You need address the other candidates as well and explain why Obama is better. Also, can I just cherry-pick a single thing about Obama and give that as the reason why Candidate X is better than Obama, or do I need to evaluate the candidates as a whole?

Simply put, Obama's views on most every topic is closer to my own views. For that reason alone, he is the better presidential candidate when compared to any of the Republicans.

The fact that the majority of Republicans in a nationally televised debate can candidly express their "racist intentions" when it comes to Muslim Americans is reason enough to dismiss the lot of them.

The fact that a majority of these same candidates would sign a document pledging to make a person's stance on abortion a deciding factor on serving in their administration regardless of the job's requirements is reckless at best.

The fact that many Republicans still feel Sara Palin is a viable option for the role of POTUS is disturbing.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 12:31 PM
Simply put, Obama's views on most every topic is closer to my own views. For that reason alone, he is the better presidential candidate when compared to any of the Republicans.

The fact that the majority of Republicans in a nationally televised debate can candidly express their "racist intentions" when it comes to Muslim Americans is reason enough to dismiss the lot of them.

The fact that a majority of these same candidates would sign a document pledging to make a person's stance on abortion a deciding factor on serving in their administration regardless of the job's requirements is reckless at best.

The fact that many Republicans still feel Sara Palin is a viable option for the role of POTUS is disturbing.

What "racist intentions" are you talking about?

Where did the abortion thing come from?

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 12:52 PM
What "racist intentions" are you talking about?

I am talking about the same thing Mrveggieman stated in his post. The intention to treat American Muslims differently. Most, if not all, of the other candidates supported Mr Cain's position on the matter.


Where did the abortion thing come from?

The pledge requires that candidates promise to nominate or appoint pro-life judges, Cabinet members and administration officials. It also calls for zero taxpayer funding for abortion and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of these two issues and the opinions of the candidates on each issue.

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 01:00 PM
I am talking about the same thing Mrveggieman stated in his post. The intention to treat American Muslims differently. Most, if not all, of the other candidates supported Mr Cain's position on the matter.



The pledge requires that candidates promise to nominate or appoint pro-life judges, Cabinet members and administration officials. It also calls for zero taxpayer funding for abortion and the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

I find it hard to believe that you are not aware of these two issues and the opinions of the candidates on each issue.

If I could also chime in on the last comment even though I am against abortion I would not support a canidate just because they are anti abortion and I am also against any presidential canidate signing a pledge saying that they will only nonimate a pro life judge. There are a lot of pro life canidates who are complete jerks in every other aspect in politics.

duane1969
07-05-2011, 02:11 PM
Apparently this conversation is going completely over your head. How's this?

The fact that I cannot prove you wrong does not make you right. The exact same thing applies to my initial statement about Obama. The fact that you cannot prove me wrong doesn't make me right, and I never said that it did. That is my opinion, and the opinion of many other Obama supporters.

In short, the inability to prove someone wrong does not make them right.

Understand now??

You are arguing my point. The fact that I cannot prove your staement about McCain/Obama wrong does not make it right either.

duane1969
07-05-2011, 02:36 PM
Let's start with Herman Cain. This is a guy who is a minority himself who says that he does not feel comfortable making a muslim a federal judge or giving them a job in his cabinent. He will make muslims take a special oath if they want to be a part of his cabinet. Who does this guy think he is? How does he get off thinking that he can make up his own rules as he goes? "There is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government,"

Next let's talke about Michelle Bachmann and her complete lack of knowledge of economics and how minimum wage works. "If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005

Also what about your girl Sara Palin who thinks that North Korea is our alley. "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." --Sarah Palin, after being asked how she would handle the current hostilities between the two Koreas, interview on Glenn Beck's radio show, Nov. 24, 2010

Need I continue?

OK, so dumb statements makes them less worthy than Obama? What do these statements make Obama?

- "Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously,” - Yet Monti died in combat 2 years before Obama was even elected...

- Just a few days ago Obama said “Texas has always been a pretty Republican state,” when history shows that Texas has always been a Democrat stronghold, going Democrat in 23 of 27 presidential elections.

- Obama saying he had visited 57 states and had 1 to go...he also has not visited WV so he perhaps thinks that there are actually 59 states?

Obama has said some pretty ignorant stuff in the last 2.5 years so pointing out dumb things said by other people as an argument that he is better is not going to work.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 02:44 PM
You are arguing my point. The fact that I cannot prove your staement about McCain/Obama wrong does not make it right either.

Please read this SLOWLY!

Did I not just say that? Your response to my original post was making an assumption that, I thought I was right because you cannot prove me wrong. THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WAS SAYING. I was merely pointing out the fact that you could not prove me wrong. I DID NOT say that I was right BECAUSE of that.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 02:47 PM
Saying 57 states = missspeaking

Not being able to accuretly describe Paul Reveres ride = ignorance

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 03:00 PM
Saying 57 states = missspeaking

Not being able to accuretly describe Paul Reveres ride = ignorance


+1 :cheer2:

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:08 PM
You want ignorance, look no further then the white house and those that put him there...His grasp on the economy, foreign relations, "We the People" leave a lot to be desired...
http://democracy-project.com/?p=4702

duane1969
07-05-2011, 03:17 PM
Saying 57 states = missspeaking

Not being able to accuretly describe Paul Reveres ride = ignorance

So not knowing how many states there currently are is just a minor flub but not knowing the details of something that happened 150 years ago shows a lack of intelligence? Bit of a leap.

With that said, I am no Palin fan so I could care less. She has already been as close as she will ever get to being president or vice president. The fact that liberals are so engrossed with attacking her is the funniest part considering she is one of the weakest GOP candidates.

And all of the flubs by Palin/Bachmann/Cain don't make Obama more fitting to be president. He is just as guilty of stupid statements as everyone else which was the whole point. mrveggieman was using dumb statements by GOP candidates as an argument that Obama is a better candiate. I was pointing out his own dumb statements as a contradiction.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:18 PM
You want ignorance, look no further then the white house and those that put him there...His grasp on the economy, foreign relations, "We the People" leave a lot to be desired...
http://democracy-project.com/?p=4702


I can't believe you would degrade the President in a time of war, and on top of that call the majority of the voting American public ignorant for participating the the democratic process and voting in the better canidate.

I guess we can't all get a conservative activist court to just let us slide right in.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:19 PM
So not knowing how many states there currently are is just a minor flub but not knowing the details of something that happened 150 years ago shows a lack of intelligence? Bit of a leap.

With that said, I am no Palin fan so I could care less. She has already been as close as she will ever get to being president or vice president.

And all of the flubs by Palin/Bachmann/Cain don't make Obama more fitting to be president. He is just as guilty of stupid statements as everyone else which was the whole point. mrveggieman was using dumb statements by GOP candidates as an argument that Obama is a better candiate. I was pointing out his own dumb statements as a contradiction.

Not all his arguments were based on stupid statements. Why not respond to the others?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 03:19 PM
You want ignorance, look no further then the white house and those that put him there...His grasp on the economy, foreign relations, "We the People" leave a lot to be desired...
http://democracy-project.com/?p=4702


Better yet let's go back to the clown that we had before Obama. Under his watch we had the worst attack in recent memory on american soil that ultimately led to two costly and uneccassary wars that did even more damage to america than bin laden could have ever have dreamed of.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:22 PM
So not knowing how many states there currently are is just a minor flub but not knowing the details of something that happened 150 years ago shows a lack of intelligence? Bit of a leap.

With that said, I am no Palin fan so I could care less. She has already been as close as she will ever get to being president or vice president.

And all of the flubs by Palin/Bachmann/Cain don't make Obama more fitting to be president. He is just as guilty of stupid statements as everyone else which was the whole point. mrveggieman was using dumb statements by GOP candidates as an argument that Obama is a better candiate. I was pointing out his own dumb statements as a contradiction.

Not one of the examples he used was a misspeak, IE saying 57 states instead of 50.. since obviously the editor of the Harvard Law review would know how many states there are. The examples he provided were given as fact by the speaker. Herman Cain didn't accidently confuse words when he said he wouldn't want a Muslim... Please stop trying to confalte a slip of the tounge by the President, to the racist/bigoted hatefull planned remarks made by conservastive canidates.

duane1969
07-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Better yet let's go back to the clown that we had before Obama. Under his watch we had the worst attack in recent memory on american soil that ultimately led to two costly and uneccassary wars that did even more damage to america than bin laden could have ever have dreamed of.

So what should have been his reaction? I hear this statement a lot and I never get a logical answer to my question.

There are two options here, we either go after the Taliban or we don't. Since we did and the liberals like to claim that it was the wrong thing to do, then is it fair to assume that the liberal position is that we should have just accepted the attack and moved on? Is the liberal position that it is more important for people to like us than for us to go after those responsible for the the attack?

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 03:33 PM
Better yet let's go back to the clown that we had before Obama. Under his watch we had the worst attack in recent memory on american soil that ultimately led to two costly and uneccassary wars that did even more damage to america than bin laden could have ever have dreamed of.

Back to topic: Why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

duane1969
07-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Not one of the examples he used was a misspeak, IE saying 57 states instead of 50.. since obviously the editor of the Harvard Law review would know how many states there are. The examples he provided were given as fact by the speaker. Herman Cain didn't accidently confuse words when he said he wouldn't want a Muslim... Please stop trying to confalte a slip of the tounge by the President, to the racist/bigoted hatefull planned remarks made by conservastive canidates.

I do not support or follow Cain and do not consider him a viable GOP candidate. What he said was ignorance and cost him any chance of a GOP nomination.

What Palin said was in the midst of being flustered. Anybody who watches the video can see that. The liberals have just decided to make a bigger deal out of it than it is just like I am making a bigger deal out of the 57 states thing than it is. A taste of your own medicine, if you will.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:34 PM
I can't believe you would degrade the President in a time of war, and on top of that call the majority of the voting American public ignorant for participating the the democratic process and voting in the better canidate.

I guess we can't all get a conservative activist court to just let us slide right in.
Really? Just look at the polls and you'll see alot of buyers remorse. May have been the wrong decision to vote in "Hope and Change".

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:35 PM
So what should have been his reaction? I hear this statement a lot and I never get a logical answer to my question.

There are two options here, we either go after the Taliban or we don't. Since we did and the liberals like to claim that it was the wrong thing to do, then is it fair to assume that the liberal position is that we should have just accepted the attack and moved on? Is the liberal position that it is more important for people to like us than for us to go after those responsible for the the attack?

Actually the liberal concensous aside from ardent anti-war protestors was generaly that going into afganistan with the intent on finding OBL was the right decision. Unfourtunetly the Bush administration

1. Did not dedicate the proper amount of troops to the effort
2. Tried to nation build
3. Did not utilize JSOC as well as it should have
4. Went into Iraq diverting resources away from the Afganistan AO

The list goes on and on.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:35 PM
So what should have been his reaction? I hear this statement a lot and I never get a logical answer to my question.

There are two options here, we either go after the Taliban or we don't. Since we did and the liberals like to claim that it was the wrong thing to do, then is it fair to assume that the liberal position is that we should have just accepted the attack and moved on? Is the liberal position that it is more important for people to like us than for us to go after those responsible for the the attack?

I believe the more logical approach would have been to go after the Taliban in the country that they resided, NOT Iraq. Just a thought!

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:36 PM
Better yet let's go back to the clown that we had before Obama. Under his watch we had the worst attack in recent memory on american soil that ultimately led to two costly and uneccassary wars that did even more damage to america than bin laden could have ever have dreamed of.
Well, Obama has at least a year and a half left. We'll see what kind of damage occurs shortly......

duane1969
07-05-2011, 03:36 PM
Back to topic: Why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

I honestly have not seen a candiate worthy of my vote. Last election I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton but she bowed out and is now under Obama's thumb, so I have no intentions of voting for anyone that is currently an option.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:37 PM
Back to topic: Why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

I already answered this question a few pages ago (regarding all the Republican candidates) so I won't bother re-typing it all.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:38 PM
I believe the more logical approach would have been to go after the Taliban in the country that they resided, NOT Iraq. Just a thought!
I think they were going after Al-qaeda as well. I'm guessing you are going to give me the "there were none in Iraq" speil.... Were there?

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 03:38 PM
I honestly have not seen a candiate worthy of my vote. Last election I was going to vote for Hillary Clinton but she bowed out and is now under Obama's thumb, so I have no intentions of voting for anyone that is currently an option.

I don't think we know enough about the candidates yet. Except for Obama. We know exactly what we are getting with him, and it isn't good for this country.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:39 PM
I do not support or follow Cain and do not consider him a viable GOP candidate. What he said was ignorance and cost him any chance of a GOP nomination.

What Palin said was in the midst of being flustered. Anybody who watches the video can see that. The liberals have just decided to make a bigger deal out of it than it is just like I am making a bigger deal out of the 57 states thing than it is. A taste of your own medicine, if you will.

Palin has consistantly been unable to provide simple answers to simple questions since she was picked for the vp spot. If GOPers want Palin left alone maybe they should tell her to stop driving around to historical land marks in a giant bus with her name on the side...

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:40 PM
I don't think we know enough about the candidates yet. Except for Obama. We know exactly what we are getting with him, and it isn't good for this country.

If the country was made up entirley of republicans

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:40 PM
I do not support or follow Cain and do not consider him a viable GOP candidate. What he said was ignorance and cost him any chance of a GOP nomination.

What Palin said was in the midst of being flustered. Anybody who watches the video can see that. The liberals have just decided to make a bigger deal out of it than it is just like I am making a bigger deal out of the 57 states thing than it is. A taste of your own medicine, if you will.

I watched that debate. Almost all, if not all the candidates responded with similar answers to the question as Cain. Cain and the others were not speaking from a position of ignorance. They all weighed their responses, and chose to cater to the extreme right-wing of the party in giving their answers. You might want to look into that.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 03:40 PM
I already answered this question a few pages ago (regarding all the Republican candidates) so I won't bother re-typing it all.

I wasn't asking for your opinion.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 03:41 PM
I watched that debate. Almost all, if not all the candidates responded with similar answers to the question as Cain. Cain and the others were not speaking from a position of ignorance. They all weighed their responses, and chose to cater to the extreme right-wing of the party in giving their answers. You might want to look into that.

That was not a debate. It was CNN asking a bunch of ridiculous hot-button questions looking for sensational responses, and they got exactly what they wanted. I can't believe the candidates fell for it.

duane1969
07-05-2011, 03:44 PM
Palin has consistantly been unable to provide simple answers to simple questions since she was picked for the vp spot. If GOPers want Palin left alone maybe they should tell her to stop driving around to historical land marks in a giant bus with her name on the side...

Last time I checked, it is still a free country. It is hardly within the scope of power of the GOP to tell her she can't drive around and make dumb statements. And quite frankly I think she is helping the GOP cause. As long as liberals are focused on what she is doing then they are ignoring the bigger issues and in turn killing their own chances.

Besides, John Madden goes everywhere in a bus with his name/face on it and makes dumb statements all the time and nobody cares, why is it such a big deal that Palin does it?

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:45 PM
I think they were going after Al-qaeda as well. I'm guessing you are going to give me the "there were none in Iraq" speil.... Were there?

Al-qaeda was barely in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Where did you get your facts, from Fox News?

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:47 PM
Al-qaeda was barely in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Where did you get your facts, from Fox News?
So they were actually there.....Do you know how barely they were there? Where do you get you news from?? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:48 PM
Last time I checked, it is still a free country. It is hardly within the scope of power of the GOP to tell her she can't drive around and make dumb statements. And quite frankly I think she is helping the GOP cause. As long as liberals are focused on what she is doing then they are ignoring the bigger issues and in turn killing their own chances.

Besides, John Madden goes everywhere in a bus with his name/face on it and makes dumb statements all the time and nobody cares, why is it such a big deal that Palin does it?

Sorry, I didn't realize John Madden could have been 2nd in line for the Presidency.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:49 PM
That was not a debate. It was CNN asking a bunch of ridiculous hot-button questions looking for sensational responses, and they got exactly what they wanted. I can't believe the candidates fell for it.

Call it what you will, who cares. The fact remains they all catered to the extreme right wing of the party in demonizing American Muslims, not just Cain.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 03:51 PM
Call it what you will, who cares. The fact remains they all catered to the extreme right wing of the party in demonizing American Muslims, not just Cain.

And to you, that's an unforgivable offense, and there's no need to judge the candidates on any other merit?

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:52 PM
So they were actually there.....Do you know how barely they were there? Where do you get you news from?? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

They were not there ENOUGH to justify going to war.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:52 PM
So they were actually there.....Do you know how barely they were there? Where do you get you news from?? A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

There is most likley some sort of AQ cell in almost every country, AQ was not activley doing anything in Iraq during Saddams regime becasue he didn't allow it. AQ crossed into Iraq once the war started, the majority of attacks in the first 2 years of the war were fromer republican guard soldiers and followers of Al-Saddar

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:53 PM
There is most likley some sort of AQ cell in almost every country, AQ was not activley doing anything in Iraq during Saddams regime becasue he didn't allow it. AQ crossed into Iraq once the war started, the majority of attacks in the first 2 years of the war were fromer republican guard soldiers and followers of Al-Saddar
I think you need to look into that a little further. There is some evidence to the contrary....

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:54 PM
They were not there ENOUGH to justify going to war.
Lol, ummm ok. Thanks for the input.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:54 PM
That was not a debate. It was CNN asking a bunch of ridiculous hot-button questions looking for sensational responses, and they got exactly what they wanted. I can't believe the candidates fell for it.

So it's CNN's fault that there were a bunch of homophobic, anti islamic rebublicans talking about how homophboic and anti islamic they are? They could have gotten up there and said I love ice cream and been done with it. Instead they wanted to rally the deep core GOP base.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:55 PM
And to you, that's an unforgivable offense, and there's no need to judge the candidates on any other merit?
Well I think they all complained when anyone talked about that racist church Obama attended for years.....I guess it's only bad if it's on the other side. "Typical white people".

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:55 PM
And to you, that's an unforgivable offense, and there's no need to judge the candidates on any other merit?

Yes, it is unforgivable. I have no interest in supporting a bigot or anyone who pretends to be a bigot to garner the support of bigots in their election bid.

habsheaven
07-05-2011, 03:57 PM
There is most likley some sort of AQ cell in almost every country, AQ was not activley doing anything in Iraq during Saddams regime becasue he didn't allow it. AQ crossed into Iraq once the war started, the majority of attacks in the first 2 years of the war were fromer republican guard soldiers and followers of Al-Saddar

Stop making sense. They will start ignoring your posts if you continue to show them up.:sign0020:

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 03:57 PM
I think you need to look into that a little further. There is some evidence to the contrary....

And i suppose you can provide it right?

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 03:59 PM
And i suppose you can provide it right?
I can show you a few things, but with someone like you, it won't matter.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:01 PM
Here's a small sample that should at the very least make you question....

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.


Just go look up some of Colin Powells discussion on the subject. I'm guessing the Huffpo never discussed any of it.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 04:02 PM
I can show you a few things, but with someone like you, it won't matter.

So you can't provide any facts and your just making an excuse.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:02 PM
Stop making sense. They will start ignoring your posts if you continue to show them up.:sign0020:
Let me know when that happens....thx

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:03 PM
So you can't provide any facts and your just making an excuse.
Yep, that's it....good call.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Here's a small sample that should at the very least make you question....

Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.


Just go look up some of Colin Powells discussion on the subject. I'm guessing the Huffpo never discussed any of it.

So, what ever source you got that from, says 1 guy went and hid in Iraq. But can't provide any evidence as to a active or even inactive cell in any sort of pre planning or planning stage of operations.


I'm guessing the Huffpo never discussed any of it.
Well I better check World Net Daily then !!!!

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:07 PM
So, what ever source you got that from, says 1 guy went and hid in Iraq. But can't provide any evidence as to a active or even inactive cell in any sort of pre planning or planning stage of operations.


Well I better check World Net Daily then !!!!
You do that.....I told you what to look up. You will see a connection to terror in Iraq involving al qaeda.....

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 04:21 PM
You do that.....I told you what to look up. You will see a connection to terror in Iraq involving al qaeda.....

So you are trying to make a point/claim.. but you need me to do your research for you? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 04:22 PM
Well I think they all complained when anyone talked about that racist church Obama attended for years.....I guess it's only bad if it's on the other side. "Typical white people".

He was only a member of the church for political purposes. He didn't actually believe any of that stuff.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:24 PM
So you are trying to make a point/claim.. but you need me to do your research for you? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works.
Oh, I don't need you to do anything.....Thanks though.

sanfran22
07-05-2011, 04:25 PM
:sign0020:
He was only a member of the church for political purposes. He didn't actually believe any of that stuff.
So I've heard......

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 04:39 PM
You do that.....I told you what to look up. You will see a connection to terror in Iraq involving al qaeda.....


Go out and google George Bush connection to bin laden and see what you will find. Oops you will never do that because it dosen't support what you believe in. :winking0071:

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 04:40 PM
Yes, it is unforgivable. I have no interest in supporting a bigot or anyone who pretends to be a bigot to garner the support of bigots in their election bid.

So it really doesn't what Obama does as President, you will vote for him over any of the Republicans because you are convinced that they are all bigots?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 04:45 PM
So it really doesn't what Obama does as President, you will vote for him over any of the Republicans because you are convinced that they are all bigots?


And some of you people on here really don't mind voting for a bigot if it keeps Obama out of office.

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 04:50 PM
And some of you people on here really don't mind voting for a bigot if it keeps Obama out of office.

That's right, because right now the number one issue facing the country is the dire economic crisis that we are facing (and that Mr. Obama is perpetuating), and removing him from office is the first step in righting this ship. For that reason, I am willing to overlook things of lesser import (such as Mr. Cain's stance on Muslims, candidates' positions on social issues, etc.) that would have concerned me much more in past elections. The 2012 election is about the economy and the future of America, and Mr. Obama's policies are leading us nowhere but down.

You never answered my earlier question:


Back to topic: Why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 04:52 PM
That's right, because right now the number one issue facing the country is the dire economic crisis that we are facing (and that Mr. Obama is perpetuating), and removing him from office is the first step in righting this ship. For that reason, I am willing to overlook things of lesser import (such as Mr. Cain's stance on Muslims, candidates' positions on social issues, etc.) that would have concerned me much more in past elections. The 2012 election is about the economy and the future of America, and Mr. Obama's policies are leading us nowhere but down.

You never answered my earlier question.

And you really believe that a known bigot could objectively have America's best intrests at heart? SMH

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 04:55 PM
And you really believe that a known bigot could objectively have America's best intrests at heart? SMH

Because no bigot has ever done anything great for this country? SMH

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 04:58 PM
That's right, because right now the number one issue facing the country is the dire economic crisis that we are facing (and that Mr. Obama is perpetuating), and removing him from office is the first step in righting this ship. For that reason, I am willing to overlook things of lesser import (such as Mr. Cain's stance on Muslims, candidates' positions on social issues, etc.) that would have concerned me much more in past elections. The 2012 election is about the economy and the future of America, and Mr. Obama's policies are leading us nowhere but down.

You never answered my earlier question:


Back to topic: Why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

Please show which policies are leading us "down"

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 05:00 PM
Oh, I don't need you to do anything.....Thanks though.

Well obviously you need me to do your research, since you asked me to do it in a previous post. Are you lazy or did you just make up some stuff that you can't back up?

duane1969
07-05-2011, 05:22 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize John Madden could have been 2nd in line for the Presidency.

If Raiders fans were the only ones voting, then he would be president not vice president.

We have Sarah Palin, who doesn't know what Paul Revere did, you guys have Al Gore, who thinks he invented the internet. Let's call it a push.

redsoxx11
07-05-2011, 05:31 PM
If Raiders fans were the only ones voting, then he would be president not vice president.

We have Sarah Palin, who doesn't know what Paul Revere did, you guys have Al Gore, who thinks he invented the internet. Let's call it a push.

Sorry but he did not.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 05:46 PM
Please show which policies are leading us "down"

Well, he and the Dem Congress spent $830 billion (money that we had to borrow) on a stimulus bill, and the economy has lost more jobs since its passage than he predicted would be lost if no stimulus bill had been passed. Unemployment is still over 9%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/stimulus-price-tag-once-again-lurches-higher/
http://nation.foxnews.com/alan-greenspan/2011/06/30/greenspan-stimulus-failed

He has increased spending to 25% of GDP (from 21% under W), doubling our budget deficit in the process.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/15/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-federal-spending-has-risen-25-perce/

Obamacare is a disaster that is going to cost $115 billion more than originally projected and force us into a crappy single payer system.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html
http://www.marke™™™™ch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

His foreclosure prevention program is a miserable failure, and his bailout of Fannie and Freddie cost taxpayers $317 billion (not the $130 billion he said it would cost).
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-bi
http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/03/obamas_hamp_program_failed_mis.html

His 2009 budget was understated by $2.3 trillion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/45528

Auto bailouts are another total failure, costing taxpayers at least $14 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html

And these are just his economic policies.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 06:39 PM
They were not there ENOUGH to justify going to war.
You might want to tell that to the democratly controlled congress at the time ..Congress does approve war right ?

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 06:44 PM
Sorry but he did not.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
@55 seconds he claims he created the internet ....

http://youtu.be/BnFJ8cHAlco

INTIMADATOR2007
07-05-2011, 06:44 PM
well, he and the dem congress spent $830 billion (money that we had to borrow) on a stimulus bill, and the economy has lost more jobs since its passage than he predicted would be lost if no stimulus bill had been passed. Unemployment is still over 9%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/stimulus-price-tag-once-again-lurches-higher/
http://nation.foxnews.com/alan-greenspan/2011/06/30/greenspan-stimulus-failed

he has increased spending to 25% of gdp (from 21% under w), doubling our budget deficit in the process.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/15/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-federal-spending-has-risen-25-perce/

obamacare is a disaster that is going to cost $115 billion more than originally projected and force us into a crappy single payer system.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html
http://www.marke™™™™ch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

his foreclosure prevention program is a miserable failure, and his bailout of fannie and freddie cost taxpayers $317 billion (not the $130 billion he said it would cost).
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-bi
http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/03/obamas_hamp_program_failed_mis.html

his 2009 budget was understated by $2.3 trillion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/45528

auto bailouts are another total failure, costing taxpayers at least $14 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/sb10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html

and these are just his economic policies.
+1

mrveggieman
07-05-2011, 08:36 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize John Madden could have been 2nd in line for the Presidency.


If Madden runs he has my vote over any of these sorry republican canidates. He might even throw his weight around to end the nfl and nba lockouts and bring playoffs to D-1 football. :sign0020: Sorry I couldn't resist.

tutall
07-05-2011, 09:03 PM
Well, he and the Dem Congress spent $830 billion (money that we had to borrow) on a stimulus bill, and the economy has lost more jobs since its passage than he predicted would be lost if no stimulus bill had been passed. Unemployment is still over 9%.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/25/stimulus-price-tag-once-again-lurches-higher/
http://nation.foxnews.com/alan-greenspan/2011/06/30/greenspan-stimulus-failed

He has increased spending to 25% of GDP (from 21% under W), doubling our budget deficit in the process.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/15/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-federal-spending-has-risen-25-perce/

Obamacare is a disaster that is going to cost $115 billion more than originally projected and force us into a crappy single payer system.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html
http://www.marke™™™™ch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

His foreclosure prevention program is a miserable failure, and his bailout of Fannie and Freddie cost taxpayers $317 billion (not the $130 billion he said it would cost).
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-bi
http://blog.oregonlive.com/frontporch/2010/03/obamas_hamp_program_failed_mis.html

His 2009 budget was understated by $2.3 trillion.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/45528

Auto bailouts are another total failure, costing taxpayers at least $14 billion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303745304576361663907855834.html

And these are just his economic policies.

wait guys.... I got this one...

First off I see the term FoxNews which makes your entire post false.... Second...... George Bush......... Inherited............. wars we didnt need to get in........... WTC............. Conspiracy theory............ Sarah Palin, Rush limbaugh and Glenn Beck...............

AUTaxMan
07-05-2011, 09:04 PM
If Madden runs he has my vote over any of these sorry republican canidates. He might even throw his weight around to end the nfl and nba lockouts and bring playoffs to D-1 football. :sign0020: Sorry I couldn't resist.

Are you ever going to answer my question about Cain v. Obama? If not, please let me know.

OnePimpTiger
07-05-2011, 11:03 PM
So your going to try and argue this article with a link to Money Chimp, and because there is no biblography? But you havne't posted a single source yet. Typical....

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/stmt/2003/statement_signed.pdf?nocdn=1

I knew an intelligent response was too much to hope for, but c'mon. Do you know how to read those tables you posted? First of all, do you realize they're referring to 2004 and 2005, nothing about 2007 that your article is referring to? And second, do you realize that it completely disproves your articles point?

Your article on the rich:

the actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent.

Factual table:

Effective tax rate for :

Top 10&#37; - 27.4

Top 5% - 28.9

Top 1% - 31.2

Your article on everyone else:

Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007.

Factual table:


Effective tax rate:

Lowest Quintile - 4.3

Second Quintile - 9.9

Middle Quintile - 14.2

Fourth Quintile - 17.4

So you went out of your way to prove yourself wrong...well done.

And a statement against Bush's tax cuts signed by 14 economists...well then, at least it's settled!

Why do I waste my time on this?

Biggtyme
07-05-2011, 11:11 PM
Since this turned into rep vs dem chew on these numbers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 09:51 AM
I knew an intelligent response was too much to hope for, but c'mon. Do you know how to read those tables you posted? First of all, do you realize they're referring to 2004 and 2005, nothing about 2007 that your article is referring to? And second, do you realize that it completely disproves your articles point?

Your article on the rich:


Factual table:


Your article on everyone else:


Factual table:



So you went out of your way to prove yourself wrong...well done.

And a statement against Bush's tax cuts signed by 14 economists...well then, at least it's settled!

Why do I waste my time on this?

Wasn't it you who randomly posted 4 economists and tried to use that as the rational for trickle down economics working?

I love conservative thinking....

1/2 think cutting taxes is going to create jobs because rich people will do it.

1/2 (the rich people) are thinking they can't wait to get a tax cut so they can just keep the money and do nothing with it

30 years and it never worked....

tutall
07-06-2011, 10:08 AM
Wasn't it you who randomly posted 4 economists and tried to use that as the rational for trickle down economics working?

I love conservative thinking....

1/2 think cutting taxes is going to create jobs because rich people will do it.

1/2 (the rich people) are thinking they can't wait to get a tax cut so they can just keep the money and do nothing with it

30 years and it never worked....

How about instead of attacking someone you back up the "facts" that you posted and tell us why you are right

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 10:27 AM
How about instead of attacking someone you back up the "facts" that you posted and tell us why you are right

The liberal MO, as you know, is to attack the messenger instead of argue the issues.

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 11:03 AM
Mr. V, why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 11:07 AM
Mr. V, why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?
You may as well let it be. He never answers anything to the point...... Just that it's all bushes fault, we love war, we hate the poor and sick, the rich are evil ect ect.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 11:36 AM
Mr. V, why vote Obama over Herman Cain? I acknowledge that Cain said he wouldn't want a Muslim in his administration and that you don't like that position of his, so no need to belabor that point.

However, if you just need a single point on a relatively meaningless issue to criticize one candidate in order to justify your vote for Obama, just admit it, and we'll end the discussion.

The real question is who do you think would be a better President for this country, and why?

I would chose Obama over Cain because the president has to have the best intrests of all the citizens and not just christians and rich people. Also what gov't experience does Cain have? I have also heard that a certian racist element of the republican party is only using cain as a puppet to suggest that they are not really racist.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 11:39 AM
I would chose Obama over Cain because the president has to have the best intrests of all the citizens and not just christians and rich people. Also what gov't experience does Cain have? I have also heard that a certian racist element of the republican party is only using cain as a puppet to suggest that they are not really racist.
Herman Cain has run BUSINESSES....What has obama done? Community organized? Senate for a couple years? I think this country needs a businessman to realine the finances to where they should be.
That last line says what kind of person you are unfortunately....sad.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 11:45 AM
Herman Cain has run BUSINESSES....What has obama done? Community organized? Senate for a couple years? I think this country needs a businessman to realine the finances to where they should be.
That last line says what kind of person you are unfortunately....sad.


And we all know what kind of successful businessman GWB was.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

Some of our conservative friends refuse to face the facts even if they bit them in the rear end.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 11:47 AM
And we all know what kind of successful businessman GWB was.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

Some of our conservative friends refuse to face the facts even if they bit them in the rear end.
Yeah, he just ran a state not organized a "community"..sorry. It always goes back to Bush. Here's a thought, why not think for yourself sometime?

"As governor, Bush successfully sponsored legislation for tort reform, increased education funding, set higher standards for schools, and reformed the criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system. Bush also pioneered faith-based welfare programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives) and helped make Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas) the leading producer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States) of wind powered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power) electricity in the US. As a popular governor, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory) with nearly 69 percent of the vote".

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 11:53 AM
Yeah, he just ran a state not organized a "community"..sorry. It always goes back to Bush. Here's a thought, why not think for yourself sometime?


"As governor, Bush successfully sponsored legislation for tort reform, increased education funding, set higher standards for schools, and reformed the criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system. Bush also pioneered faith-based welfare programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives) and helped make Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas) the leading producer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States) of wind powered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power) electricity in the US. As a popular governor, Bush won re-election in a landslide victory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory) with nearly 69 percent of the vote".

If I didn't have a brain of my own I would be just another GOP fanboy.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 11:54 AM
And we all know what kind of successful businessman GWB was.

Bush entered office a mutli-millionaire and part owner of a pro baseball team.

Clinton entered office wealthy (a millionaire?) thanks to shady land schemes that defrauded the government.

Obama entered office married to a millionaire.

Seems to me that GWB was a more successful businessman than the other two combined.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 11:55 AM
If I didn't have a brain of my own I would be just another GOP fanboy.
Instead you are on the wrong side of just about everything, congrats...Now go and look up some real facts please.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 11:59 AM
Instead you are on the wrong side of just about everything, congrats...Now go and look up some real facts please.


If going against a party of racist right wing war mongering religious extremists is wrong then I don't want to be right. :boxing:

tutall
07-06-2011, 12:16 PM
If going against a party of racist right wing war mongering religious extremists is wrong then I don't want to be right. :boxing:

When voting for Obama did you know of any of his accomplishments? Did you know what his senate voting (or lack there of) record was? Did you know what qualifications he had as far as economic policy or foreign relations? Did you vote for him as a president or a figure head you thought could speak well and dress nicely? If you voted for him based on policy which platforms that he was running on did you agree with?

OnePimpTiger
07-06-2011, 12:18 PM
Wasn't it you who randomly posted 4 economists and tried to use that as the rational for trickle down economics working?

Actually, no, it wasn't. I posted 4 economists to disprove someone else's point that "any economist knows "trickle down economics" do not work." I wasn't trying to prove it did work, I was trying to prove there are economists who think it does...and I did so successfully, thanks.


I love conservative thinking....

1/2 think cutting taxes is going to create jobs because rich people will do it.

1/2 (the rich people) are thinking they can't wait to get a tax cut so they can just keep the money and do nothing with it

30 years and it never worked....

So you're not going to try to explain why the factual table you posted blatantly contradicts the article you posted proving trickle down doesn't work? Or does you silence on the topic mean you concede that article was a joke and you just don't want to admit it?

I love liberal thinking...just spout out nonsense, which most of the time contradicts itself, and never bother trying to connect the dots either to explain to others or even just for themselves.

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 12:21 PM
I would chose Obama over Cain because the president has to have the best intrests of all the citizens and not just christians and rich people. Also what gov't experience does Cain have? I have also heard that a certian racist element of the republican party is only using cain as a puppet to suggest that they are not really racist.

Are you asserting that in his policy making, Obama takes into account the best interests of all people equally, including Christians and rich people?

What good has Obama's political experience done for this country?

Where have you heard this ridiculous puppet notion?

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 12:22 PM
And we all know what kind of successful businessman GWB was.

http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html

Some of our conservative friends refuse to face the facts even if they bit them in the rear end.

I don't think anyone EVER touted Bush as a financial mastermind.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 12:23 PM
If going against a party of racist right wing war mongering religious extremists is wrong then I don't want to be right. :boxing:
If I recall, you were the one who had an open mind and would vote for any candidate that you saw fit. i thought you didn't subscribe to any party? It appears you have contradicted yourself yet again. You are a progressive left wing hack like we suspected....:sign0020:

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 12:29 PM
Bush entered office a mutli-millionaire and part owner of a pro baseball team.

Clinton entered office wealthy (a millionaire?) thanks to shady land schemes that defrauded the government.

Obama entered office married to a millionaire.

Seems to me that GWB was a more successful businessman than the other two combined.

Well, I'll give Obama credit for one thing. He made his money the smart way.

duane1969
07-06-2011, 12:30 PM
Well, I'll give Obama credit for one thing. He made his money the smart way.

And with one little legal document he will lose it just as easily as he got it LOL

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 12:49 PM
If I recall, you were the one who had an open mind and would vote for any candidate that you saw fit. i thought you didn't subscribe to any party? It appears you have contradicted yourself yet again. You are a progressive left wing hack like we suspected....:sign0020:

Once again you are loud and wrong my good friend. I did indeed say that I would consider voting for a republican if I thought that he/she is best suited for the job. Of all the republicans that have been touted there aren't any that I would even give a second thought too. Please show me some real canidates instead of these usual right wing party before people clowns. I would actually like to see a competitive election.

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 12:52 PM
Once again you are loud and wrong my good friend. I did indeed say that I would consider voting for a republican if I thought that he/she is best suited for the job. Of all the republicans that have been touted there aren't any that I would even give a second thought too. Please show me some real canidates instead of these usual right wing party before people clowns. I would actually like to see a competitive election.

I am trying to get you to substantiate your positions on the candidates, and you keep responding with vague, generalized answers as opposed to specifics.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 01:11 PM
I am trying to get you to substantiate your positions on the candidates, and you keep responding with vague, generalized answers as opposed to specifics.

If the republican party weren't a vauge, generalized, party that didn't put politics over people I would be able to give a more specific answer.

storm
07-06-2011, 01:19 PM
We just had a dinner to benifit the re-election campaign here in VT.So we need to work together to fix our economy?Well lets work together to spend that 5000 per plate you were charging for dinner and a Michelle app!I went full steam with Mitt in 08,and im going to again in 12!

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 01:22 PM
If the republican party weren't a vauge, generalized, party that didn't put politics over people I would be able to give a more specific answer.

That is a cop-out excuse. I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt much more that the other conservatives in this thread because I generally think you are a reasonable person based on other discussions we have had. However, it appears that you are going with the Obama vote "just because." I don't have a problem with your taking that position, but it does tell me that you aren't truly interested in engaging in substantive discussions on these matters and that I am wasting my time in responding to your posts. I hope that is not the case.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 01:34 PM
Once again you are loud and wrong my good friend. I did indeed say that I would consider voting for a republican if I thought that he/she is best suited for the job. Of all the republicans that have been touted there aren't any that I would even give a second thought too. Please show me some real canidates instead of these usual right wing party before people clowns. I would actually like to see a competitive election.
There will never be a candidate on the right you'll agree with. Just admit it and move on. You are entrenched in the left wing.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 02:08 PM
There will never be a candidate on the right you'll agree with. Just admit it and move on. You are entrenched in the left wing.


Wrong again. If as I have said over and over again I would love to see a republican canidate who believes in some of what I believe in and can put the people he serves over his party intrests. None of the current crop of republican canidates are anywhere close to this.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 02:11 PM
Wrong again. If as I have said over and over again I would love to see a republican canidate who believes in some of what I believe in and can put the people he serves over his party intrests. None of the current crop of republican canidates are anywhere close to this.
But the dems are?

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 02:13 PM
That is a cop-out excuse. I have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt much more that the other conservatives in this thread because I generally think you are a reasonable person based on other discussions we have had. However, it appears that you are going with the Obama vote "just because." I don't have a problem with your taking that position, but it does tell me that you aren't truly interested in engaging in substantive discussions on these matters and that I am wasting my time in responding to your posts. I hope that is not the case.


Yes I do appreciate that from you and enjoy discussing politics with everyone on here especially you and believe it or not everyone's buddy sanfran22. To answer your question I have a real serious problem with me being a man of color voting for anyone who is as racist as some of the republican canidates. Yes they can talk the talk about cutting taxes, creating jobs, fixing the economy, blah, blah, blah but as we all know a politican will say anything just to get elected. You can never believe what comes out of a politician's mouth but you had better take his or her racist actions at face value.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 02:18 PM
:party0048::winking0071:
Yes I do appreciate that from you and enjoy discussing politics with everyone on here especially you and believe it or not everyone's buddy sanfran22. To answer your question I have a real serious problem with me being a man of color voting for anyone who is as racist as some of the republican canidates. Yes they can talk the talk about cutting taxes, creating jobs, fixing the economy, blah, blah, blah but as we all know a politican will say anything just to get elected. You can never believe what comes out of a politician's mouth but you had better take his or her racist actions at face value.
So what do you say about Obama's "typical white person" quote or the church he attended? Or the remarks made in his books?? Or his saying the cop handled the Gates incident stupidly?

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 02:28 PM
Yes I do appreciate that from you and enjoy discussing politics with everyone on here especially you and believe it or not everyone's buddy sanfran22. To answer your question I have a real serious problem with me being a man of color voting for anyone who is as racist as some of the republican canidates. Yes they can talk the talk about cutting taxes, creating jobs, fixing the economy, blah, blah, blah but as we all know a politican will say anything just to get elected. You can never believe what comes out of a politician's mouth but you had better take his or her racist actions at face value.

Which of the republican candidates do you believe are racist, and why?

Star_Cards
07-06-2011, 02:49 PM
:party0048::winking0071:
So what do you say about Obama's "typical white person" quote or the church he attended? Or the remarks made in his books?? Or his saying the cop handled the Gates incident stupidly?

I had never heard the "typical white person" quote. I just looked it up and while I hope what he describes is not the typical white person... there are a lot of people no matter their race who do this. Heck, everyone does it really, whether if it's race, weight, attractiveness, sex, age, or any other visually distinguishing factor.

The church he attended issue was someone else speaking so I don't draw much of a line of one's words being related to another person. I find it odd that that man was allowed to preach to anyone and find it odd that Obama attended that church, but I'm not aware if the clips played were times Obama was there or what. Bottom line, the words a person speaks does not to another person's views.

Don't know about any remarks in his book.

I don't think Obama said the officer handled the Gate's incident stupidly because he was white and gates was black. I think that would have been his opinion no matter the race. Although had race not been involved it wouldn't have been an issue that obama would have commented on.

this all said... I'm not sure how many Republicans I'd say are out and out racists. Sure there have been some of the older guys, but these days I don't know. If there are republicans that are I'd bet there are Dems that are as well. I sure hope there aren't any in either party.

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 02:51 PM
:party0048::winking0071:
So what do you say about Obama's "typical white person" quote or the church he attended? Or the remarks made in his books?? Or his saying the cop handled the Gates incident stupidly?


The key word is attended. You being a christian person yourself know that people do have the right to switch churches if the church does something that you do not agree with. Also another thing that you should know as a christian is that you are following god and not the preacher. I don't agree with the way the cop handled the Gates incident either. So what are you trying to imply with this line of questioning?

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 02:54 PM
Which of the republican candidates do you believe are racist, and why?

Herman Cain and Michelly Bachman clearly have a problem with muslims. That is not racial per say but that is religious hatred which is frowned upon by everyone else in society except for the GOP.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 02:56 PM
The key word is attended. You being a christian person yourself know that people do have the right to switch churches if the church does something that you do not agree with. Also another thing that you should know as a christian is that you are following god and not the preacher. I don't agree with the way the cop handled the Gates incident either. So what are you trying to imply with this line of questioning?
I don't think it would take me 20 years to figure out what kind of church this was...Secondly, I don't sgree with how gates handled the situation. Go back and read the transcripts. Lastly, you just made a blanket racial statement about the republican candidates so i want to hear your defense of things that Obama could have done that appear as possibly racist.

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:00 PM
Herman Cain and Michelly Bachman clearly have a problem with muslims. That is not racial per say but that is religious hatred which is frowned upon by everyone else in society except for the GOP.

You make it as though dems are gods.... All parties have flawed members in them. Ifyou would actually take the time to read them I would go through and post quotes from Dems belittling a group of people... But it is pretty obvious to me any facts that are posted regarding policy is glanced over and blamed on Bush. People in both parties lie, cheat, say whatever they need to to get elected... Obama did he... He made promises that no president could have fulfilled knowing people would not do the research and follow up on him. We fell for it because of many factors and now he is in office.

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 03:03 PM
I had never heard the "typical white person" quote. I just looked it up and while I hope what he describes is not the typical white person... there are a lot of people no matter their race who do this. Heck, everyone does it really, whether if it's race, weight, attractiveness, sex, age, or any other visually distinguishing factor.

That's fine, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he has some racial bias it appears from that statement.

The church he attended issue was someone else speaking so I don't draw much of a line of one's words being related to another person. I find it odd that that man was allowed to preach to anyone and find it odd that Obama attended that church, but I'm not aware if the clips played were times Obama was there or what. Bottom line, the words a person speaks does not to another person's views.

If I have a problem with what my church leader is doing/saying, I believe I would confront it or leave. You don't just stay there for 20 years in disagreement.

Don't know about any remarks in his book.

I don't think Obama said the officer handled the Gate's incident stupidly because he was white and gates was black. I think that would have been his opinion no matter the race. Although had race not been involved it wouldn't have been an issue that obama would have commented on.
If you go back and read how it all played out, the one acting stupidly was Gates. He was very abusive and uncooperative to a cop who was alerted to a possible breakin by the neighbors. The cop is also the leader of the racial sensitivity classes on the force if I remember correctly. Lastly, the president had no business getting involved in the first place.


this all said... I'm not sure how many Republicans I'd say are out and out racists. Sure there have been some of the older guys, but these days I don't know. If there are republicans that are I'd bet there are Dems that are as well. I sure hope there aren't any in either party.
There are some on both sides, no doubt. But to brandish a whole party is rediculous. I do believe a bigger percent of repubs voted for the civil rights act then dems back in the day. It goes both ways.


see above

mrveggieman
07-06-2011, 03:13 PM
see above

Some republicans did fight for civil rights....in Lincolns day. What has the GOP done for civil rights lately?
:whistle:

Star_Cards
07-06-2011, 03:13 PM
Originally Posted by Star_Cards
I had never heard the "typical white person" quote. I just looked it up and while I hope what he describes is not the typical white person... there are a lot of people no matter their race who do this. Heck, everyone does it really, whether if it's race, weight, attractiveness, sex, age, or any other visually distinguishing factor.

That's fine, but it doesn't excuse the fact that he has some racial bias it appears from that statement.

The church he attended issue was someone else speaking so I don't draw much of a line of one's words being related to another person. I find it odd that that man was allowed to preach to anyone and find it odd that Obama attended that church, but I'm not aware if the clips played were times Obama was there or what. Bottom line, the words a person speaks does not to another person's views.

If I have a problem with what my church leader is doing/saying, I believe I would confront it or leave. You don't just stay there for 20 years in disagreement.

Don't know about any remarks in his book.

I don't think Obama said the officer handled the Gate's incident stupidly because he was white and gates was black. I think that would have been his opinion no matter the race. Although had race not been involved it wouldn't have been an issue that obama would have commented on.
If you go back and read how it all played out, the one acting stupidly was Gates. He was very abusive and uncooperative to a cop who was alerted to a possible breakin by the neighbors. The cop is also the leader of the racial sensitivity classes on the force if I remember correctly. Lastly, the president had no business getting involved in the first place.


this all said... I'm not sure how many Republicans I'd say are out and out racists. Sure there have been some of the older guys, but these days I don't know. If there are republicans that are I'd bet there are Dems that are as well. I sure hope there aren't any in either party.
There are some on both sides, no doubt. But to brandish a whole party is rediculous. I do believe a bigger percent of repubs voted for the civil rights act then dems back in the day. It goes both ways.

I think everyone has a racial biased no matter who you are. Does racial biased equate to racists? I don't think it does necessarily.

I agree as I find it odd as well. There had to be other reason why he stayed there if Rev Wright spewed his crap every week. Maybe Obama didn't attend much. no clue.

He didn't, but I believe that he was asked. I'm not sure how it went down honestly. I saw it as a non story that the media ran with rather than discussing actual topics that politicians should be working on. I'm sure mistakes were made by both sides. I can see being calm if an officer thinks I'm breaking into my own home and I can also see where I could possibly be angry given my mood and what I was doing.

Definitely agree there are probably some on both sides. Hopefully less than more. Brandishing any group, political or otherwise is pretty baseless. I don't like when people use the words "all" or "every" in statements that can't be proven. If people are honest with themselves they would know that there are a lot of things that just aren't 100% certain when trying to classify groups of people. Everyone is different and even if the majority is a certain way that doesn't mean they all are that way... good or bad.

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:15 PM
come on dude seriosuly... do you want me to post some quotes by people high up in the dem party on race? It goes both ways... what have the dems done recently for civil rights?

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Some republicans did fight for civil rights....in Lincolns day. What has the GOP done for civil rights lately?
:whistle:
Actually, this was in the 60's....are you really this historically challenged??
By party
The original House version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-12)

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20

AUTaxMan
07-06-2011, 03:21 PM
Herman Cain and Michelly Bachman clearly have a problem with muslims. That is not racial per say but that is religious hatred which is frowned upon by everyone else in society except for the GOP.

It is not hatred. It is being suspect of persons of a certain religion who want to kill us. We are at war with Muslim extremists who want to end our Western way of life and would particularly like to take home the prize of being the one who offed the POTUS. They come from many different countries, and they do not represent the views of the entire Muslim community, but they all have one thing in common-- they are Muslim. If a person in a position of power like the President wants to distance himself from Muslims out of an abundance of caution or wants Muslims who are vying for a seat in his administration to undergo a more rigorous background check than other non-Muslims, I think that is a reasonable position to take. It isn't hatred or intolerance. It may be using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, but it is a way of dealing with real, serious security issues that the President could face one day.

The fact that you think the GOP is generally accepting of racism is further indicia of the fact that you are much more swayed by liberal talking points than actual facts, because you couldn't be further from the truth.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:31 PM
Actually, this was in the 60's....are you really this historically challenged??
By party
The original House version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-12)

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-King-11)

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20


Ya I think we all get that at one time the dems were racist patry and the reps weren't and then Nixon started his southern strategy and the idiology of the parties switched. So in the last 30 years find something the Reps have done for civil rights.

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:33 PM
Ya I think we all get that at one time the dems were racist patry and the reps weren't and then Nixon started his southern strategy and the idiology of the parties switched. So in the last 30 years find something the Reps have done for civil rights.

I will... and while I go search for something please post a bill the dems have passed for civil rights

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:34 PM
It is not hatred. It is being suspect of persons of a certain religion who want to kill us. We are at war with Muslim extremists who want to end our Western way of life and would particularly like to take home the prize of being the one who offed the POTUS. They come from many different countries, and they do not represent the views of the entire Muslim community, but they all have one thing in common-- they are Muslim. If a person in a position of power like the President wants to distance himself from Muslims out of an abundance of caution or wants Muslims who are vying for a seat in his administration to undergo a more rigorous background check than other non-Muslims, I think that is a reasonable position to take. It isn't hatred or intolerance. It may be using a sledgehammer to kill a fly, but it is a way of dealing with real, serious security issues that the President could face one day.

The fact that you think the GOP is generally accepting of racism is further indicia of the fact that you are much more swayed by liberal talking points than actual facts, because you couldn't be further from the truth.

This is the most laughable thing you have said in this whole thread. It doesn't take liberal talking points to see the GOP embraces racism, homophobia and anti islamisism.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:41 PM
Just for giggles lets look at the civil rights act voting by region ...

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7&#37;–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Not so much disparity now it there............

texansrangerfan73
07-06-2011, 03:43 PM
Herman Cain and Michelly Bachman clearly have a problem with muslims. That is not racial per say but that is religious hatred which is frowned upon by everyone else in society except for the GOP.

It truly is against the 1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights & the United States Constitution. For the people who can't remember the readings or teachings of History & Government classes I'm sure it can be found on the web!!

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:43 PM
i will... And while i go search for something please post a bill the dems have passed for civil rights

hr 2965

Star_Cards
07-06-2011, 03:44 PM
there were some republicans in NY that voted to make gay marriage legal just last month. That's a very recent civil rights topic that had support of some republicans.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:47 PM
hr 3355

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:47 PM
there were some republicans in NY that voted to make gay marriage legal just last month. That's a very recent civil rights topic that had support of some republicans.

Want to bet those 2 don't see a dime from the RNC come next election cycle.

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:49 PM
hr 2965

I apologize... I thought we were still talking about race... not gays in the military... But while we are on that... Didnt some of the military leaders say this was not a good idea? If commanders on the ground are saying this is a bad palicy change I fail to see what makes people who have never been in combat know better than those who lead our men and women.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:50 PM
I apologize... I thought we were still talking about race... not gays in the military... But while we are on that... Didnt some of the military leaders say this was not a good idea? If commanders on the ground are saying this is a bad palicy change I fail to see what makes people who have never been in combat know better than those who lead our men and women.

Were talking about civil rights

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 03:51 PM
Just for giggles lets look at the civil rights act voting by region ...

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Not so much disparity now it there............
It seem the repubs outvoted the dems by 15% or more as a whole.

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:53 PM
hr 3355

that was 20 years ago

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:57 PM
I apologize... I thought we were still talking about race... not gays in the military... But while we are on that... Didnt some of the military leaders say this was not a good idea? If commanders on the ground are saying this is a bad palicy change I fail to see what makes people who have never been in combat know better than those who lead our men and women.

Actually most commanders on the ground said they didn't care as long as the soldier could do thier job.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 03:58 PM
that was 20 years ago

which is less then 30

tutall
07-06-2011, 03:59 PM
which is less then 30

just so i am clear.... where do you want the cutoff to be? 21 years so we can use your data?

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 04:00 PM
Ya I think we all get that at one time the dems were racist patry and the reps weren't and then Nixon started his southern strategy and the idiology of the parties switched. So in the last 30 years find something the Reps have done for civil rights.
WHich tells me you still have alot of catching up to do.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/22526.html
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air Force’s and Army’s first black four-star generals.

November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America’s first black national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed him our first black secretary of state.

President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America’s first black female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice–the most “No” votes for a State designee since 14 senators frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.

Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party,” Cox continued. “Then, just as now, their hallmarks were politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual initiative…and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals.”

Alas, even as Republicans promote work over welfare, educational choice, and personal retirement accounts, all of which would empower blacks, some 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat as reflexively as knees kick when tapped with rubber mallets. After inspecting the Democrats’ handiwork–e.g. the tar pit that is public assistance, the Dresden that is the ghetto school system, and the pyramid scheme that is Social Security (which robs too many blacks who die before recouping their “investment”)–black Americans should ask Democrats: “Yesterday’s gone. What have you done for us lately?”

Affirmative action and its tentacles — quotas, minority-based points systems, group-based preferences, loosened testing and admissions standards — subvert our most sacred democratic principle: that all men are equal in the eyes of the law. For too long, preferences have countered this value. The belief that career opportunities and educational successes should be the reward of individuals' merit and unwavering work ethic is diminshing over time.
Tragically for blacks, women and other "oppressed" minorities, affirmative action also indirectly communicates a demoralizing message of inferiority that reinforces the same separatism it set out to solve. It is illogical to think that one can fight fire with fire and get anything but scorched earth. Reverse discrimination cannot cure discrimination.

If any party is covertly racist. It's the party that keeps you down and enslaved. That's not the republicans.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 04:26 PM
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday,

A bill written by a democrat

Senator Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism".[

tutall
07-06-2011, 04:27 PM
do you know what political party MLK Jr was in?

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 04:33 PM
do you know what political party MLK Jr was in?

Yes I do Republican.. which makes sense in 1960, and I think we've already discussed... well I told you all .. about the shift in idiologies.

Dixicrats in the 60's are now the republicans of the 70's, 80's 90's and 2000's, it's pretty simple concept

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 06:08 PM
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday,

A bill written by a democrat

Senator Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina) led opposition to the bill and questioned whether King was important enough to receive such an honor. He also criticized King's opposition to the Vietnam War and accused him of espousing "action-oriented Marxism".[
And a republican....gotta love the selective half truths....

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 06:50 PM
And a republican....gotta love the selective half truths....

wrong that bill was defeted. look again

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 07:01 PM
wrong that bill was defeted. look again
Your missing my point. You make it sound as if it was the kind hearted, for the people democrats who had the idea. It was also a republican idea just as much.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-06-2011, 07:08 PM
Man , This new group of posters in the POL/REL . section really do have there act together don't they . Sound like they have visited Media Matters and the huff po before coming here ....And why do so many of there words end in "ists"

Oh I get it ,
Marxists
socialists
communists
racists
extrmeists
and i'm sure bigot has an ists somewhere..lol...

sanfran22
07-06-2011, 07:10 PM
Man , This new group of posters in the POL/REL . section really do have there act together don't they . Sound like they have visited Media Matters and the huff po before coming here ....And why do so many of there words end in "ists"

Oh I get it ,
Marxists
socialists
communists
racists
extrmeists
and i'm sure bigot has an ists somewhere..lol...
Nah, they're just fringe(ist) leftists. That must be where all that ists came from. ;)

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 07:11 PM
lol this forum has been filled with freepers and ditto heads long enough

Theodor Madison
07-06-2011, 07:19 PM
Only History will tell whether Mr. O was the right pick. At this time Charlie S would have done a better job. We can't afford to enable hard working Americans. Where are the jobs? I want a waiver, I want to wave Mr O. good by.

redsoxx11
07-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Only History will tell whether Mr. O was the right pick. At this time Charlie S would have done a better job. We can't afford to enable hard working Americans. Where are the jobs? I want a waiver, I want to wave Mr O. good by.

They left when wall street crashed out economy

theonedru
07-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Less complaining and more actions people, we are a nation of cowards who sit our fat butts in our lounge chairs complaining about this and that and waiting for someone else to do something. Quit whining and become the change you want to happen. And quit blaming the politicians, its the people fault we let them get away with what they do, its our fault this country is is such disregard due to our own uninterest in doing anything about anything

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Sorry dude it contains swearing and thus not allowed

duane1969
07-07-2011, 12:38 PM
lol this forum has been filled with freepers and ditto heads long enough

Why is the liberal position always to label someone? The Dems call themselves the progressive thinkers yet they are the first to label people and start assigning denegrating names like tea-bagger, freeper and ditto head or generalizing that anyone who is conservative is a redneck or racist.

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 12:41 PM
Sorry dude it contains swearing and thus not allowed


My apologizies. Not meant to offend anyone. :ashamed0001:

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Why is the liberal position always to label someone? The Dems call themselves the progressive thinkers yet they are the first to label people and start assigning denegrating names like tea-bagger, freeper and ditto head or generalizing that anyone who is conservative is a redneck or racist.


There is nothing wrong with being conservative as far as cutting frivilous gov't waste and over taxing. As far as calling yourself "conservative" but really standing against human rights and progress that is what we have a problem with.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 01:37 PM
There is nothing wrong with being conservative as far as cutting frivilous gov't waste and over taxing. As far as calling yourself "conservative" but really standing against human rights and progress that is what we have a problem with.
You really have a skewed view of what conservatism is.....
Just because someone is against gay marriage does not mean they are against gay people. As stated before, I don't care what they do in their own lives, privacy of their own home ect. I do have an issue when I am being forced to recognize their actions when it pertains to sanctioned marriage.

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 01:40 PM
You really have a skewed view of what conservatism is.....


I am only going by the example of your conservative leaders rush limbaugh, pat robertson and former leader jerry fallwell. If they don't share your views you should distance yourself from them.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 01:43 PM
I am only going by the example of your conservative leaders rush limbaugh, pat robertson and former leader jerry fallwell. If they don't share your views you should distance yourself from them.
I'm not sure you know their views w/o copy and pasting the internet. Secondly, I don't recall ever posting anything that any of them have said, so don't know if I need to "distance" myself from anyone.

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 01:51 PM
I'm not sure you know their views w/o copy and pasting the internet. Secondly, I don't recall ever posting anything that any of them have said, so don't know if I need to "distance" myself from anyone.

Jerry Fallwell was a know segrgationist. When Dr Martin Luther King was preaching love and intergration he was preaching hatred and segration. If you don't believe me feel free to look it up for yourself. When racism became socially acceptable he directed his message of hate towards homosexuals, muslims and anyone who does not share his extreme view of christanity. Yes the man is dead now but his christian collation buddies like pat robertson are still around share his extreme views. And if you if you think that rush believes in equality please watch the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGiTv_xRd5A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGiTv_xRd5A)

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Jerry Fallwell was a know segrgationist. When Dr Martin Luther King was preaching love and intergration he was preaching hatred and segration. If you don't believe me feel free to look it up for yourself. When racism became socially acceptable he directed his message of hate towards homosexuals, muslims and anyone who does not share his extreme view of christanity. Yes the man is dead now but his christian collation buddies like pat robertson are still around share his extreme views. And if you if you think that rush believes in equality please watch the following:

I know who and what they all are and I don't need the BS black QB garbage again. Please.....If you really think that makes Rush racist, what do you say about Harry Reid and his negro comment? Or Obama and his typical white person comment. Why is it one thing for Rush, but not the same for them??

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 01:55 PM
I know who and what they all are and I don't need the BS black QB garbage again. Please.....


You really are showing your true colors. :sign0020:

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 01:56 PM
You really are showing your true colors. :sign0020:
I've known your true colors for awhile. You may be the most confused, wishy washy person on this site....:winking0071: And you still didn't (as usual) answer the question....

theonedru
07-07-2011, 02:20 PM
You really have a skewed view of what conservatism is.....
Just because someone is against gay marriage does not mean they are against gay people. As stated before, I don't care what they do in their own lives, privacy of their own home ect. I do have an issue when I am being forced to recognize their actions when it pertains to sanctioned marriage.

So your not against gay people but your against them having the same equalities as the rest of us (ie sanctioned marriage)? :confused0024:

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 02:22 PM
So your not against gay people but your against them having the same equalities as the rest of us (ie sanctioned marriage)? :confused0024:
It's not really that hard. Do what you want in your own life, but you are not going to make me legally have to acknowledge it.

theonedru
07-07-2011, 02:28 PM
It's not really that hard. Do what you want in your own life, but you are not going to make me legally have to acknowledge it.

Your right it's not that hard, legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none. Its that simple. I am sick of christian ideology governing this country its discriminatory towards those who believe differently.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 02:30 PM
Your right it's not that hard, legal marriage for all or legal marriage for none. Its that simple. I am sick of christian ideology governing this country its discriminatory towards those who believe differently.
Really? Well you could always move if you like. Maybe I'm tired of the minority always fighting to change what has standed for time in the guise of "fairness"....We are getting so far away from our founding it's sickening....

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 02:38 PM
Really? Well you could always move if you like. Maybe I'm tired of the minority always fighting to change what has standed for time in the guise of "fairness"....We are getting so far away from our founding it's sickening....


You know a few years ago the same people who are against gay marriage would have also been against interracial marriage between a man and a woman as well. You can really get to know where someone's mind is but reading some of their political views.

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 02:39 PM
You know a few years ago the same people who are against gay marriage would have also been against interracial marriage between a man and a woman as well. You can really get to know where someone's mind is but reading some of their political views.
Really? You know that for sure? Assume much?

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 02:42 PM
Really? You know that for sure? Assume much?

I judge a tree by the fruit that it produces.

theonedru
07-07-2011, 02:44 PM
You know a few years ago the same people who are against gay marriage would have also been against interracial marriage between a man and a woman as well. You can really get to know where someone's mind is but reading some of their political views.

Its hilarious to see people arguing the same points put forth by various hate groups. Not to say anyone is but just sharing some of the same thoughts and or beliefs

sanfran22
07-07-2011, 02:45 PM
I judge a tree by the fruit that it produces.
Lol, yet you're in the tank for obama....Contradict much??

mrveggieman
07-07-2011, 02:57 PM
Lol, yet you're in the tank for obama....Contradict much??


Or better yet a bush from the waste it produces.

tutall
07-07-2011, 07:59 PM
There is nothing wrong with being conservative as far as cutting frivilous gov't waste and over taxing. As far as calling yourself "conservative" but really standing against human rights and progress that is what we have a problem with.

I think you are the one who is mistaken.. There is a difference between someone being against something and someone saying there should be a law against something. Me personally... I dont agree with homosexal marriage..... At the same time though I take the position if it isnt hurting anyone there shouldnt be a law against it. I am for smaller government... I think it is riduculous marijuana is still against the law but alcohol is legal. Pretty much anything that happens inside the home and does not affect anyone outside the home should be legal in my opinion. I can say on the forum I am against homosexual marriage and get bombarded with labels and names but just becauase I dont agree with it doesnt mean I am trying to legislate based on my religion. I think you would actually find there are a lot of people like me if you would take time to listen to people instead of name calling and blinders

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 08:18 AM
I think you are the one who is mistaken.. There is a difference between someone being against something and someone saying there should be a law against something. Me personally... I dont agree with homosexal marriage..... At the same time though I take the position if it isnt hurting anyone there shouldnt be a law against it. I am for smaller government... I think it is riduculous marijuana is still against the law but alcohol is legal. Pretty much anything that happens inside the home and does not affect anyone outside the home should be legal in my opinion. I can say on the forum I am against homosexual marriage and get bombarded with labels and names but just becauase I dont agree with it doesnt mean I am trying to legislate based on my religion. I think you would actually find there are a lot of people like me if you would take time to listen to people instead of name calling and blinders


+1

I actually agree with you 100&#37;. I am not in the business of name calling but as we both know some people like to hide their hatred of people who are different from them under the guise of being conservative and adhering to biblical concepts. It's ok though. It is what it is.

AUTaxMan
07-08-2011, 08:25 AM
+1

I actually agree with you 100%. I am not in the business of name calling but if as we both know some people like to hide their hatred of people who are different from them under the guise of being conservative and adhering to biblical concepts. It's ok though. It is what it is.

And as we both know, some people like to assume what others believe without a rational basis for it.

mrveggieman
07-08-2011, 08:28 AM
And as we both know, some people like to assume what others believe without a rational basis for it.

You are right just like some of us like to call things as we see them. :winking0071:

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 10:05 AM
You are right just like some of us like to call things as we see them. :winking0071:
lol, I'm not even gonna touch this:lie::confused0024:

INTIMADATOR2007
07-08-2011, 04:17 PM
Ya'll see the unemployment numbers today ?

Ha,ha,ha, don't mean to laugh at those wwithout jobs , But with this moron in office they may never get a job .

theonedru
07-08-2011, 07:00 PM
Ya'll see the unemployment numbers today ?

Ha,ha,ha, don't mean to laugh at those wwithout jobs , But with this moron in office they may never get a job .

I dont put much faith in stats that can be manipulated, we all know the numbers are always worse than what they really are. Can anyone even reme3mber the last time we had decent unemployment numbers? the 1940's probably, maybe 50's......

ronlabo
07-08-2011, 07:05 PM
You are right just like some of us like to call things as we see them. :winking0071:

I agree with you 100% I love to call it like I see it, WE HAVE A CLOWN FOR A PRESIDENT:winking0071:

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 07:28 PM
I agree with you 100% I love to call it like I see it, WE HAD A CLOWN FOR A PRESIDENT:winking0071:

I corrected that for you.:party0053:

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 07:36 PM
I corrected that for you.:party0053:
Wishful thinking? He still has a bit over a year left. But thanks for the forcasting:winking0071::party0048:

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 08:23 PM
Wishful thinking? He still has a bit over 5 years left. But thanks for the forcasting:winking0071::party0048:

Corrected that for you too, your welcome.:party0053:

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 09:30 PM
Corrected that for you too, your welcome.:party0053:
I guess that's the only way you can win an arguement, eh:winking0071::sign0020:

Tivo32
07-08-2011, 09:34 PM
I personally did not vote for President Obama, not that the other choice was that great either. However, I do not think we can place the blame for all of this countries problems on one man, even if he is the president. Most, if not all, of the blame falls squarely onto the shoulders of you and I and our neighbors. How many people do you know who are living without credit card debt? How many people do you know who are upside down in a house or car? I think a lot of the issues with unemployment and the housing market and those things were from people who went out and spent way too much money that they didn't have. To expect a president, whether Republican or Democrat, to fix that is impossible. But maybe I'm just naive.

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 09:38 PM
I personally did not vote for President Obama, not that the other choice was that great either. However, I do not think we can place the blame for all of this countries problems on one man, even if he is the president. Most, if not all, of the blame falls squarely onto the shoulders of you and I and our neighbors. How many people do you know who are living without credit card debt? How many people do you know who are upside down in a house or car? I think a lot of the issues with unemployment and the housing market and those things were from people who went out and spent way too much money that they didn't have. To expect a president, whether Republican or Democrat, to fix that is impossible. But maybe I'm just naive.
Yes, there is alot of truth in this. We should live within our means. But our representatives can have a large impact as well....Crippling the coal industry to chase windmills, bailing our poorly run businesses and then taking them over, Forcing the public to buy a product whether they want it or not, controlling free markets, allowing and encouraging bad business practices ect ect ect, can also wreck whet we have.

habsheaven
07-08-2011, 09:50 PM
I guess that's the only way you can win an arguement, eh:winking0071::sign0020:

Whatever works, EH!:rolleyes:

sanfran22
07-08-2011, 11:34 PM
Whatever works, EH!:rolleyes:
now that I can't argue lol.

mrveggieman
07-09-2011, 12:37 PM
Yes, there is alot of truth in this. We should live within our means. But our representatives can have a large impact as well....Crippling the coal industry to chase windmills, bailing our poorly run businesses and then taking them over, Forcing the public to buy a product whether they want it or not, controlling free markets, allowing and encouraging bad business practices ect ect ect, can also wreck whet we have.


Or better yet we should just outlaw healthcare all together that way if you get sick you just drop dead and are no longer a burden on society. I bet that some people would actually be in favor of that. SMH. :confused0024:

AUTaxMan
07-09-2011, 01:19 PM
Or better yet we should just outlaw healthcare all together that way if you get sick you just drop dead and are no longer a burden on society. I bet that some people would actually be in favor of that. SMH. :confused0024:

I dont even know how to respond to this statement.

duane1969
07-09-2011, 01:33 PM
Corrected that for you too, your welcome.:party0053:

Nah, he had it right the first time. Obama's only legit chance of re-election rides on who the GOP nominates. If it is based on Obama's accomplishments then he has very little chance.

As of today's rasmussen poll Obama is not faring well with less than 25% strongly approving of his performance and over 40% strongly disapproving.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/july_2011/obama_approval_index_july_9_2011/489257-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_july_9_2011.jpg

Also, his overall approval rating sits at around 42% and is declining after rising a bit above 50% at the end of last month.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/july_2011/obama_total_approval_july_9_2011/489260-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_july_9_2011.jpg

If he is going to get re-elected he is going to have to do more than release some oil reserves.

habsheaven
07-09-2011, 04:22 PM
Polls are great aren't they. Please post up the poll that shows any of the Republican candidates beating him.

INTIMADATOR2007
07-09-2011, 05:02 PM
Or better yet we should just outlaw healthcare all together that way if you get sick you just drop dead and are no longer a burden on society. I bet that some people would actually be in favor of that. SMH. :confused0024:
A typical Democrat response .

AUTaxMan
07-09-2011, 08:47 PM
Polls are great aren't they. Please post up the poll that shows any of the Republican candidates beating him.

Note poll - Generic Republican (i.e., whoever wins the GOP nomination) v. Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

habsheaven
07-09-2011, 09:27 PM
Note poll - Generic Republican (i.e., whoever wins the GOP nomination) v. Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

That poll is not what I asked for. It is similar to what was previously posted. Where is the Bachman vs Obama, Pawlenty vs Obama, Cain vs Obama or Romney vs Obama poll? Where the public has to make a known choice.

duane1969
07-09-2011, 11:27 PM
That poll is not what I asked for. It is similar to what was previously posted. Where is the Bachman vs Obama, Pawlenty vs Obama, Cain vs Obama or Romney vs Obama poll? Where the public has to make a known choice.

They don't typically do those this early in the game. They will compare GOP candidates for at least another few months before starting to size them up versus the President.

Somebody has to actually establish themselves as the GOP front-runner before trying to compare them to the sitting President. The GOP vote is too divided right now to get an accurate poll heads-up against Obama.

If you don't want to take the polls for what they are then that is your choice but the Rasmussen polls are highly regarded and used by all parties.

habsheaven
07-10-2011, 01:28 PM
They don't typically do those this early in the game. They will compare GOP candidates for at least another few months before starting to size them up versus the President.

Somebody has to actually establish themselves as the GOP front-runner before trying to compare them to the sitting President. The GOP vote is too divided right now to get an accurate poll heads-up against Obama.

If you don't want to take the polls for what they are then that is your choice but the Rasmussen polls are highly regarded and used by all parties.

I accept those polls for what they are, the problem is what they are is JUST an indication of their disapproval of Obama right now. They are not an indication of how voters will vote when faced with 2 clear choices. That is my point. And I believe there are polls out there already asking people to make a choice between Obama and different individual GOP candidates.

mrveggieman
07-10-2011, 06:00 PM
A typical Democrat response .


You would think that you republicans would love that. Ya'll are against anyone getting health care especially the poor. I thought that you would be happy with no health care for anyone. There's just no pleasing you guys. :confused0024:

sanfran22
07-10-2011, 09:59 PM
You would think that you republicans would love that. Ya'll are against anyone getting health care especially the poor. I thought that you would be happy with no health care for anyone. There's just no pleasing you guys. :confused0024:
That's because you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You really need to think for yourself just once in awhile. I don't know anyone that is they way you've described in your last 2 posts.....

INTIMADATOR2007
07-10-2011, 10:17 PM
That's because you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You really need to think for yourself just once in awhile. I don't know anyone that is they way you've described in your last 2 posts.....
Oh come on SanFran you know the old argument that the republicans just want to end medicare/medicade and we don't care about old ladys and kids . Even though in Obamas health care bill he cuts 500 billion from those programs . The republicans hate the old people more , even though Obama has death panels that will tell ya' to just take the little red pill insted of giving grannys a heart by pass surgeries . And Obama is not going to run the insurance companies and Doctors out of bussiness that will lead to a single payer government run system . And they are trillions in tax increases in Obamas bill not just the ones he is crying for now . And its the republicans that want the employers to nearly have to shut there doors because of there health care bill , And oh yeah just look at the hundreds of thousands of jobs the healthcare bill has already provided just like ol' Pelosi promised is that why unemployment goes up instead of down. Maybe he nees to get off his wacked out info source and get with the real info on healthcare .

duane1969
07-10-2011, 11:03 PM
I accept those polls for what they are, the problem is what they are is JUST an indication of their disapproval of Obama right now. They are not an indication of how voters will vote when faced with 2 clear choices. That is my point. And I believe there are polls out there already asking people to make a choice between Obama and different individual GOP candidates.

If you can find some recent polls please link them. The most recent I can find is back in Nov. 2010 right after the GOP took the House and wouldn't be valid now.


In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, Huckabee leads Obama 52 – 44 percent, while Romney has a 50-45 point advantage, which is within the poll's sampling error. Obama hold a 49-47 percent margin over Gingrich.

While I agree that polls are just polls, when only 1 in 4 people thinks you are doing a good job, you have problems.


You would think that you republicans would love that. Ya'll are against anyone getting health care especially the poor. I thought that you would be happy with no health care for anyone. There's just no pleasing you guys. :confused0024:

I have no problem with everyone having health care, I have a problem with me being stuck with the price tag. Those of us who have jobs and have to pay our own way thru life are a little tired of having our paychecks sucked dry to support those who refuse to support themselves.

The only people who are in favor of a free health care program are the ones that will not have to pay for it.

texansrangerfan73
07-10-2011, 11:27 PM
I as a taxpaying American citizen don't mind helping out a fellow man that may make less money or whose job doesn't offer insurance & believe it or not but there are alot of jobs that don't offer it until 6 mos or even a year of being on the job. It's just sensible to do that. We all pay taxes to the Federal Government & most that have a job has families too so while they are working to help keep this country & economy going, they may not be able cover every bill, gas & still buy groceries to feed their loved ones I in my own opinion feel if they need a hand then that is why we are taxes. However I don't think we pay taxes to pay assistance to abort babies, send aid to every other country that floods, is hungry, has a dollar crisis or any other reason it goes overseas!!!

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 08:52 AM
If you can find some recent polls please link them. The most recent I can find is back in Nov. 2010 right after the GOP took the House and wouldn't be valid now.



While I agree that polls are just polls, when only 1 in 4 people thinks you are doing a good job, you have problems.



I have no problem with everyone having health care, I have a problem with me being stuck with the price tag. Those of us who have jobs and have to pay our own way thru life are a little tired of having our paychecks sucked dry to support those who refuse to support themselves.

The only people who are in favor of a free health care program are the ones that will not have to pay for it.

Sucked dry LOL, we have some of the lowest tax rates in the past 100 years. I know conservatives would love to go back to the 1940's so they can revive segragation but you would be paying higher taxes again. This must blow the minds of republicans... Lower taxes or be nice to minorities. I can imagine the innner turmoil some of you face everyday.

AUTaxMan
07-11-2011, 04:32 PM
I as a taxpaying American citizen don't mind helping out a fellow man that may make less money or whose job doesn't offer insurance & believe it or not but there are alot of jobs that don't offer it until 6 mos or even a year of being on the job. It's just sensible to do that. We all pay taxes to the Federal Government & most that have a job has families too so while they are working to help keep this country & economy going, they may not be able cover every bill, gas & still buy groceries to feed their loved ones I in my own opinion feel if they need a hand then that is why we are taxes. However I don't think we pay taxes to pay assistance to abort babies, send aid to every other country that floods, is hungry, has a dollar crisis or any other reason it goes overseas!!!

I'd prefer to be charitable on my own terms, not with a gun to my head.

redsoxx11
07-11-2011, 04:39 PM
I'd prefer to be charitable on my own terms, not with a gun to my head.

But I don't hear you complaining about any wars we have to pay for with taxes. Guess as long as the gun is pointing at someone else you have no problem with it.

sanfran22
07-11-2011, 10:46 PM
But I don't hear you complaining about any wars we have to pay for with taxes. Guess as long as the gun is pointing at someone else you have no problem with it.
There's a big difference there.....It's the Feds job to keep us safe. How they go about it can be debated...It's not the feds job to take care of us.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 01:35 AM
There's a big difference there.....It's the Feds job to keep us safe. How they go about it can be debated...It's not the feds job to take care of us.

Health = National Security issue

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 09:41 AM
double post

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 09:42 AM
Health = National Security issue
If you're talking about a biological attack/outbreak, then yes. If you are pointing to healthcare, then no.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 10:04 AM
If you're talking about a biological attack, then yes. If you are pointing to healthcare, then no.

I'd like to see him explain that asinine comment. Maybe because people like him will riot if the government doesn't give them free healthcare.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 11:37 AM
I'd like to see him explain that asinine comment. Maybe because people like him will riot if the government doesn't give them free healthcare.

You are obviously ignorant on the subject and trying to explain it to you wouldn't do any good. Stick to what you know - accounting.

OnePimpTiger
07-12-2011, 11:40 AM
You are obviously ignorant on the subject and trying to explain it to you wouldn't do any good. Stick to what you know - accounting.

Gotta love the insulting cop out...such an effective debate tactic, popular among liberals who can't explain the logic behind their positions.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 11:44 AM
Gotta love the insulting cop out...such an effective debate tactic, popular among liberals who can't explain the logic behind their positions.

I can't help it if none of you have a background stong enough in security issues to understand it.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 11:44 AM
I'd like to see him explain that asinine comment. Maybe because people like him will riot if the government doesn't give them free healthcare.
Possibly a true statement...:sign0020:

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 11:46 AM
Possibly a true statement...:sign0020:

I guess we would be fighting for space while all the gun nuts rioted over legislation that no one has even brought to the floor.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 11:47 AM
I can't help it if none of you have a background stong enough in security issues to understand it.
You really need to read something other then huffpo.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 11:48 AM
I guess we would be fighting for space while all the gun nuts rioted over legislation that no one has even brought to the floor.
http://urbangrounds.com/2011/07/obama-war-on-guns/

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 11:49 AM
You really need to read something other then huffpo.

Sure as soon as you stop live streaming Rush and taking world net daily into the bathroom with you.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 11:53 AM
Sure as soon as you stop live streaming Rush and taking world net daily into the bathroom with you.
Nah, I prefer prager, Sullivan and when I'm in a really dispise the libs mood...Wilkow:hug:

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 11:54 AM
Nah, I prefer prager, Sullivan and when I'm in a really dispise the libs mood...Wilkow:hug:

Is that where you learned to be "sick of minorities" ?

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 11:56 AM
Is that where you learned to be "sick of minorities" ?
Sure??

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 12:16 PM
Sucked dry LOL, we have some of the lowest tax rates in the past 100 years. I know conservatives would love to go back to the 1940's so they can revive segragation but you would be paying higher taxes again. This must blow the minds of republicans... Lower taxes or be nice to minorities. I can imagine the innner turmoil some of you face everyday.

Do you honestly think that most conservatives want to reintroduce segregation?

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 12:26 PM
Gotta love the insulting cop out...such an effective debate tactic, popular among liberals who can't explain the logic behind their positions.

That's his MO. By the way, I'm not an accountant.

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 12:28 PM
Do you honestly think that most conservatives want to reintroduce segregation?

Would like to see him substantiate his comment on who "we" are, how "we have some of the lowest tax rates in the past 100 years," and how that is relevant to the discussion.

texansrangerfan73
07-12-2011, 12:29 PM
I'd prefer to be charitable on my own terms, not with a gun to my head.

So from my understanding of this post, we pay taxes while a gun is at our head? Guess I never looked at it like that but whatever!!:rolleyes:

AUTaxMan
07-12-2011, 12:33 PM
So from my understanding of this post, we pay taxes while a gun is at our head? Guess I never looked at it like that but whatever!!:rolleyes:

If you want to test my metaphor, I encourage you to not pay your taxes and see what happens. I don't think eyerolling will get you anywhere.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 12:37 PM
If you want to test my metaphor, I encourage you to not pay your taxes and see what happens. I don't think eyerolling will get you anywhere.

I'm pretty sure the eye rolling makes the rest of us laugh at your hyperbole

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 12:41 PM
So from my understanding of this post, we pay taxes while a gun is at our head? Guess I never looked at it like that but whatever!!:rolleyes:

I wouldn't say "gun to our heads" but I get what he was trying to say with his metaphor. We really don't have a choice to pay taxes as the consequences came be quite harsh. I also get how he would like to choose what charitable organizations would get his money.

at the same time i don't have an issue with some of my tax money going to those in need. The waste and funds lost due to corruption is what gets me. I think our tax dollars could be spent much more effectively without having to even consider talking about them increase taxes.

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 12:43 PM
Is that where you learned to be "sick of minorities" ?

where is this exact quote that you keep saying san fran wrote? at least I assume that is what is being communicated.

texansrangerfan73
07-12-2011, 12:44 PM
If you want to test my metaphor, I encourage you to not pay your taxes and see what happens. I don't think eyerolling will get you anywhere.

Sorry my taxes come out of a paycheck that is paid weekly which is how I prefer. I'm not trying to get anywhere. The only reason I would ever complain about taxes is when I see wasteful spending to help others outside the United States of America, but sense we are the best & most civilized country out there I doubt that will ever stop. Taxes are paid to run this country not the third world countries out there that aren't smart enough to implement democracy!!

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 01:56 PM
where is this exact quote that you keep saying san fran wrote? at least I assume that is what is being communicated.
LOL, I guess I'd like to know as well. We all know this individual doesn't put words in peoples mouths and assume things...:winking0071:

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:05 PM
"Really? Well you could always move if you like. Maybe I'm tired of the minority always fighting to change what has standed for time in the guise of "fairness"....We are getting so far away from our"

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 02:07 PM
"Really? Well you could always move if you like. Maybe I'm tired of the minority always fighting to change what has standed for time in the guise of "fairness"....We are getting so far away from our"
I think you need to go back and reread that real slow (I guess it's hard for you to understand) Do I need to clarify it for you?

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:10 PM
I think you need to go back and reread that real slow (I guess it's hard for you to understand) Do I need to clarify it for you?

No it's pretty clear, you're tired of the Minority (minorities) wanting to change things to make life better for themselves, but you are happy with the status que because it benfits you, so screw anyone who isn't like you. But you can try and spin it anyway you want, I'm sure you have a long diatribe prepared to whoo me to your wide :party0053:

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 02:16 PM
No it's pretty clear, your're tired of the Minority (minorities) wanting to change things to make life better for themselves, but you are happy with the status que because it benfits you, so screw anyone who isn't like you. But you can try and spin it anyway you want, I'm sure you have a long diatribe prepared to whoo me to your wide :party0053:
You really are a typical Lib. You add meanings to things and assume what you want to hear. You must have real issues. If you go back and read it I believe you can come to the conclusion that you, the liberal, is in the minority in theis country. You are the most loud and obnoixious types that are trying to change this country into something it shouldn't be under the false guise of fairness and compassion. It is all a lie and alot of us can see right through it. I would appriciate if you don't add what you feel inside to what I say. I believe I know the difference between minority and minorities but apparently you do not. You are obviously a disturbed individual and you probably shouldn't debate with people you can't hold a conversation with. Thanks.... (I apologize to all for the rant, but I can't let this person racebait and add insinuendos to something that he can't even comprehend)

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:28 PM
You really are a typical Lib. You add meanings to things and assume what you want to hear. You must have real issues. If you go back and read it I believe you can come to the conclusion that you, the liberal, is in the minority in theis country. You are the most loud and obnoixious types that are trying to change this country into something it shouldn't be under the false guise of fairness and compassion. It is all a lie and alot of us can see right through it. I would appriciate if you don't add what you feel inside to what I say. I believe I know the difference between minority and minorities but apparently you do not. You are obviously a disturbed individual and you probably shouldn't debate with people you can't hold a conversation with. Thanks.... (I apologize to all for the rant, but I can't let this person racebait and add insinuendos to something that he can't even comprehend)

LOL, just as I suspected, a long drawn out "explination". I aploligize for the rant also but I can't just let people who want to take us back to the 1800's wordsmith around there disgust for anyone who isn't white & christian. It's just to bad for you that you don't run thing because there is part of this country that would like to move ahead in time instead of trying to cling to outdated, bigoted, racist and non inclusive menalities that do nothing to advance the U.S. Sorry but were living in a global ecomony, golobal media world. and right now conservatives are making us look like we took 3 steps back in the evolutionary process... or for you creationists, 5 years before jesus learned to ride a t-rex

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 02:30 PM
LOL, just as I suspected, a long drawn out "explination". I aploligize for the rant also but I can't just let people who want to take us back to the 1800's wordsmith around there disgust for anyone who isn't white & christian. It's just to bad for you that you don't run thing because there is part of this country that would like to move ahead in time instead of trying to cling to outdated, bigoted, racist and non inclusive menalities that do nothing to advance the U.S. Sorry but were living in a global ecomony, golobal media world. and right now conservatives are making us look like we took 3 steps back in the evolutionary process... or for you creationists, 5 years before jesus learned to ride a t-rex
I don't need to explain anything to you. It all just goes over your head. If advancing the US is what you think you are trying to do, I don't think alot of people here would want any part of it. It's sad you are the way you are. One can hope you will grow up oneday.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't need to explain anything to you. It all just goes over your head. If advancing the US is what you think you are trying to do, I don't think alot of people here would want any part of it. It's sad you are the way you are. One can hope you will grow up oneday.

LOL the only one where ? on this forum? Your world view is so small it fits into a lunch box. You can try to play the "grow up" game all you want but I'm not the one having a tanturum everytime a group of minorities manages to gain the same rights as the majority.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 02:41 PM
LOL the only one where ? on this forum? Your world view is so small it fits into a lunch box. You can try to play the "grow up" game all you want but I'm not the one having a tanturum everytime a group of minorities manages to gain the same rights as the majority.
Lol, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better...

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:48 PM
Lol, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better...

LOL, leep trying to get the last word, you're almost there.

theonedru
07-12-2011, 02:52 PM
LOL, leep trying to get the last word, you're almost there.

Quit bickering and nitpicking at each other peoples its getting old and is not needed, stay true to the topic if you have nothing to say about the orig post then do not post. This goes out to everyone read the rules for this forum peoples....

duwal
07-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Quit bickering and nitpicking at each other peoples its getting old and is not needed, stay true to the topic if you have nothing to say about the orig post then do not post. This goes out to everyone read the rules for this forum peoples....


why would they do that? nothing is going to happen to them if they continue. There should have been suspensions on both sides by now but the mods never police these types of threads in order to prevent it from happening again, especially if they are friends with or agree with the side of one of the posters.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 02:57 PM
Quit bickering and nitpicking at each other peoples its getting old and is not needed, stay true to the topic if you have nothing to say about the orig post then do not post. This goes out to everyone read the rules for this forum peoples....

Well since the original intent of the thread was to have Obama supporters come in here to get berated for supporting the President, I would say that some of the people in here are staying on topic (attacking Obama supporters). They just a get a little out of hand when someone tells them they are wrong, much like a small child.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 03:00 PM
Alot of this

Euphemism is a substitution for an expression that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver, using instead an agreeable or less offensive expression

seems to get overlooked.....

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 03:03 PM
"Really? Well you could always move if you like. Maybe I'm tired of the minority always fighting to change what has standed for time in the guise of "fairness"....We are getting so far away from our"

wow. that's a bit different than the quote you are posting from this. "sick of minorities" is a tad out of context. Heck, even this quote is a bit out context because I'm not sure where the discussion was when he said that.

I've had plenty of disagreements with sanfran and it's obvious that we differ quite a bit in our views that have been discussed on these boards for the past months, but I don't think running around quoting him as saying that he's "sick of minorities" is rather unfair... at least in my opinion. After seeing the actual quote is a little hypocritical since you were banging on a lot of use for assuming xzibit was calling planking racist.

Sanfran, let me add that it makes me a little sick to my stomach that I have to come on and defend you. LOL.

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 03:06 PM
wow. that's a bit different than the quote you are posting from this. "sick of minorities" is a tad out of context. Heck, even this quote is a bit out context because I'm not sure where the discussion was when he said that.

I've had plenty of disagreements with sanfran and it's obvious that we differ quite a bit in our views that have been discussed on these boards for the past months, but I don't think running around quoting him as saying that he's "sick of minorities" is rather unfair... at least in my opinion. After seeing the actual quote is a little hypocritical since you were banging on a lot of use for assuming xzibit was calling planking racist.

Sanfran, let me add that it makes me a little sick to my stomach that I have to come on and defend you. LOL.
Lol, well I appreciate the thought:sign0020: . We don't agree on alot, but we can have discussions on the topics without making false assumptions. I do thank you for that whether we agree or not.:party0053:

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 03:07 PM
wow. that's a bit different than the quote you are posting from this. "sick of minorities" is a tad out of context. Heck, even this quote is a bit out context because I'm not sure where the discussion was when he said that.

I've had plenty of disagreements with sanfran and it's obvious that we differ quite a bit in our views that have been discussed on these boards for the past months, but I don't think running around quoting him as saying that he's "sick of minorities" is rather unfair... at least in my opinion. After seeing the actual quote is a little hypocritical since you were banging on a lot of use for assuming xzibit was calling planking racist.

Sanfran, let me add that it makes me a little sick to my stomach that I have to come on and defend you. LOL.

I don't think it was out of context at all, pretty plainly states he doesn't like the minority changing things..And what have they changed.. they've gotten themselves equal rights, marrige equality ect ect .. And who is the minority.. well it's minorities.

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 03:20 PM
I don't think it was out of context at all, pretty plainly states he doesn't like the minority changing things..And what have they changed.. they've gotten themselves equal rights, marrige equality ect ect .. And who is the minority.. well it's minorities.

I do. The reason I believe it's out of context is because I have no clue what he wrote that about. I do agree that status quo isn't a reason to not change something... whatever that specific item may be. Typically I find reasoning that we shouldn't change something because it's always been another way pretty ridiculous, but running around saying that the person that doesn't want change is "sick of minorities" is still not a fair quote in my opinion. By quoting him as saying he's "sick of minorities" you cut off the rest of the sentence to make his partial quote said as bad as possible. If he said "I'm sick of minorities." then I can see the point of quoting him but he clearly didn't say that. We all are familiar with that game of chopping quotes or ending them prematurely as it's played by media, politicians and a lot of other people. Someone not wanting to change something isn't necessarily "sick of minorities". That's just my thought on the quote you've been posting.

Star_Cards
07-12-2011, 03:22 PM
Lol, well I appreciate the thought:sign0020: . We don't agree on alot, but we can have discussions on the topics without making false assumptions. I do thank you for that whether we agree or not.:party0053:

very true. we can even get mad at each other over our differing views, but taking three words from a quote and posting it as a full quote isn't fair in my opinion.

redsoxx11
07-12-2011, 03:59 PM
No matter what way you reason it, he still said he was tired of a minority of people trying to change a system that has been consistantly unfair towards those groups. So he like the way things are, the minority making the rules for the minority and if the minority don't like it tough.

So lets look at some minority groups who wanted to change things

African Americans
Woman
Gays and Lesbians
Native Americans
The Disabled
Hispanics
Veterans

need I go on?

sanfran22
07-12-2011, 07:37 PM
No matter what way you reason it, he still said he was tired of a minority of people trying to change a system that has been consistantly unfair towards those groups. So he like the way things are, the minority making the rules for the minority and if the minority don't like it tough.

So lets look at some minority groups who wanted to change things

African Americans
Woman
Gays and Lesbians
Native Americans
The Disabled
Hispanics
Veterans

need I go on?
lol, as usual. Is your opinion in the majority in this country, or the minority? Just curious....

mrveggieman
07-19-2011, 04:11 PM
I mad that I haven't had a chance to mix up on here for the past week due to work obligations. I'm sorry to see redsox11 go. I guess that I'll have to be one of the few voices of reason on here once again.

sanfran22
07-19-2011, 04:15 PM
I mad that I haven't had a chance to mix up on here for the past week due to work obligations. I'm sorry to see redsox11 go. I guess that I'll have to be one of the few voices of reason on here once again.
Lol at that statement:winking0071::party0048:

AUTaxMan
07-19-2011, 04:18 PM
you serious clark?

texansrangerfan73
07-19-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm sorry to see redsox11 go.

LOL glad I don't live on the NE coast haha. Ron Paul in 2012:party0053:

andrewhoya
07-19-2011, 04:31 PM
I'm sorry to see redsox11 go.

:twitch::twitch:

ffman
07-20-2011, 01:46 PM
You should check again. The war in Iraq started back in the late 1980's. It was called Desert Storm.

Before GHW Bush could finish the Desert Storm campaign he was voted out and this lily-livered horndog named Bill Clinton was voted in. This Clinton guy did NOTHING for 8 years to deal with the issues in Iraq except create a "no-fly zone" which was both stupid and a waste of taxpayer money. The when George W takes office suddenly it is "his war" and his fault for everything that happens after that.

Blaming anybody but Clinton for Iraq is weak at best. Clinton had 8 years to deal with the Iraq issues and he failed miserably. Anything that Bush did to resolve the Iraq issue was as a direct result of Clinton's inept handling of the situation for nearly a decade.

Wait, what? Did Clinton begin the mass invasion of Iraq? No, President Bush did. That's why it's called "his war".

It was President Bush who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when none were to be found. It was President Bush that convinced Congress to wage war on Iraq.

Maybe Clinton didn't intervene further in Iraq because he saw no need to put our soldiers in danger when, at the time, Iraq was no threat to us.

Republican or Democrat, you can't avoid the fact that Iraq was indeed "Bush's war".

mrveggieman
07-20-2011, 07:12 PM
Wait, what? Did Clinton begin the mass invasion of Iraq? No, President Bush did. That's why it's called "his war".

It was President Bush who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when none were to be found. It was President Bush that convinced Congress to wage war on Iraq.

Maybe Clinton didn't intervene further in Iraq because he saw no need to put our soldiers in danger when, at the time, Iraq was no threat to us.

Republican or Democrat, you can't avoid the fact that Iraq was indeed "Bush's war".


+1,000,000 :cheer2:

pghin08
07-21-2011, 12:15 PM
you serious clark?

I am, Eddie.

sanfran22
07-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Wait, what? Did Clinton begin the mass invasion of Iraq? No, President Bush did. That's why it's called "his war".

It was President Bush who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when none were to be found. It was President Bush that convinced Congress to wage war on Iraq.

Maybe Clinton didn't intervene further in Iraq because he saw no need to put our soldiers in danger when, at the time, Iraq was no threat to us.

Republican or Democrat, you can't avoid the fact that Iraq was indeed "Bush's war".
Who's war is it now?

habsheaven
07-22-2011, 11:33 AM
A war "belongs" to the President that first engaged in that war and no one else.

sanfran22
07-22-2011, 11:35 AM
A war "belongs" to the President that first engaged in that war and no one else.
It belongs to whomever is in control of it.

habsheaven
07-22-2011, 11:46 AM
It belongs to whomever is in control of it.

Hardly, the new guy coming in is "stuck" with the war. It's not like he can withdraw as soon as he takes office. But nice try.

sanfran22
07-22-2011, 11:54 AM
Hardly, the new guy coming in is "stuck" with the war. It's not like he can withdraw as soon as he takes office. But nice try.
lol, really...try telling him that. I believe he added to the troops.
If I remember correctly, he was going to remove all Iraqi troops by 09? Hmmmmm

INTIMADATOR2007
07-22-2011, 08:06 PM
The Iraq war promises are just like the other promises he has made ..worthless . However there is one he has kept . We are 5 days away from Fundementally transforming The United States Of America. He has kept this one and he has made us Broke and on the verge of becoming another 3rd world country . Absolutley the worst President in our country's history !

It almost makes me puke to see or hear him speak .

habsheaven
07-22-2011, 08:12 PM
The Iraq war promises are just like the other promises he has made ..worthless . However there is one he has kept . We are 5 days away from Fundementally transforming The United States Of America. He has kept this one and he has made us Broke and on the verge of becoming another 3rd world country . Absolutley the worst President in our country's history !

It almost makes me puke to see or hear him speak .

:sign0020:

INTIMADATOR2007
07-23-2011, 01:04 AM
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 20, 2006

texansrangerfan73
07-23-2011, 01:12 AM
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 20, 2006

I agree but also believe it is because the U.S. has such a big heart & gave to bail out so many 3rd world countries when we should worry about our own within our own boundries. Obama :rant:you s___k lol..