obama up to this point is a let down

[open mind]

so far he's playing the middle of the road by appointing republicrats.....i was really hoping he'd consciously try to move this country more to the left.....mostly that's my fault because i was hoping some of the things he was saying on the campaign trail were things he was saying simply to get elected...but everything i've seen so far is a desertion of true liberal values.....not unlike clinton....some might say clinton was great in that he showed that middling politics serves the country well....but i say how can you be certain that leftist politics can't serve us better?

i'd be fine if he included some conservatives in his cabinet just so long as he inlcuded some real leftists in his administration.......but no, it's been all dipshit, career cavers up to this point.

we need real change, and i'm dissapointed in obama up to this point in his apparent lack of desire to create it.

[Mercy Medical]

I'm fine with him playing the middle, but that's mostly because I'm a middle ground type of individual and I don't think either extremes are going to get us anywhere.

But honestly, he's not even the actual President yet, so I don't know if we really should be judging him quite yet.

[TheOtherAndrew]

I'm fine with him playing the middle, but that's mostly because I'm a middle ground type of individual and I don't think either extremes are going to get us anywhere.

But honestly, he's not even the actual President yet, so I don't know if we really should be judging him quite yet.
This.

[&IllBeTheReason]

It hasn't even been a month. Have a little more faith in the guy.

[anamericangod]

Gives some examples. I really wonder what specifics are bothering you.

[TheOtherAndrew]

Gives some examples. I really wonder what specifics are bothering you.
He's pissed because Obama isn't on track to turn this country into the Soviet Union yet.

[MorningWillCome]

it's been just a little over two weeks. and let's not forget, as someone already mentioned, he is not the president yet.
let's calm down.

[xshady121]

I'm fine with him playing the middle, but that's mostly because I'm a middle ground type of individual and I don't think either extremes are going to get us anywhere.



This.

[Mercy Medical]

This.
I don't understand how that concept doesn't work for other people. This country is made up of a wide variety of individuals and until we can all find a common ground and compromise on some issues, we're never all going to get along (not like that will ever happen anyway, but you get the idea).

[Burn That Shit]

Nuh uh he's a socialist.

[Posthardcore]

The moves are pretty epic. I'm actually happy with the choices

[GiggsOho]

It's because you can trace back the appointments to the Clinton years. People who wanted new, fresh faces in EVERY position possible are naive. A lot of democrats AND Republicans worked until Clinton, thats just the way things are, no use in changing history. While I disagree with Clinton possibly becoming secretary of state, its not like she implementing her own policies. She works for Obama, people. There is some truth to this term "team of rivals." I don't see how people working together isn't "change."

[splitsecond]

Janet Napalitano for HOMELAND SECURITY is a fucking joke. Having lived with her incompetence for the las 6 years, I am utterly appalled at such a terrible choice. I want to support this guy, but he just picked someone who's only accomplishment as governor has been implementing photo radar in an attempt to fix her budget shortfall. I will post more on this moron later, I am in the middle of moving at the moment.

[TheOtherAndrew]

lol Homeland Security

[The Database]

He's pissed because Obama isn't on track to turn this country into the Soviet Union yet.
haha

[Adeniz19]

Janet Napalitano for HOMELAND SECURITY is a fucking joke. Having lived with her incompetence for the las 6 years, I am utterly appalled at such a terrible choice. I want to support this guy, but he just picked someone who's only accomplishment as governor has been implementing photo radar in an attempt to fix her budget shortfall. I will post more on this moron later, I am in the middle of moving at the moment.
I obviously haven't had to live in Arizona, but it seems like a majority of people there like her. Recent polling shows she has a 69% favorable/ 21% unfavorable rating.

[saysmydoctor]

Janet Napalitano for HOMELAND SECURITY is a fucking joke. Having lived with her incompetence for the las 6 years, I am utterly appalled at such a terrible choice. I want to support this guy, but he just picked someone who's only accomplishment as governor has been implementing photo radar in an attempt to fix her budget shortfall. I will post more on this moron later, I am in the middle of moving at the moment.
She is one of the best governors in the country and has the experience in border security and immigration. I feel she would have been a better AG, but this a good spot too.
lol Homeland Security
This. Useless fucking bureaucracy with hugely flawed organization

[Jason Tate]

Not even inaugurated yet and people already calling him a let down. It's going to be an annoying 4 years.

[saysmydoctor]

Not even inaugurated yet and people already calling him a let down. It's going to be an annoying 4 years.
Yeah, I mean some choices kind of irked me--definitely the Clinton possibility. But I mean, he has worked hard at transparency. I'm pleased with his transition team and its work.

[aoftbsten]

i'll reserve my judgement for when he is actually running the country

[x togepi x]

This.

says the person with the reagan avatar. lol.

i just laugh at people in the middle who act as if "the extremes" are so bad, ignoring that the middle itself is quite extremist. like try telling someone in a mexican maquilladora that centrist politicians who support globalization aren't extremists.

but i have no opinion of obama since he's been "in power" for less than a month.

[GiggsOho]

Not even inaugurated yet and people already calling him a let down. It's going to be an annoying 4 years.

You should read the GOP comments or news stories/blogs. Everyone who is radically for the right is saying "WE"RE GOING TO GIVE OBAMA THE SAME RESPECT PEOPLE GAVE BUSH FOR 8 YEARS!!" It's so stupid, I'm almost induced into seizures thinking about it.

i'll reserve my judgement for when he is actually running the country

This.

[splitsecond]

She is one of the best governors in the country and has the experience in border security and immigration. I feel she would have been a better AG, but this a good spot too.

This is hands down the fucking stupidest, most ignorant, most uninformed post you have ever made on this site. I honestly don't know who's ass you pulled this information from, but I live in this state, and have seen what little she has done, and how much she has failed as governor. She only was elected because this state's Republican party likes to infight and act like imbeciles when it comes time for governor elections.

You have absolutely NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKIN ABOUT.

[splitsecond]

I obviously haven't had to live in Arizona, but it seems like a majority of people there like her. Recent polling shows she has a 69% favorable/ 21% unfavorable rating.

I am not sure who is doing these polls, but she is pretty much the butt of every joke in the state. She won both elections she ran in as I said previously thanks to republican infighting. She really has done nothing worthwhile while in office, and is the beneficiary of increased federal border security programs (not her doing) and the enforcement actions of Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County. To top that off, some of things she has tried to do to balance the budget are sickening (ie demand cities pay for state budget shortfalls, implement photo radar as a revenue source, demand money from medical and professional oversight agencies, demand that medical oversight agencies merge, etc.) She was booed loudly at Diamondbacks opening day, and is not generally liked.

[aoftbsten]

This. Useless fucking bureaucracy with hugely flawed organization

what are you talking about, color coded terrorist threats are in no way useless

[Jason Tate]

I am not sure who is doing these polls, but she is pretty much the butt of every joke in the state. She won both elections she ran in as I said previously thanks to republican infighting. She really has done nothing worthwhile while in office, and is the beneficiary of increased federal border security programs (not her doing) and the enforcement actions of Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County. To top that off, some of things she has tried to do to balance the budget are sickening (ie demand cities pay for state budget shortfalls, implement photo radar as a revenue source, demand money from medical and professional oversight agencies, demand that medical oversight agencies merge, etc.) She was booed loudly at Diamondbacks opening day, and is not generally liked.
She's at 71% (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=d1c42d6f-c0c6-4784-b108-6fbd136adf03).

[saysmydoctor]

This is hands down the fucking stupidest, most ignorant, most uninformed post you have ever made on this site. I honestly don't know who's ass you pulled this information from, but I live in this state, and have seen what little she has done, and how much she has failed as governor. She only was elected because this state's Republican party likes to infight and act like imbeciles when it comes time for governor elections.

You have absolutely NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKIN ABOUT.
You say this a lot. SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS. Just because you are a resident doesn't make you an expert on its politics just my father being in the military doesn't make me an expert on the military-industrial complex. Stop saying I have no idea what I'm talking and post how.

To me, she was a successful US Attorney and great Arizona AG, who has a bad image because of increased illegal immigration occurred during her time as governor--IGNORING the fact that the Border Patrol created the funnel that is the Tucson zone so it is expected for the border crossings to be more frequent. She'll bring on the on ground expertise of the law and immigration experience to the job.

[saysmydoctor]

what are you talking about, color coded terrorist threats are in no way useless
I lold.
She's at 71% (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=d1c42d6f-c0c6-4784-b108-6fbd136adf03).
Yeah, everyone hates her and she is joke. This guy is an expert (read: tool).

[splitsecond]

She's at 71% (http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=d1c42d6f-c0c6-4784-b108-6fbd136adf03).

I live here, and I don't buy it. Call it what you will, but I know what I hear all the time. She has garnered most of her goodwill by taking the Bill Clinton approach: talk big, do nothing, don't piss anyone off. The problem is her do nothing approach has left the state in a budget crisis.

You say this a lot. SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS. Just because you are a resident doesn't make you an expert on its politics just my father being in the military doesn't make me an expert on the military-industrial complex. Stop saying I have no idea what I'm talking and post how.

To me, she was a successful US Attorney and great Arizona AG, who has a bad image because of increased illegal immigration occurred during her time as governor--IGNORING the fact that the Border Patrol created the funnel that is the Tucson zone so it is expected for the border crossings to be more frequent. She'll bring on the on ground expertise of the law and immigration experience to the job.

I say it a lot because you run your mouth without stating facts, and making assumptions. Why do I need to back up a claim when your claims have little to no basis in fact to begin with.

But, I will oblige.

Lets look at what Janet Napalitano has done in her career.


1. She was an attorney with Lewis and Roca, where she helped represent Anita Hill.

2. She was a U.S. Attorney appointed under Clinton

3. She was an attorney general.

4. She was elected governor amidst Republican infighting, which is common in this state. We have a severe lack of Republican leadership within state government, for all sorts of reasons that could constitute a thread by themselves.

5. Since being elected, she has talked big but done nothing. She blamed the feds for the immigration troubles (which is true in part) but did nothing to remedy the problem with her power. this is the LIMIT to her experience that is related to Homeland Security.

6. She has been wholly unable to solve the budget problem. She has attempted to rob other budgets to pay off debts. She literally took budgeted moneys BACK from some budgets. My mother serves on the national physical therapy board of advisors, and knows firsthand that the state board had money taken away from them. Additionally, she is currently requesting that the state oversight board for physical therapy merge with another board, both of which are currently overburdened, and such a move would risk poor oversight and reduction in medical standards in the fields.

7. The only revenue increase she has accomplished is the implementation of photo radar devices on the state highways.



Now, if we were talking her being appointed to the AG position, I wouldn't be here arguing against her. I think there are better candidates, but she is at least QUALIFIED for this position. She has almost NO experience other than talking a big game on border security as governor, and doing nothing. I would even venture to say that talking is simply political pandering - Arizonans love anyone who talks about getting touch on illegal immigration, whether they do anything or not.



This literally is the entirety of her experience - save for a few positions on boards organizations here and there. How can you argue she is qualified for this position with a good conscience?


Then again, maybe her image alone will strike fear into terrorists and illegal immigrants alike:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg/225px-JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg

[Jason Tate]

I live here, and I don't buy it. Call it what you will, but I know what I hear all the time. She has garnered most of her goodwill by taking the Bill Clinton approach: talk big, do nothing, don't piss anyone off. The problem is her do nothing approach has left the state in a budget crisis.



I say it a lot because you run your mouth without stating facts, and making assumptions. Why do I need to back up a claim when your claims have little to no basis in fact to begin with.

But, I will oblige.

Lets look at what Janet Napalitano has done in her career.


1. She was an attorney with Lewis and Roca, where she helped represent Anita Hill.

2. She was a U.S. Attorney appointed under Clinton

3. She was an attorney general.

4. She was elected governor amidst Republican infighting, which is common in this state. We have a severe lack of Republican leadership within state government, for all sorts of reasons that could constitute a thread by themselves.

5. Since being elected, she has talked big but done nothing. She blamed the feds for the immigration troubles (which is true in part) but did nothing to remedy the problem with her power. this is the LIMIT to her experience that is related to Homeland Security.

6. She has been wholly unable to solve the budget problem. She has attempted to rob other budgets to pay off debts. She literally took budgeted moneys BACK from some budgets. My mother serves on the national physical therapy board of advisors, and knows firsthand that the state board had money taken away from them. Additionally, she is currently requesting that the state oversight board for physical therapy merge with another board, both of which are currently overburdened, and such a move would risk poor oversight and reduction in medical standards in the fields.

7. The only revenue increase she has accomplished is the implementation of photo radar devices on the state highways.



Now, if we were talking her being appointed to the AG position, I wouldn't be here arguing against her. I think there are better candidates, but she is at least QUALIFIED for this position. She has almost NO experience other than talking a big game on border security as governor, and doing nothing. I would even venture to say that talking is simply political pandering - Arizonans love anyone who talks about getting touch on illegal immigration, whether they do anything or not.



This literally is the entirety of her experience - save for a few positions on boards organizations here and there. How can you argue she is qualified for this position with a good conscience?


Then again, maybe her image alone will strike fear into terrorists and illegal immigrants alike:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg/225px-JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg
You don't have to believe it, it's still a fact. Looking at internals gives an even better nugget:

If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?

McCain (R) 45
Napolitano (D) 53

[splitsecond]

You don't have to believe it, it's still a fact.

Well when I have seen her booed and berated as badly as, say, Bush, then I don't know how I can possibly trust that survey.

[lrz2525]

He's pissed because Obama isn't on track to turn this country into the Soviet Union yet.
this

[onemoresong]

he'll be fine, don't worry

[splitsecond]

You don't have to believe it, it's still a fact. Looking at internals gives an even better nugget:

If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Janet Napolitano the Democrat and John McCain the Republican?

McCain (R) 45
Napolitano (D) 53

Yet McCain won AZ by a significant margin. Again, I don't buy it.

[Jason Tate]

Well when I have seen her booed and berated as badly as, say, Bush, then I don't know how I can possibly trust that survey.
I would assume you to be smarter than looking at that kind of anecdotal evidence as being representative of an entire state. Polls say she'd beat McCain in 2010.

[Jason Tate]

Yet McCain won AZ by a significant margin. Again, I don't buy it.
Well, I guess denial helps your point a whole lot more than looking at the evidence. McCain won AZ for the Presidential race, obviously they are talking about the U.S. Senate seat.

[splitsecond]

But rather than turning this into a "Evan doesn't believe facts about polls" debate, where I will probably lose because I don't ever really buy into surveys, lets stay on task and find some applicable experience that Nappy has that will make her a good head of DHS. I still haven't seen anything.

[Adeniz19]

Yet McCain won AZ by a significant margin. Again, I don't buy it.He won by single digits, which is a lot narrower than a lot of people thought it would be. Presidential elections are a whole different ball game than senate races seeing as how McCain had the "home field advantage" in his own state.

it'll be interesting to see what happens now for the AZ senate race in 2010.

[xshady121]

says the person with the reagan avatar. lol.


I meant it in the sense that the original guy was mad that Obama isn't going hard left on all of his policies. You will never see a politician go hard to either side-- it's career suicide. You need the middle to get elected (or reelected). The majority will never support an agenda hard to the right OR the left.

[saysmydoctor]

I live here, and I don't buy it. Call it what you will, but I know what I hear all the time. She has garnered most of her goodwill by taking the Bill Clinton approach: talk big, do nothing, don't piss anyone off. The problem is her do nothing approach has left the state in a budget crisis.



I say it a lot because you run your mouth without stating facts, and making assumptions. Why do I need to back up a claim when your claims have little to no basis in fact to begin with.

But, I will oblige.

Lets look at what Janet Napalitano has done in her career.


1. She was an attorney with Lewis and Roca, where she helped represent Anita Hill.

2. She was a U.S. Attorney appointed under Clinton

3. She was an attorney general.

4. She was elected governor amidst Republican infighting, which is common in this state. We have a severe lack of Republican leadership within state government, for all sorts of reasons that could constitute a thread by themselves.

5. Since being elected, she has talked big but done nothing. She blamed the feds for the immigration troubles (which is true in part) but did nothing to remedy the problem with her power. this is the LIMIT to her experience that is related to Homeland Security.

6. She has been wholly unable to solve the budget problem. She has attempted to rob other budgets to pay off debts. She literally took budgeted moneys BACK from some budgets. My mother serves on the national physical therapy board of advisors, and knows firsthand that the state board had money taken away from them. Additionally, she is currently requesting that the state oversight board for physical therapy merge with another board, both of which are currently overburdened, and such a move would risk poor oversight and reduction in medical standards in the fields.

7. The only revenue increase she has accomplished is the implementation of photo radar devices on the state highways.



Now, if we were talking her being appointed to the AG position, I wouldn't be here arguing against her. I think there are better candidates, but she is at least QUALIFIED for this position. She has almost NO experience other than talking a big game on border security as governor, and doing nothing. I would even venture to say that talking is simply political pandering - Arizonans love anyone who talks about getting touch on illegal immigration, whether they do anything or not.



This literally is the entirety of her experience - save for a few positions on boards organizations here and there. How can you argue she is qualified for this position with a good conscience?


Then again, maybe her image alone will strike fear into terrorists and illegal immigrants alike:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f0/JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg/225px-JanetNapolitanoIraq.jpg
1. Wait, are you implying that just because the Republicans were infighting, she is essentially a lame duck governor? That's the GOP problem. Clearly people liked the fact that the Democrats had their shit in line and therefore voted for them over a troubled candidate. But you are marking that as a fault against her.
2. It is the federal government's fault concerning immigration. She doesn't control the Border Patrol, Homeland Security does...wait a second. She has been the voice of the southwest asking for additional funding for the Patrol, but the Bush Administration ignored it. It's also why the Governator sent National Guard troops to the border in his state. Thus the Tuscon Zone funnel.
3. State budgets are suffering nationally and the Arizona crisis was predictable: http://uanews.org/node/7586

Also you are ignoring a decrease in tax revenue due to the housing slump as well the fact as the Arizona legislature and Napolitano herself have approved tax reductions: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html

4. The picture makes you look like the fucking idiot in this case.

[Adeniz19]

1. Wait, are you implying that just because the Republicans were infighting, she is essentially a lame duck governor? That's the GOP problem. Clearly people liked the fact that the Democrats had their shit in line and therefore voted for them over a troubled candidate. But you are marking that as a fault against her.
2. It is the federal government's fault concerning immigration. She doesn't control the Border Patrol, Homeland Security does...wait a second. She has been the voice of the southwest asking for additional funding for the Patrol, but the Bush Administration ignored it. It's also why the Governator sent National Guard troops to the border in his state. Thus the Tuscon Zone funnel.
3. State budgets are suffering nationally and the Arizona crisis was predictable: http://uanews.org/node/7586

Also you are ignoring a decrease in tax revenue due to the housing slump as well the fact as the Arizona legislature and Napolitano herself have approved tax reductions: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html

4. The picture makes you look like the fucking idiot in this case.I don't think lame duck is the word you are looking for.

[MusicTalks]

Not even inaugurated yet and people already calling him a let down. It's going to be an annoying 4 years.

I mean, I voted for Obama, so maybe I'm biased, but I totally agree with your statement here. He's 2 months from taking office and we get a shit post like this. He's our President Elect and he's been that for 16 days, so calling him a let down is like telling your kid he's a failure after falling off his bike for the third time since the training wheels were removed. Give him a break.

[saysmydoctor]

Yet McCain won AZ by a significant margin. Again, I don't buy it.
9% is not a significant margin, when it's your home state. Considering Obama won his by 20%+, I think it's pretty telling. But whatever. You know things with your on the ground experience.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't think lame duck is the word you are looking for.

I couldn't think of the term. :shrug: It'll do.

[saysmydoctor]

For a while, Arizona was one of the fastest growing states in the country--that contributed to the revenue. You take away that revenue due to a housing slump and you have an economic shift. The housing slump isn't her fault. Just like Gray Davis in CA wasn't completely at fault either, and the Governator hasn't been able to completely fix his state's crisis.

[Machu505]

He's not even president yet dammit.

[splitsecond]

1. Wait, are you implying that just because the Republicans were infighting, she is essentially a lame duck governor? That's the GOP problem. Clearly people liked the fact that the Democrats had their shit in line and therefore voted for them over a troubled candidate. But you are marking that as a fault against her.
2. It is the federal government's fault concerning immigration. She doesn't control the Border Patrol, Homeland Security does...wait a second. She has been the voice of the southwest asking for additional funding for the Patrol, but the Bush Administration ignored it. It's also why the Governator sent National Guard troops to the border in his state. Thus the Tuscon Zone funnel.
3. State budgets are suffering nationally and the Arizona crisis was predictable: http://uanews.org/node/7586

Also you are ignoring a decrease in tax revenue due to the housing slump as well the fact as the Arizona legislature and Napolitano herself have approved tax reductions: http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/02/25/daily29.html

4. The picture makes you look like the fucking idiot in this case.

1. I am not marking it as a fault against her, you are reading that into what I said. She took advantage of piss poor state GOP leadership to win.

2. It is primarily the job of the federal government - yes - but remember we are not SUPPOSED to be dependent on the Feds for everything. Local authorities and politicians have IN FACT taken on the border issues themselves. Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County has managed to get himself re-elected almost completely based on his vigorous enforcement of state and federal immigration laws. Other local authorities throughout the state have done the same thing. If something is broken, why not make an attempt to fix it if you are SERIOUS about border security?

3. State budgets are decreasing, and Arizona's was predictable. But Nappy didn't do a fucking thing to prevent or diminish it. We all knew the bubble was close to bursting. Where was Nappy? She was busy lobbying for a fucking light rail and photo radar cameras. She did not stand up to developers, to realtors, to overzealous investors, she did NOTHING to prevent the impending housing crisis. She has been in office from before the peak until after, and has not helped a soul. Maybe she was busy securing out borders.... oh wait, she wasn't.


9% is not a significant margin, when it's your home state. Considering Obama won his by 20%+, I think it's pretty telling. But whatever. You know things with your on the ground experience.

Arizona is a moderate state that has swung Democrat in the past. McCain ran a poor campaign, and had to surmount Bush's disastrous approval ratings, so quite frankly a 9% margin is good considering how he faired elsewhere. Hell, he only won TX by 11%.

[splitsecond]

For a while, Arizona was one of the fastest growing states in the country--that contributed to the revenue. You take away that revenue due to a housing slump and you have an economic shift. The housing slump isn't her fault. Just like Gray Davis in CA wasn't completely at fault either, and the Governator hasn't been able to completely fix his state's crisis.

Everyone knew it was temporary. Between Nappy and the state legislature, or local government has been one big can of fail since 2002. Why were they counting on that revenue to continue? Its plain economic ignorance.

And LOL at the Gray Davis reference.



Anyways, here are some local articles with commentary so you all can get a better idea of what people are saying about Nappy in this state. Make sure to read the comments:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano-controversy1120-ON.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano1120.html

[saysmydoctor]

1. I am not marking it as a fault against her, you are reading that into what I said. She took advantage of piss poor state GOP leadership to win.

2. It is primarily the job of the federal government - yes - but remember we are not SUPPOSED to be dependent on the Feds for everything. Local authorities and politicians have IN FACT taken on the border issues themselves. Sheriff Arpaio in Maricopa County has managed to get himself re-elected almost completely based on his vigorous enforcement of state and federal immigration laws. Other local authorities throughout the state have done the same thing. If something is broken, why not make an attempt to fix it if you are SERIOUS about border security?

3. State budgets are decreasing, and Arizona's was predictable. But Nappy didn't do a fucking thing to prevent or diminish it. We all knew the bubble was close to bursting. Where was Nappy? She was busy lobbying for a fucking light rail and photo radar cameras. She did not stand up to developers, to realtors, to overzealous investors, she did NOTHING to prevent the impending housing crisis. She has been in office from before the peak until after, and has not helped a soul. Maybe she was busy securing out borders.... oh wait, she wasn't.




Arizona is a moderate state that has swung Democrat in the past. McCain ran a poor campaign, and had to surmount Bush's disastrous approval ratings, so quite frankly a 9% margin is good considering how he faired elsewhere. Hell, he only won TX by 11%.
1. So, she took advantage of it? So what? No one on both sides has ever done that? Ever?

2. Well, what the hell is she supposed to do, walk the border herself? She budgets money to state law enforcement agencies, but their priority is crime not border security. Send the national guard? That sends a grand image. It's the immigration legislation at fault not her.

3. You've stated that twice and are continuing to not acknowledge the tax cuts.

Moderate state. I bet that didn't also contribute to her being elected governor, as well. No, it was just her leaping on a political opportunity. You are predictable.

Everyone knew it was temporary. Between Nappy and the state legislature, or local government has been one big can of fail since 2002. Why were they counting on that revenue to continue? Its plain economic ignorance.

And LOL at the Gray Davis reference.



Anyways, here are some local articles with commentary so you all can get a better idea of what people are saying about Nappy in this state. Make sure to read the comments:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano-controversy1120-ON.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano1120.html
Hahaha, read the comments? Because that's where all the facts? Just because some people say it doesn't make it right--bandwagon fallacy.

[saysmydoctor]

Ahahahahahahha, she got criticized for trying to save illegal immigrant lives. Yeah. Fucking love these comments.

[concernedparent]

Turn the country socialist already O dog.

[Jason Tate]

Everyone knew it was temporary. Between Nappy and the state legislature, or local government has been one big can of fail since 2002. Why were they counting on that revenue to continue? Its plain economic ignorance.

And LOL at the Gray Davis reference.



Anyways, here are some local articles with commentary so you all can get a better idea of what people are saying about Nappy in this state. Make sure to read the comments:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano-controversy1120-ON.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/11/20/20081120napolitano1120.html
So, yes, comments on a message board = completely reliable sample of the state's approval of their Governor. However, official polling -- not so much? Are you serious? That must mean Brand New are the greatest band in the entire world ... I read it on AP.net.

It's not our fault the facts discredit your argument -- you should just let it go.

[x togepi x]

I meant it in the sense that the original guy was mad that Obama isn't going hard left on all of his policies. You will never see a politician go hard to either side-- it's career suicide. You need the middle to get elected (or reelected). The majority will never support an agenda hard to the right OR the left.

wait for the economy get worse and i'm pretty sure a hard left turn won't seem so evil.

[EasySkankin]

in just about every big speech I've seen Obama give, he's said that line "we are not a country of red states or blue states, but the united states" and repeatedly spoke about bringing the parties together to work together so i'm not surprised by his appointments nor am I disappointed. It goes to show he has integrity.

[KingLoser]

we can hardly judge him yet.
this may be him turning over a bit, and helping people out.
he did say something about all healthcare for US citizen's, only time'll tell.

[open mind]

i did say up to this point for a reason....i'd like to see the pattern of conservatives making a mess of things, and democrats abandoning thier supposed core values to clean it up end....and i'm feeling that obama is already begining to fall into that trap. i'm not saying cleaning up the mess isn't needed, but it doesn't have to involve forgetting what it is your political party is supposed to stand for.

at what point did i say obama needs to go hard left? i'd like him to go left, but i'm not talking about taking it to an extreme.

[screamoutmyname]

Not even inaugurated yet and people already calling him a let down. It's going to be an annoying 4 years.

this.

[Mercy Medical]

i did say up to this point for a reason....i'd like to see the pattern of conservatives making a mess of things, and democrats abandoning thier supposed core values to clean it up end....and i'm feeling that obama is already begining to fall into that trap. i'm not saying cleaning up the mess isn't needed, but it doesn't have to involve forgetting what it is your political party is supposed to stand for.

at what point did i say obama needs to go hard left? i'd like him to go left, but i'm not talking about taking it to an extreme.
Obama has never been extreme left though, so I don't understand why him sort of flying down the center is surprising.

Just because someone is a "Democrat" doesn't necessarily mean they need to adhere to what their party stands for 100%. Everyone is different. I do not believe anyone can truly fit into a political party 100%.

[open mind]

Obama has never been extreme left though, so I don't understand why him sort of flying down the center is surprising.

Just because someone is a "Democrat" doesn't necessarily mean they need to adhere to what their party stands for 100%. Everyone is different. I do not believe anyone can truly fit into a political party 100%.

i don't know why you think i'm talking about extreme left wing politics.....i just said more left. every cabinet appointment he's made so far that i can think of has been an appointment of former clinton administration people......and clinton left the democratic party as a party without a real voice, and it's only just rather recently recovered thanks mostly to horrible republican leadership (again).

adhering to the party platform more then clinton did is all i'm really hoping for.....but i'm not sure we're gonna get that based on who obama's picking to be in his cabinet up to this point, which is why so far i feel a bit letdown.

on a side note why do people bother with simply posting "this"?

[Tony Pascarella]

Why are we so worried before the guy's even president yet? He's surrounding himself with people who have been there before and certainly won't just trust them to run the country without any input from the president. Look at his presidential campaign. He did it his way using people who could actually accomplish it the "right" (for lack of a better word) way, breaking new ground while still bringing people to his side. Regardless, judging him before he can even enact any policies is absurd. He'll hit the ground running, but GWB is still sitting in the Oval Office for another 2 months.

[Machu505]

Wow. It's amazing that all the people who whined about Obama's inexperience are now complaining about him picking experienced people for his cabinet.

[anamericangod]

i don't know why you think i'm talking about extreme left wing politics.....i just said more left. every cabinet appointment he's made so far that i can think of has been an appointment of former clinton administration people......and clinton left the democratic party as a party without a real voice, and it's only just rather recently recovered thanks mostly to horrible republican leadership (again).

adhering to the party platform more then clinton did is all i'm really hoping for.....but i'm not sure we're gonna get that based on who obama's picking to be in his cabinet up to this point, which is why so far i feel a bit letdown.

on a side note why do people bother with simply posting "this"?

So you'd rather have partisanship than results? Cool.

[Machu505]

Also, these people's jobs are to carry out the agenda of the president. Obama will have the say.

[open mind]

Wow. It's amazing that all the people who whined about Obama's inexperience are now complaining about him picking experienced people for his cabinet.

i never once complained about his inexperience, in fact i repeatedly said i thought experience was over-rated as some of our greatest presidents had next to none of it.

[open mind]

So you'd rather have partisanship than results? Cool.

like it's impossible to move the country left without being totally partisan or it's impossible to see results while being totally partisan (not sure why you think i'm advocating the latter though).......the republicans successfully moved this country to the right for the last 30 years.

[open mind]

Why are we so worried before the guy's even president yet? He's surrounding himself with people who have been there before and certainly won't just trust them to run the country without any input from the president. Look at his presidential campaign. He did it his way using people who could actually accomplish it the "right" (for lack of a better word) way, breaking new ground while still bringing people to his side. Regardless, judging him before he can even enact any policies is absurd. He'll hit the ground running, but GWB is still sitting in the Oval Office for another 2 months.

i'm not judging him at this point merely saying that up to this point i feel letdown, which doesn't mean the man can't bring me back around......i'm merely saying that the moves he's made up to this point don't leave me confident that he's going to seek much real change beyond going back to things as they were under clinton.

[anamericangod]

like it's impossible to move the country left without being totally partisan or it's impossible to see results while being totally partisan (not sure why you think i'm advocating the latter though).......the republicans successfully moved this country to the right for the last 30 years.

Not sure "republican" and "successful" should be used in the same sentence.

[open mind]

Not sure "republican" and "successful" should be used in the same sentence.

not sure you really addressed what i was saying.

[anamericangod]

not sure you really addressed what i was saying.

Partisanship implies favoritism instead of results. Just because you go along with something that one side is pushing doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of being partisan towards that side. Not really sure what you're saying.

[open mind]

Partisanship implies favoritism instead of results. Just because you go along with something that one side is pushing doesn't automatically mean you're guilty of being partisan towards that side. Not really sure what you're saying.

not automattically.
huh? i don't get what that has to do with anything i've been saying.
i'm saying it's not impossible to get results while simultaneously moving politics a bit to the left. politics just isn't that clear cut.

[Machu505]

i never once complained about his inexperience, in fact i repeatedly said i thought experience was over-rated as some of our greatest presidents had next to none of it.

I wasn't talking directly about you.

[EasySkankin]

Just because the cabinet is mixed, doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to have middle-ground policies. Obama is definitely a liberal, and I believe him when he says he does not believe in the policies of the republicans. He may listen to his conservative aides, like he said he was going to, but that doesn't mean he has to advocate conservative policy. Obama is the president, not the cabinet.

If it's a shift to the left that you're hoping for, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

[TheComeBackKid]

Obama is the president, not the cabinet.

Seriously? As if the President is much more than a face for the party. Puh-lease.

[Jason Tate]

Seriously? As if the President is much more than a face for the party. Puh-lease.
Could you do me a favor and post what high-school you went to? I can only assume you never took a college level course and would like to make sure I never send my kids to the highest schooling you obviously achieved. That and I would love to send a "bitch-slap" to the civics teacher.

Wow.

[open mind]

I wasn't talking directly about you.

well since i'm pretty much the only one whining in this thread i couldn't help but assume you were talking about me.

[Machu505]

well since i'm pretty much the only one whining in this thread i couldn't help but assume you were talking about me.

I was basically talking about all the neo-cons who post an op-ed piece every time Obama makes a new appointment.

[x togepi x]

i'm just not sure what obama is supposed to do right now. if he were to appoint liberal/left politicians to his cabinet, they wouldn't pass the confirmation process. i mean three days or so after he got elected senate republicans were already saying they would filibuster his nonexistent supreme court nonimees. of course they'd fillibuster appointess that actually exist yet.

[open mind]

i'm just not sure what obama is supposed to do right now. if he were to appoint liberal/left politicians to his cabinet, they wouldn't pass the confirmation process. i mean three days or so after he got elected senate republicans were already saying they would filibuster his nonexistent supreme court nonimees. of course they'd fillibuster appointess that actually exist yet.

i'd call thier bluff....there have to be a few republicans willing to cross party lines if only with the hopes of eventually saying i told you so....and obama doesn't need more then a few.

[open mind]

I was basically talking about all the neo-cons who post an op-ed piece every time Obama makes a new appointment.

my bad then....guess i might have gotten overly defensive.

[Lueda Alia]

Cheer up, emo kid. Things can only get better (hopefully)!

[x togepi x]

i'd call thier bluff....there have to be a few republicans willing to cross party lines if only with the hopes of eventually saying i told you so....and obama doesn't need more then a few.

i don't think so. one of the few times party discipline matters most is in the beginning of the new terms. besides, if i'm wrong about party discipline and if he appoints liberals those fake ass blue dog "democrats" might switch over. so even if a few moderate republicans come across, the blue dogs could still keep a filibuster going.

[open mind]

i don't think so. one of the few times party discipline matters most is in the beginning of the new terms. besides, if i'm wrong about party discipline and if he appoints liberals those fake ass blue dog "democrats" might switch over. so even if a few moderate republicans come across, the blue dogs could still keep a filibuster going.

eh, the republican party is pretty much in complete confusion right now thanks to the massive shift in power this country has seen within the last couple of years, so i'm not sure if even they know what the party lines are.
i imagine they'll be able to keep order better then the democrats did while they were down but that's not saying much.

[x togepi x]

eh, the republican party is pretty much in complete confusion right now thanks to the massive shift in power this country has seen within the last couple of years, so i'm not sure if even they know what the party lines are.
i imagine they'll be able to keep order better then the democrats did while they were down but that's not saying much.

just because they're in confusion doesn't mean they don't have the ability to filibuster someone they think is too liberal. that's why obama has to play it cool with centrist/bipartisan picks if he wants to move the country left (which i don't think he does but that's a whole other topic). if he starts out picking someone liberal, chances are we'd end up getting even more conservative picks as "compromises".

[open mind]

just because they're in confusion doesn't mean they don't have the ability to filibuster someone they think is too liberal. that's why obama has to play it cool with centrist/bipartisan picks if he wants to move the country left (which i don't think he does but that's a whole other topic). if he starts out picking someone liberal, chances are we'd end up getting even more conservative picks as "compromises".

if recent history is any indication of how a party will behave lack of power equals a lack of backbone....which makes sense because if things go south you can say give us power back and we'll make things right....not unlike the recent shift in power has come about.

[x togepi x]

if recent history is any indication of how a party will behave lack of power equals a lack of backbone....which makes sense because if things go south you can say give us power back and we'll make things right....not unlike the recent shift in power has come about.

but if you look at the last time republicans were the minority party, you'll see that they didn't do that. i mean hell, the democrats have controlled congress since '07 and they still were capitulating to the republicans on key issues even though it was getting obvious that they would probably get gains in both the houses.

[open mind]

but if you look at the last time republicans were the minority party, you'll see that they didn't do that. i mean hell, the democrats have controlled congress since '07 and they still were capitulating to the republicans on key issues even though it was getting obvious that they would probably get gains in both the houses.

eh, niether of us can say for certain what would happen if obama tried to push things a little....i just know i'd like to see him try.

[wroteurname]

I dunno if this has been said yet...but, he is not even president yet? Soooooooo, I'd say that'd be the reason he hasn't done much.

[x togepi x]

eh, niether of us can say for certain what would happen if obama tried to push things a little....i just know i'd like to see him try.

well sure, but i don't think he wants to make that push anyway and i don't have a problem with that. i'd like him to push things to the left, but i doubt it will happen. i didn't vote for him to do that anyway. i voted for him because i think his administration would be competent at basic governing, unlike McCain. I mean if McCain couldn't pick a Vice Presidential candidate who had more foreign policy credentials than being able to see Russia from her house, I highly doubt he'd be able to handle another Katrina or something like that.

[open mind]

well sure, but i don't think he wants to make that push anyway and i don't have a problem with that. i'd like him to push things to the left, but i doubt it will happen. i didn't vote for him to do that anyway. i voted for him because i think his administration would be competent at basic governing, unlike McCain. I mean if McCain couldn't pick a Vice Presidential candidate who had more foreign policy credentials than being able to see Russia from her house, I highly doubt he'd be able to handle another Katrina or something like that.

competance is a very good reason to vote for someone, but i don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little more then that.
i still believe obama will be better then mccain ever would have been....i'd just like to be able to say more then "hey he's better then the shithead we could have ended up with".

[Tony Pascarella]

competance is a very good reason to vote for someone, but i don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little more then that.
i still believe obama will be better then mccain ever would have been....i'd just like to be able to say more then "hey he's better then the shithead we could have ended up with".He's not even in office yet! You'll have at least 4 years to see if that's the case.

[x togepi x]

competance is a very good reason to vote for someone, but i don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a little more then that.
i still believe obama will be better then mccain ever would have been....i'd just like to be able to say more then "hey he's better then the shithead we could have ended up with".

I don't think we're at a time where "something more" is viable yet. I mean liberal was a dirty word just a few years ago. If Obama started out his administration seeing how liberal he could be, he might not get anything done.

[saysmydoctor]

What do you think his plans are, Togepi? You said he doesn't want to shift this country to the left, so what is it?

[x togepi x]

What do you think his plans are, Togepi? You said he doesn't want to shift this country to the left, so what is it?

i think he plans to shift it to the left, in the sense that he wants to govern from the center, but when i say he doesn't want to shift it to the left, i mean that he doesn't want to start pushing really leftist policies. like i don't think he wants to be what Reagan/Bush are to the right wing for the left wing.

[saysmydoctor]

So Bill Clinton, essentially?

[x togepi x]

in a sense, yeah.

[saysmydoctor]

I find a lot of faults with Clinton Administration (Mogadishu, Don't Ask Don't Tell-DOMA, etc) but I also see some of the good things he did (welfare reform, balanced budget). Do you see that Clinton-esque presidency is bad? I mean, don't get me wrong, I've come to disagree with Obama on numerous issues (from a more left perspective than my previously more right [though unlearned] perspective). What's your thoughts?

[mht]

I haven't been following, but has Obama got anyone from Pennsylvania as cabinet opportunists?

[open mind]

He's not even in office yet! You'll have at least 4 years to see if that's the case.

i realize that....which is why i've been using the type of language i've been using throughout this thread.

[open mind]

I find a lot of faults with Clinton Administration (Mogadishu, Don't Ask Don't Tell-DOMA, etc) but I also see some of the good things he did (welfare reform, balanced budget). Do you see that Clinton-esque presidency is bad? I mean, don't get me wrong, I've come to disagree with Obama on numerous issues (from a more left perspective than my previously more right [though unlearned] perspective). What's your thoughts?

clinton wasn't all bad but i had big problems with his foreign policy, drug policy, his expansion of the death penalty, healthcare policy, and to a lesser extent his tax policy....i also don't like that he started the deregulation of the housing market, and i think NAFTA could have been a hell of alot better.

[saysmydoctor]

I haven't been following, but has Obama got anyone from Pennsylvania as cabinet opportunists?
Biden is from Scranton. But not to my knowledge, any cabinet spots.

[saysmydoctor]

clinton wasn't all bad but i had big problems with his foreign policy, drug policy, his expansion of the death penalty, healthcare policy, and to a lesser extent his tax policy....i also don't like that he started the deregulation of the housing market, and i think NAFTA could have been a hell of alot better.
It was a summary. These are some of my issues with him as well. Also, people like to glamorize that he cut defense spending, but he didn't--just wages for the service members. So of course, the Clinton years were the years of financial problems in my household.

[open mind]

It was a summary. These are some of my issues with him as well. Also, people like to glamorize that he cut defense spending, but he didn't--just wages for the service members. So of course, the Clinton years were the years of financial problems in my household.

i thought he closed more then a few bases to further cut defense spending?

[saysmydoctor]

Can't remember exactly. I know he closed the air force base in Plattsburgh. He did close quite a few. I saw a graph somewhere that showed the increase in defense spending, consistently and yearly, since the Reagan era. The Great Communicator communicated with a rifle and a tank.

[open mind]

Can't remember exactly. I know he closed the air force base in Plattsburgh. He did close quite a few. I saw a graph somewhere that showed the increase in defense spending, consistently and yearly, since the Reagan era. The Great Communicator communicated with a rifle and a tank.

really? are you talking about defense r&d spending or spending overall?
don't forget star wars.......which still doesn't work.

[saysmydoctor]

really? are you talking about defense r&d spending or spending overall?
don't forget star wars.......which still doesn't work.
Spending overall. I saw the chart in my Sociology class when he showed us one of his epic bookmarks. (Like, you think Jason Tate has bookmarks--fuck him, my professor totally beastmodes all over his bookmarks.) Star Wars, lol. Strategic Defense Initiative was only a PR tactic, personally but it lead the Missile Defense Agency. Basically, the agency controls all the 'missile sites' the US has on Earth--like those controversial ones in Poland. It's frightening as hell.

I read somewhere that on 'war,' internationally, $4.3 trillion is spent--annually. (War includes defense spending, etc, etc--half of those costs are made up by the US.)

[open mind]

Spending overall. I saw the chart in my Sociology class when he showed us one of his epic bookmarks. (Like, you think Jason Tate has bookmarks--fuck him, my professor totally beastmodes all over his bookmarks.) Star Wars, lol. Strategic Defense Initiative was only a PR tactic, personally but it lead the Missile Defense Agency. Basically, the agency controls all the 'missile sites' the US has on Earth--like those controversial ones in Poland. It's frightening as hell.

I read somewhere that on 'war,' internationally, $4.3 trillion is spent--annually. (War includes defense spending, etc, etc--half of those costs are made up by the US.)

we're still spending a shitload of cash on it (star wars/sdi) aren't we?

i'm kinda suprised that we only make up half.

[saysmydoctor]

Not SDI, but on ballistic missiles and the Missile Defense Agency. Reagan didn't get his space-ground missile defense plan, but he got a helluva a lot of ground

[Tony Pascarella]

i'm kinda suprised that we only make up half.I found this breakdown; I'm not sure how awesome the source is because I don't know anything about the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and exactly what they count as military spending, but here you go:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

[xshady121]

Spending overall. I saw the chart in my Sociology class when he showed us one of his epic bookmarks. (Like, you think Jason Tate has bookmarks--fuck him, my professor totally beastmodes all over his bookmarks.) Star Wars, lol. Strategic Defense Initiative was only a PR tactic, personally but it lead the Missile Defense Agency. Basically, the agency controls all the 'missile sites' the US has on Earth--like those controversial ones in Poland. It's frightening as hell.

I read somewhere that on 'war,' internationally, $4.3 trillion is spent--annually. (War includes defense spending, etc, etc--half of those costs are made up by the US.)

Speaking of SDI, you saw my quote in the General Thread about Reagan relucting to give up SDI in 87 in iceldnd becaude he wanted to "gaurd Earth from alien invaders" .

That is too far for even me. Comon reagan.

[saysmydoctor]

I found this breakdown; I'm not sure how awesome the source is because I don't know anything about the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and exactly what they count as military spending, but here you go:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/
He showed us this as well, this doesn't include actual warfare (except for Afghanistan and Iraq) and guerrila-esque militant forces. I can't remember his source for the life of me.

[TheComeBackKid]

Could you do me a favor and post what high-school you went to? I can only assume you never took a college level course and would like to make sure I never send my kids to the highest schooling you obviously achieved. That and I would love to send a "bitch-slap" to the civics teacher.

Wow.

I was actually a political science major, thanks.

The President is a mouthpiece, a face to put to a party.

Just look at Bush. Does anyone really think he was capable of making a decision? Why do you think there were so many people whining about how Cheney was the real decision-maker.

[Jason Tate]

I was actually a political science major, thanks.

The President is a mouthpiece, a face to put to a party.

Just look at Bush. Does anyone really think he was capable of making a decision? Why do you think there were so many people whining about how Cheney was the real decision-maker.
I don't believe you.

Wrong.

Yes he was capable of making a decision.

[ArTkY_]

I'm fine with him playing the middle, but that's mostly because I'm a middle ground type of individual and I don't think either extremes are going to get us anywhere.

But honestly, he's not even the actual President yet, so I don't know if we really should be judging him quite yet.
All this.

[TheComeBackKid]

Don't believe me. I'm okay with that.

And you can say I'm wrong, but the truth is as I said. You are naive to believe otherwise.

I don't believe you.

Wrong.

Yes he was capable of making a decision.

[Jason Tate]

Don't believe me. I'm okay with that.

And you can say I'm wrong, but the truth is as I said. You are naive to believe otherwise.
Naive not to believe a person on the internet. You should be an after school special for kids.

[loveisdead]

Don't believe me. I'm okay with that.

And you can say I'm wrong, but the truth is as I said. You are naive to believe otherwise.
You're wrong if you think the president is nothing but a mouthpiece. That's incredibly ignorant. George W. Bush's presidency has shown us more than ever that the person we put in the oval office matters a great deal and plays a huge role in how the nation runs.

[TheComeBackKid]

Naive not to believe a person on the internet. You should be an after school special for kids.

No, naive to not realize how little actual power the president has.

It's really not necessary for you to respond to me like

a) you are smarter than me.

b) you are a prick.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm perfectly okay with that. Not many people here share my views. I think Republicans and Democrats are equally narrow-minded and blinded. Neither seem to be able to be objective about anything. You are not an exception. And as soon as someone goes against what you believe, you are a cock to them because you own this site. Congratulations. I really hope it makes you feel good.

[TheComeBackKid]

You're wrong if you think the president is nothing but a mouthpiece. That's incredibly ignorant. George W. Bush's presidency has shown us more than ever that the person we put in the oval office matters a great deal and plays a huge role in how the nation runs.

The President has some power, yes. But the people behind him are the biggest problem. The entire party (Republican and Democratic) are fucked. No real change is ever going to come from either.

[Jason Tate]

No, naive to not realize how little actual power the president has.

It's really not necessary for you to respond to me like

a) you are smarter than me.

b) you are a prick.

You don't have to agree with me. I'm perfectly okay with that. Not many people here share my views. I think Republicans and Democrats are equally narrow-minded and blinded. Neither seem to be able to be objective about anything. You are not an exception. And as soon as someone goes against what you believe, you are a cock to them because you own this site. Congratulations. I really hope it makes you feel good.
There's a difference between going against what I "believe" and simply being wrong. The problem is that you make statements that are factually wrong.

[Mercy Medical]

I find a lot of faults with Clinton Administration (Mogadishu, Don't Ask Don't Tell-DOMA, etc) but I also see some of the good things he did (welfare reform, balanced budget). Do you see that Clinton-esque presidency is bad? I mean, don't get me wrong, I've come to disagree with Obama on numerous issues (from a more left perspective than my previously more right [though unlearned] perspective). What's your thoughts?
Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA have very little to do with Clinton himself, I'm sure. Yes, what he did to the LGBT population was a dick move, but I'm sure that those two things were pressure from his party and a political move and would be less likely to occur this day in age...

[TheComeBackKid]

There's a difference between going against what I "believe" and simply being wrong. The problem is that you make statements that are factually wrong.
Like?

[Jason Tate]

Saying the President is nothing more than a mouthpiece.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't Ask Don't Tell and DOMA have very little to do with Clinton himself, I'm sure. Yes, what he did to the LGBT population was a dick move, but I'm sure that those two things were pressure from his party and a political move and would be less likely to occur this day in age...
DADT came from him and he signed DOMA into law.

But I see what you're saying.

[Mercy Medical]

DADT came from him and he signed DOMA into law.

But I see what you're saying.
I know he signed DOMA into law, but up until that point he was very pro gay rights. All I'm saying is that he can't fully be blamed for him as much as we can blame his party and the overall opinion of LGBT rights at the time as it was much more conservative then it is now.

[TheComeBackKid]

Saying the President is nothing more than a mouthpiece.

Perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do believe that he is less powerful than the average American believes. It may make me a bit of a conspiracy-theorist, but I believe the "powers that be" behind the president have more to do with the decision-making than the president himself.

Now, saying that I am factually wrong is not correct, because you can't prove it.

Secondly, it is still unnecessary for you to talk to me like a prick in this situation; however, as unfortunate as it is, that's usually how discussions with Democrats go. Preach tolerance all day, but have none for anyone who doesn't fall in line.

Again, I am not taking up for Republicans either- both parties are equally as worthless as far as I am concerned. I just have no need to contest Republican ideals here due to them being the extreme minority.

So if you still want my teacher's name to "bitch-slap" them, feel free to message me privately.

[MusicTalks]

Perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do believe that he is less powerful than the average American believes. It may make me a bit of a conspiracy-theorist, but I believe the "powers that be" behind the president have more to do with the decision-making than the president himself.


I do agree that he's less powerful than most people might think, but I do think that the President is definitely not just a face for the party. On the flipside, I do believe that Obama will be more present and more up front than Bush was and I think that Obama will do everything he said he's going to do.

[saysmydoctor]

I know he signed DOMA into law, but up until that point he was very pro gay rights. All I'm saying is that he can't fully be blamed for him as much as we can blame his party and the overall opinion of LGBT rights at the time as it was much more conservative then it is now.
True, Clinton is a funny case. But yeah, I do see DADT to be an executive decision that has caused more problems and most Generals would rather get rid for, surprisingly, a more open military (granted, only because recruitment is down).

[TheComeBackKid]

I do agree that he's less powerful than most people might think, but I do think that the President is definitely not just a face for the party. On the flipside, I do believe that Obama will be more present and more up front than Bush was and I think that Obama will do everything he said he's going to do.

And I don't believe that, but really only time can tell.

[aolsux]

I can't believe this is a thread. Let the man have his first 60 days...then criticize him. Jeez. It's the first time in 8 years there hasn't been a dictator in office, I think Obama has some plans.

[MusicTalks]

Secondly, it is still unnecessary for you to talk to me like a prick in this situation; however, as unfortunate as it is, that's usually how discussions with Democrats go. Preach tolerance all day, but have none for anyone who doesn't fall in line.

We all have different opinions, and that's the way it's been since the inception of our country, so the back and forth will continue to go on between Democrats and Republicans. But, I will say that I've started taking a more active role in our state of politics over the last few years and I've noticed, especially with this election and McCain, that Democrats were the more tolerant ones. The attacks were completely lopsided and Obama seemed to be the recipient of most of them. The videos of McCain's campaign rallies contrasted so much, I was actually ashamed that other countries got to see that. He was condescending the entire time they were campaigning and completely disrespectful towards Senator Obama. Even the responses from Republicans after the election were absurd - "Obama is a terrorist and baby killer / Barack Obama sucks and so do his supporters." Not once did I see/hear/witness such acts from Obama's campaign. So, it is odd that you would say Democrats preach tolerance but they don't have any. Seems to be the other way around.

[TheComeBackKid]

We all have different opinions, and that's the way it's been since the inception of our country, so the back and forth will continue to go on between Democrats and Republicans. But, I will say that I've started taking a more active role in our state of politics over the last few years and I've noticed, especially with this election and McCain, that Democrats were the more tolerant ones. The attacks were completely lopsided and Obama seemed to be the recipient of most of them. The videos of McCain's campaign rallies contrasted so much, I was actually ashamed that other countries got to see that. He was condescending the entire time they were campaigning and completely disrespectful towards Senator Obama. Even the responses from Republicans after the election were absurd - "Obama is a terrorist and baby killer / Barack Obama sucks and so do his supporters." Not once did I see/hear/witness such acts from Obama's campaign. So, it is odd that you would say Democrats preach tolerance but they don't have any. Seems to be the other way around.

I do agree with you when you say that McCain's campaign was more negative.
But on the other hand, I believe his Democrats (the followers) are generally more negative when discussing views.
That being said, my prediction is that little meaningful change will come from the Obama camp because the Democrats will eventually begin arguing amongst themselves, hindering any real change Obama might really want to accomplish.

[MusicTalks]

I do agree with you when you say that McCain's campaign was more negative.
But on the other hand, I believe his Democrats (the followers) are generally more negative when discussing views.
That being said, my prediction is that little meaningful change will come from the Obama camp because the Democrats will eventually begin arguing amongst themselves, hindering any real change Obama might really want to accomplish.

Fair enough, and like you said, I guess all we can do is sit back and wait to see.

[TheComeBackKid]

Fair enough, and like you said, I guess all we can do is sit back and wait to see.
Agreed.

[Jason Tate]

Perhaps that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I do believe that he is less powerful than the average American believes.

Which is not what you said -- you can change your statement to make it more true, but your original statement was not true.

It may make me a bit of a conspiracy-theorist, but I believe the "powers that be" behind the president have more to do with the decision-making than the president himself.

You've watched one too many youtube documentaries.

Now, saying that I am factually wrong is not correct, because you can't prove it.

Yes I can - you can read the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly, it is still unnecessary for you to talk to me like a prick in this situation; however, as unfortunate as it is, that's usually how discussions with Democrats go. Preach tolerance all day, but have none for anyone who doesn't fall in line.

I don't preach tolerance. And you have shown through your posts on this website that you deserve to be treated as you are.

Again, I am not taking up for Republicans either- both parties are equally as worthless as far as I am concerned. I just have no need to contest Republican ideals here due to them being the extreme minority.

Definition of a troll.

So if you still want my teacher's name to "bitch-slap" them, feel free to message me privately.

I'll just look up the closest community college.

[MusicTalks]

Ouch. Burn.

[Bigalan2004]

I'll just look up the closest community college.

you went to the university of redlands hahahahahahah.

[xshady121]

I can't believe this is a thread. Let the man have his first 60 days...then criticize him. Jeez. It's the first time in 8 years there hasn't been a dictator in office, I think Obama has some plans.

Funny. I wasn't aware there has ever been a dictator of the US. You can't just be throwing around the word "dictator" because you don't like the man. It's the same as the right throwing around the word "socialism" at Obama. Talk about being hypocritical.

[Jason Tate]

you went to the university of redlands hahahahahahah.
Which is not a community college, but a 4 year private liberal arts school, and consistently on the top of "best of.." lists from USA Today and Princeton Review. Uh, good one.

[Bigalan2004]

Which is not a community college, but a 4 year private liberal arts school, and consistently on the top of "best of.." lists from USA Today and Princeton Review. Uh, good one.

no it's not. keep telling yourself that though maybe you will feel good about yourself. i would have rather gone to a community college than university of redlands.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews. com/college/liberal-arts-search

[Jason Tate]

no it's not. keep telling yourself that though maybe you will feel good about yourself. i would have rather gone to a community college than university of redlands.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews. com/college/liberal-arts-search
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews. com/college/items/1322 (Rank: 8; Tier: 1)
http://www.princetonreview.com/UniversityofRedlands.aspx?uidbadge= %07 (Best Western Colleges)

Proving you wrong is just too easy. And you couldn't have gotten in to either one.

[dai the flu]

Which is not a community college, but a 4 year private liberal arts school, and consistently on the top of "best of.." lists from USA Today and Princeton Review. Uh, good one.
could you provide some kind of proof of this 'best of' claim?
i see it listed only as one of the top 120 western schools in princeton review, listed alphabetically. going by the 'U' in university, it isn't quite near the 'top of the list'.

oh it is mentioned in the best 368 schools nationwide too, but again, alphabetically. no real ranking system involved.

[Jason Tate]

could you provide some kind of proof of this 'best of' claim?
i see it listed only as one of the top 120 western schools in princeton review, listed alphabetically. going by the 'U' in university, it isn't quite near the 'top of the list'.

oh it is mentioned in the best 368 schools nationwide too, but again, alphabetically. no real ranking system involved.
Above.

[dai the flu]

well even though USA today didn't rank them like you said, i'll let that slide. but really, being 8th, scoring a 72/100 in tier 1 masters level western colleges...not that impressive. and certainly not the top of the list.

[dai the flu]

you say 'top of', i say 8th.
kind've like saying top 10 when in reality its top 15.

[Jason Tate]

well even though USA today didn't rank them like you said, i'll let that slide. but really, being 8th, scoring a 72/100 in tier 1 masters level western colleges...not that impressive. and certainly not the top of the list.
Ranked them exactly like I said. And being in the top 10 (this year) is not impressive?

God, you're such a fucking loser.

[Bigalan2004]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews. com/college/items/1322 (Rank: 8; Tier: 1)
http://www.princetonreview.com/UniversityofRedlands.aspx?uidbadge= %07 (Best Western Colleges)

Proving you wrong is just too easy. And you couldn't have gotten in to either one.

ha funny thing is i got offered a scholarship to university of redlands but i got a degree from a much better school than your university of redlands, TATE.

i was looking in the whole country, not just the west category. but anyway to make your head grow bigger.

[Jason Tate]

you say 'top of', i say 8th.
kind've like saying top 10 when in reality its top 15.
Except not anything like that. Just don't talk to me. Seriously I can't take your idiocy.

[Jason Tate]

ha funny thing is i got offered a scholarship to university of redlands but i got a degree from a much better school than your university of redlands, TATE.

i was looking in the whole country, not just the west category. but anyway to make your head grow bigger.
And what school was that?

I didn't say "whole country" I said "lists."

I don't need my head to grow bigger - the school was easily the lowest on those I got into - I wanted something simple so I could get a degree while running a business. I graduated early while running a multi-million dollar business from my dorm room. I got my degree to appease my parents, nothing more. Could have gone plenty of other places. Stop being one of those fucking idiots that talks shit about colleges like it actually matters.

And that's like the 5th time I've warned you about my name ... peace.

[dai the flu]

Stop being one of those fucking idiots that talks shit about colleges like it actually matters.
ummm...this whole thing started when you insulted someone else because of their college.
i guess you're a fucking idiot.

oh and if you take a look at the lists on a nationwide level, not just the west region, your college is tied for 32nd in masters level liberal arts colleges.
again, not "top of the list".

[Jason Tate]

ummm...this whole thing started when you insulted someone else because of their college.
i guess you're a fucking idiot.

oh and if you take a look at the lists on a nationwide level, not just the west region, your college is tied for 32nd in masters level liberal arts colleges.
again, not "top of the list".
No, it started because I said I wanted to punch his HIGH-SCHOOL civics teacher. Wrong again. I have no idea what college he went to (but do have doubts he actually attended one).

I never said a fucking thing about "national lists" - you keep adding qualifiers to change what I fucking said. I said "best of lists." I was quite aware which lists they were -- if I meant "national out of all colleges list" I would have fucking said that. Jesus. But 32 out of all the liberal arts colleges in the nation ... better than I even expected. You can keep trying to change what I said to make your argument stronger -- but I am going to keep coming back to what I actually said to prove you wrong.

[saysmydoctor]

University of Redlands is a damn good school, I'm quite curious as to this.

Also, I go to a junior college. Bush went to Yale and he is a fucking idiot. Where you get a degree is not a good case study on someone's intelligence.

[dai the flu]

well guess what, in my personal list of boarders with any amount of common sense and actual real-world intelligence, i'd rank myself in the top 5. i should put that in my resume.
if you're going to throw around phrases like 'my school is top of the list' then you better have some kind of respectably comprehensive list in mind.

and don't deny you insulted him saying he went to a community college, you know we can just look back 2 pages and see it whenever we want.
so again, by your own words, fucking idiot.

[Jason Tate]

well guess what, in my personal list of boarders with any amount of common sense and actual real-world intelligence, i'd rank myself in the top 5. i should put that in my resume.
if you're going to throw around phrases like 'my school is top of the list' then you better have some kind of respectably comprehensive list in mind.

and don't deny you insulted him saying he went to a community college, you know we can just look back 2 pages and see it whenever we want.
so again, by your own words, fucking idiot.
I never said that - don't fucking put words in my mouth. I never said list, I never said "the list" - I said "best of" lists. I even gave the exact lists I was talking about. Both of which are respectable and comprehensive. Why do you continue to lie? This is the definition of a straw man argument -- you continue to argue against a position I never took and words I never said. It's starting to piss me off.

Also not what you said - you said it started by me making fun of his college. It didn't. I also never made fun of his college - I made a crack about him going to a community college.

How many more ways do you want to be proven wrong today? Seriously.

[dai the flu]

well here, i'll use your own words.

"consistently on the top of "best of.." lists from USA Today and Princeton Review."

you've provided nothing from USA today, and the princeton review list was alphabetical. and listed under 'U'. thats near the end of the alphabet genius. sing the song, you'll hear it right after 'T'.
so its not at the top of the list.
how many ways do you want to prove yourself wrong? seriously.

[Jason Tate]

well here, i'll use your own words.

"consistently on the top of "best of.." lists from USA Today and Princeton Review."

you've provided nothing from USA today, and the princeton review list was alphabetical. and listed under 'U'. thats near the end of the alphabet genius. sing the song, you'll hear it right after 'T'.
so its not at the top of the list.
how many ways do you want to prove yourself wrong? seriously.
And then in the next post I posted the exact lists I was talking about. You don't get to just go pick a list and say, "oh, bwahahah, you were wrong - look, this is an alphabetical list here ... bwahahaha, let's use that one." What the fuck is wrong with you?

I meant US News. I clarified this in my next post as well.

You are wasting my time. I'm not playing this game today.

[saysmydoctor]

Bant, awesome, that kid was a tool.

And most likely has no degree/successful business. People in glass houses...

[aolsux]

Funny. I wasn't aware there has ever been a dictator of the US. You can't just be throwing around the word "dictator" because you don't like the man. It's the same as the right throwing around the word "socialism" at Obama. Talk about being hypocritical.
coming from a man who has one of the worst presidents as his avatar. Fuck Reagan.

[xshady121]

coming from a man who has one of the worst presidents as his avatar. Fuck Reagan.

Oh, clever response. My favorite part was where you completely neglected to address my point. I will just take that as you admitting your mistake.

[anamericangod]

I've been waiting months for that clown to get banned.

[paper halo]

Funny. I wasn't aware there has ever been a dictator of the US. You can't just be throwing around the word "dictator" because you don't like the man. It's the same as the right throwing around the word "socialism" at Obama. Talk about being hypocritical.

OMG HYPERBOLE. I'm sure he's aware that Bush has never been an actual dictator. Talk about being pedantic.

[aolsux]

Oh, clever response. My favorite part was where you completely neglected to address my point. I will just take that as you admitting your mistake.
Um, no. But I don't have to address your point. Basically you just said that Bush was not a dictator although he could do anything as a president making all the calls as "the great decider." America would be better off going socialist.

[paper halo]

Um, no. But I don't have to address your point. Basically you just said that Bush was not a dictator although he could do anything as a president making all the calls as "the great decider." America would be better off going socialist.

.... Okay nevermind.

[aolsux]

Shady, you weren't even alive during the reign of Reagan, why defend his vegetative presidential state?

[xshady121]

Shady, you weren't even alive during the reign of Reagan, why defend his vegetative presidential state?

Not true.

[aolsux]

.... Okay nevermind.
no, I agree, I meant it figuratively. Bush did not use in his 8 years the term dictator for himself. But, he could of easily, the shit that he let go on the American people.

[aolsux]

Not true.
What's the matter Shady? Just because your parents had you growing up to believe that America will never have another president as good as Reagan, you now must defend him? I bet you supported Fred Thompson.

[xshady121]

But, he could of easily, the shit that he let go on the American people.

Nope.

[xshady121]

What's the matter Shady? Just because your parents had you growing up to believe that America will never have another president as good as Reagan, you now must defend him? I bet you supported Fred Thompson.

I don't think I was "defending" him anywhere, at least this month.

I like how you're changing your argument with each quote. This is entertaining.

[paper halo]

no, I agree, I meant it figuratively. Bush did not use in his 8 years the term dictator for himself. But, he could of easily, the shit that he let go on the American people.

Yes I see now that you were using the word in a different context to shady. And I see your point.

[xshady121]

Yes I see now that you were using the word in a different context to shady. And I see your point.

Yeah; using the word in it's actual definition is completely overrated.

You know, just like those right wingers calling Obama a socialist.

[aolsux]

I don't think I was "defending" him anywhere, at least this month.

I like how you're changing your argument with each quote. This is entertaining.
I don't have an argument. You are the one bringing this on yourself asshole. This is the reason why I don't post on AP.net anymore. Also, the reason why America is still fucked no matter if Obama is president or not. We cannot get anything done because of the polarity between conservative and liberal. As sad as this is, working together will never work. Fuck America....

[paper halo]

Yeah; using the word in it's actual definition is completely overrated.

You know, just like those right wingers calling Obama a socialist.

Dic-ta-tor


–noun 1.a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Besides, I never said I agreed, just that I saw where he was coming from.

[xshady121]

Dic-ta-tor


–noun 1.a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Besides, I never said I agreed, just that I saw where he was coming from.

Yes. Nothing Bush could do would be beyond unrestricted government control, thus, it wouldn't be dictatorial.

[TK]

Bush has not acted as a dictator, however, he has committed illegal actions.

[paper halo]

Yes. Nothing Bush could do would be beyond unrestricted government control, thus, it wouldn't be dictatorial.

Oh for fuck's sake. Again, I said I saw where he was coming from. The reason I said this is because I didn't agree with what he said but realised what he was implying. I've already pointed out the clear use of hyperbole.

And no, Bush did not go beyond complete government control, but did go against the wishes of a large portion of America and the UN in invading Iraq under false intentions and allegations. As well as implementing laws which effectively eroded the rights and civil liberties of the American people.

Hence i do not agree but can see where he is coming from.

[captainhampton]

Stop being one of those fucking idiots that talks shit about colleges like it actually matters.

I agree, I hate idiots who do this.




I'll just look up the closest community college.

[c_rob2700]

I didn't realize that it isn't even January yet and people are already saying Obama is a let down, this is stupid.

[saysmydoctor]

I agree, I hate idiots who do this.
Sounds like something you would do.

[Jason Tate]

I agree, I hate idiots who do this.
The fact that you can't clearly see the difference is hilarious.

[c_rob2700]

Obvious parodies & irony: freshmen english book
chapter one: understanding when one is using obvious parodies & irony

[RPM1978]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

[Nevuk]

Wow. Btw, you can't go about "hiring taxes". That would make no sense.

[mattybobviously]

Ahahahaha.

[mattybobviously]

Wow. Btw, you can't go about "hiring taxes". That would make no sense.
Hey, we have to get that unemployment rate down somehow.

[shit stroll]

:rotfl:

[boykosaurus]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

If there was an internet lulz of the year award, this would definitely be a contender.

[anamericangod]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahah ahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaah ahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahh ahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahah ahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahaha hahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahaha hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha hahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha hahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha hahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahah ahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahah ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah ahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahha hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha hahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahaha hahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahah ahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahah ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah ahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhaaha hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahaahha hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha hahahahahhaahahahahahahaahahahahaha hahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahah hahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahah ahaahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahah ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah ahhaahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahah ahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah ahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahaahah ahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha hahahah

[Machu505]

Jesus Christ.

[boykosaurus]

That thing wouldn't even come close to a passing grade in any sort of class or learning envirnment, that's what I find best (worst) about it.

[Machu505]

Hillary Clinton apparently lied to herself by telling herself and Congress Iraq had WMDs. Interesting.

[boykosaurus]

I like how Saddam threw the weapons in the Euphrates, he could have at least said they went to Syria.

[Machu505]

And the rich will starve to death because of a three percent tax increase.

[Machu505]

Colbert actually pseudo-mocked the "WMDs to Syria thing" on the Report one time.

[boykosaurus]

You see, the problem is we're all sheep entranced by this man.

:kneel:

[anamericangod]

McCain lost because of McCain-Feingold

[GuitarR0cker1]

Colbert actually pseudo-mocked the "WMDs to Syria thing" on the Report one time.
That's awesome, do you have a link?

[Nevuk]

I'm not entranced until he offers me free sex and cocaine.

[GuitarR0cker1]

McCain lost because of McCain-Feingold
No he obviously lost because he wasn't conservative enough, Americans will only vote for good christian, conservatives like Reagan. McCain betrayed our values when he almost supported sodomy and baby killing in 2000.

[boykosaurus]

Colbert actually pseudo-mocked the "WMDs to Syria thing" on the Report one time.

huh, never saw it. I would link as well plzzz.

[Nevuk]

Also, I'm fairly certain that Germany was in a depression waaay before 1929. Hitler wouldn't have been able to achieve anything had they not been.

[Machu505]

That's awesome, do you have a link?

huh, never saw it. I would link as well plzzz.

It was a long time ago during the word. That's all I can tell ya. :shrug:

[anamericangod]

No he obviously lost because he wasn't conservative enough, Americans will only vote for good christian, conservatives like Reagan. McCain betrayed our values when he almost supported sodomy and baby killing in 2000.

Lol I was quoting the clusterfuck post above me.

[Nevuk]

Hey, we have to get that unemployment rate down somehow.
If only...

[boykosaurus]

I'm not entranced until he offers me free sex and cocaine.

I've never had an opportunity to use so many smilies.

:fuck: :coke:

[boykosaurus]

So from what I can gather, this guy is an evangelical , hawkish Ron Paul supporter?

[GuitarR0cker1]

Lol I was quoting the clusterfuck post above me.
lol I know but it is the same fucked up premise.

[open mind]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

please post more.

[xshady121]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

That was Mussolini. Nice try though.

[Jason Tate]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f13/Ravi21/seinfield.gif

[saysmydoctor]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l265/begintheending/animated/wtf.gif

[booyah.achieved]

OP is a fool. Do you have NO concept of exactly how sluggish the American government machine is? Do you know how amazing he's doing, taking into account all of the red tape??

Fool.

[Roboman]

OP is a fool. Do you have NO concept of exactly how sluggish the American government machine is? Do you know how amazing he's doing, taking into account all of the red tape??

Fool.

Way to be a week late.

[saysmydoctor]

OP is a fool. Do you have NO concept of exactly how sluggish the American government machine is? Do you know how amazing he's doing, taking into account all of the red tape??

Fool.
Booyah'd em

[booyah.achieved]

Way to be a week late.
never too late to slam someone that dumb

thx for the latepass, teach

[INhopewefail]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l265/begintheending/animated/wtf.gif

priceless.

[boykosaurus]

Hopefully he knows there's a "who quoted me?" button, or he grows a pair and comes back.

[open mind]

OP is a fool. Do you have NO concept of exactly how sluggish the American government machine is? Do you know how amazing he's doing, taking into account all of the red tape??

Fool.

huh?

[mattmatumbo]

I don't understand how that concept doesn't work for other people. This country is made up of a wide variety of individuals and until we can all find a common ground and compromise on some issues, we're never all going to get along (not like that will ever happen anyway, but you get the idea).

this. i think obama is going for less of a "yes-man" whitehouse like most presidents go for.

edit: wow i didn't read that spill on how obama is hitler, wowzas i cant believe we elected a black hitler.

[booyah.achieved]

huh?
.......

[derian2219]

Obama ran his campaign on all of his promises he was going to do and he has retracted them already.

Taxing the rich - retracted.
Not giving the oil companies huge tax breaks - retracted.
Tax Cuts for the middle class - retracted.
Health Care - retracted.
Pulling out of Iraq - retracted.


PLUS he said he'll spend as much money as he planned and bailout the automakers.

In these times we need to cut back on our government spending and not increase it.

[anamericangod]

Obama ran his campaign on all of his promises he was going to do and he has retracted them already.

Taxing the rich - retracted.
Not giving the oil companies huge tax breaks - retracted.
Tax Cuts for the middle class - retracted.
Health Care - retracted.
Pulling out of Iraq - retracted.


PLUS he said he'll spend as much money as he planned and bailout the automakers.

In these times we need to cut back on our government spending and not increase it.

Lol. Are you fucking serious?

[derian2219]

Lol. Are you fucking serious?
As in the retractments or the spending?

[derian2219]

this doesnt back all of what i said but its a good article on how he wont be able to achieve all of his promises.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/29/eveningnews/realitycheck/main4557520.shtml

[Burn That Shit]

Obama ran his campaign on all of his promises he was going to do and he has retracted them already.

Taxing the rich - retracted.
Not giving the oil companies huge tax breaks - retracted.
Tax Cuts for the middle class - retracted.
Health Care - retracted.
Pulling out of Iraq - retracted.


PLUS he said he'll spend as much money as he planned and bailout the automakers.

In these times we need to cut back on our government spending and not increase it.

You're pretty stupid.

[open mind]

.......

just so you know it's generally a good rule of thumb to comprehend what a conversation is really about before adding your 2 moronic pennies.

[Burn That Shit]

Obama is a socialist who wishes to implement the same things Hitler implemented for Germany.

You may be thinking this cannot happen in America because America is a Democracy, well Germany was a Democracy itself when the National Socialist Party was elected to the German Parliament and Hitler it's leader was appointed by President Paul Von Hindenberg of Germany to become the Chancellor of Germany in 1933, later the German Parliament building caught fire and Hitler asked President Hindenberg for Dictatorial powers and President Hindenberg said yes.

So when Hitler became Chancellor, President Hindenberg was still Germany's Chief of State with Hitler becoming Germany's Chief of Government, but when Hindenberg died in 1934, Hitler became both Head of State and Head of Government but he refused to call himself President (even though he now technically was) but instead he combined the positions of President and Chancellor into Fuhrer.

Sure Hitler was good for Germany or so it seemed, Germany landed in a Great Depression the same year USA did (1929) but once Hitler came to power in Germany, he got loads of Germans back to work, by using the powers of a Dictator to do it, he got the trains in Germany to stop on time.

Because of all the good Hitler was doing for Germany, loads of Germans who worshipped Hitler like a God would get so upset if you even tried to tell them the bad stuff Hitler was doing, they would be like oh Hitler is not bad, he's made Germany prosper.

But guess what, ok my faith is Christian and my denomination is Lutheran and a preacher from my denomination made a statement that expressed regret for never speaking up and speaking out, he said "when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew, when they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic, when they came for the Communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist, when they came for the Trade Unionists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist, but when they came for the Protestants, there was no one left to speak up.

Sure I did sometimes get upset with some people who said Anti-Bush stuff, but that was only cause the truth was not being spoken in some of those statements, now if a criticism about Bush happened to actually be truth then that was another story there (for instance I disagreed with Bush singing McCain-Feingold into law, I think McCain-Feingold may have helped McCain get defeated, imagine that your own bill helping defeat you in an election, I honestly think the bill did help McCain lose considering that had the McCain-Feingold bill failed, then groups who supported Bush over McCain in 2000 but decided to support McCain in 2008 could have helped McCain out even more than what they were able to do).

I also disagreed with Bush on his support for Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.

Did I disagree with Bush on going into Iraq? No because I know that Clinton signed an executive order that said we were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein, this order was unremovable and so Bush had to well obey the order from Bill Clinton who's wife Hillary was among Democrats in the Senate that voted yes on military action in Iraq.

Has there been any mistakes in this war? hey im not saying no mistakes were made, all wars have their mistakes, we even made mistakes in World War II and a lot of us feel World War II was a justified War and indeed it was.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? if he did, then so did loads of Democrats including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves (Bill Clinton said Saddam had them back when he was President, so did loads of other Democrats who egged Bush on and now act as if they can magically make it that Bush was 1st to ever say it all along), but I have no doubt Iraq did have WMDs why? Israeli intellegence reported loads of WMDs got shipped from Iraq to Syria (strong evidence the Israelis are telling the truth too).

Any WMDs still on Iraq we might never find because some are probably buried in the Euphrates River, and some are also buried underground and most of the people who even knew where the WMDs were at, are all dead now.

But anyways there are those who refuse to believe Franklin Roosevelt was a bad President when it came to domestic policies (sure Roosevelt was right on when it came to War, even Republicans stood by Roosevelt on his war policies even if they opposed his domestic policies), but Roosevelts domestic policies were crappy, for instance he seized privately owned Gold bars from loads of citizens and had a ban on such private ownerships for a long time (it was awhile before such a ban was even lifted).

Our economy is in the toilet not because of Bush and the war, but because we chose to base our currency on trust rather than Gold and Silver (the Roman Empire used other coinage instead of Silver and Gold when Rome was about ready to go broke due to being too busy bribing enemies into not attacking and Rome eventually fell).

Hiring the taxes on the American people will not help USA either because more and more people will go broke and hungry as well, believe me when I say that Obama was given the same praise and adoration as Hitler but Obama is not our savior and he never will be.

We have only one savior and that is Christ our Lord who will come back in all his glory.

Easily the best post I've ever seen on this website.

[derian2219]

You're pretty stupid.
elucidate?

[Burn That Shit]

elucidate?

1.Taxing the rich hasn't and won't be retracted by any politican...ever. Not to mention that the INCREASED TAXES ON THE RICH (I'll be nice and assume that this is what you were referring to) hasn't been retracted either.

2. Not giving the oil companies tax breaks hasn't been retracted either, and none of that topic was covered in the article you posted.

3. Almost none of the things you said were retracted have been retracted, the article you posted said that it would be difficult for him to do all that with the current budget, not impossible.

4. Skeletor jokes were funny 4 years ago

5. Chiodos sucks

[derian2219]

1.Taxing the rich hasn't and won't be retracted by any politican...ever. Not to mention that the INCREASED TAXES ON THE RICH (I'll be nice and assume that this is what you were referring to) hasn't been retracted either.

2. Not giving the oil companies tax breaks hasn't been retracted either, and none of that topic was covered in the article you posted.

3. Almost none of the things you said were retracted have been retracted, the article you posted said that it would be difficult for him to do all that with the current budget, not impossible.

4. Skeletor jokes were funny 4 years ago

5. Chiodos sucks

1. Before Reagan the tax rate for the rich was at 90%

2. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

3. Correct, they haven't been retracted yet but they have been thrown into the media to see how the people react. Heard it on Fox News about two weeks ago.

4. It's an avatar, get over it.

5. Way to attack a band I like, just shows how immature you are.

[Burn That Shit]

1. Before Reagan the tax rate for the rich was at 90%

2. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

3. Correct, they haven't been retracted yet but they have been thrown into the media to see how the people react. Heard it on Fox News about two weeks ago.

4. It's an avatar, get over it.

5. Way to attack a band I like, just shows how immature you are.

1. There were also tons of loopholes to avoid paying taxes before reagan, and it was 70% not 90%.

2. Article said that he accepted donations for his campaign from oil companies, not that he's giving them tax credits.

3. nothing to say here

4. don't care

5. You're 20 and you listen to Chiodos, I'd say that's pretty immature.

[derian2219]

1. There were also tons of loopholes to avoid paying taxes before reagan, and it was 70% not 90%.

2. Article said that he accepted donations for his campaign from oil companies, not that he's giving them tax credits.

3. nothing to say here

4. don't care

5. You're 20 and you listen to Chiodos, I'd say that's pretty immature.

1. Sorry, wrong sorce then. Still 70% down to a max of around 33% is ridiculous

2. Lied about one thing, means he could very well lie about another.

Music taste has nothing to do with maturity level.

[Machu505]

Get Chiodos out of this thread!

[Jason Tate]

Obama ran his campaign on all of his promises he was going to do and he has retracted them already.

Taxing the rich - retracted.
Not giving the oil companies huge tax breaks - retracted.
Tax Cuts for the middle class - retracted.
Health Care - retracted.
Pulling out of Iraq - retracted.


PLUS he said he'll spend as much money as he planned and bailout the automakers.

In these times we need to cut back on our government spending and not increase it.
God I am sick of stupid people making stupid statements without any understanding of economics or reality.

None of these things have been "retraced" - nor is he in office nor is your last line anywhere close to true. This is exactly when we need to increase government spending -- big, big, big time.

[derian2219]

God I am sick of stupid people making stupid statements without any understanding of economics or reality.

None of these things have been "retraced" - nor is he in office nor is your last line anywhere close to true. This is exactly when we need to increase government spending -- big, big, big time.

To put us into more of a deficit? That's why everyone is bashing Bush for all of his spending but then it's okay for Obama to go ahead and do the very same thing? It was said on FoxNews that he won't tax the rich like he said he would during his campaign and that he is going to give tax breaks to the oil companies like he said he wouldn't during his campaign.

I will say this though, I support the man but I hope the media keeps track on his promises that he fulfills and doesn't fulfill, because I am sick of these politicians lying there way into office.

Spending our way out of this mess is prolonging the agony. Imagine oweing $100,000 on a house when you don't have the money to pay it. So, you take out credit cards to pay off that $100,000. Later on, you'll still have to pay off that credit card plus the added interest.

So spending more money when we as a country can't even pay the interest on our debt. Really bright idea.

[Jason Tate]

To put us into more of a deficit? That's why everyone is bashing Bush for all of his spending but then it's okay for Obama to go ahead and do the very same thing? It was said on FoxNews that he won't tax the rich like he said he would during his campaign and that he is going to give tax breaks to the oil companies like he said he wouldn't during his campaign.

I will say this though, I support the man but I hope the media keeps track on his promises that he fulfills and doesn't fulfill, because I am sick of these politicians lying there way into office.

Spending our way out of this mess is prolonging the agony. Imagine oweing $100,000 on a house when you don't have the money to pay it. So, you take out credit cards to pay off that $100,000. Later on, you'll still have to pay off that credit card plus the added interest.

So spending more money when we as a country can't even pay the interest on our debt. Really bright idea.
People were bashing Bush for spending when we didn't need to - recession time economics are completely different than when you inherit a budget surplus. Prefacing anything with "Fox News said.." should be enough to give you your answer before even continuing your thought.

Making a promise on the campaign has nothing to do with being able to actually put it into action. That's not how our government works. You can't just make a declaration - and it happens. There are a whole lot of steps that need to be taken -- and not much of it is actually in the hands of the President (Elect).

You have no idea what you're talking about. A good explanation, from everybody's favorite nobel prize winning economist, can be read here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss): To pull us out of this downward spiral, the federal government will have to provide economic stimulus in the form of higher spending and greater aid to those in distress — and the stimulus plan won’t come soon enough or be strong enough unless politicians and economic officials are able to transcend several conventional prejudices. One of these prejudices is the fear of red ink. In normal times, it’s good to worry about the budget deficit — and fiscal responsibility is a virtue we’ll need to relearn as soon as this crisis is past. When depression economics prevails, however, this virtue becomes a vice. F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget in 1937 almost destroyed the New Deal. Another prejudice is the belief that policy should move cautiously. In normal times, this makes sense: you shouldn’t make big changes in policy until it’s clear they’re needed. Under current conditions, however, caution is risky, because big changes for the worse are already happening, and any delay in acting raises the chance of a deeper economic disaster. The policy response should be as well-crafted as possible, but time is of the essence.Finally, in normal times modesty and prudence in policy goals are good things. Under current conditions, however, it’s much better to err on the side of doing too much than on the side of doing too little. The risk, if the stimulus plan turns out to be more than needed, is that the economy might overheat, leading to inflation — but the Federal Reserve can always head off that threat by raising interest rates. On the other hand, if the stimulus plan is too small there’s nothing the Fed can do to make up for the shortfall. So when depression economics prevails, prudence is folly.

[derian2219]

People were bashing Bush for spending when we didn't need to - recession time economics are completely different than when you inherit a budget surplus. Prefacing anything with "Fox News said.." should be enough to give you your answer before even continuing your thought.

Making a promise on the campaign has nothing to do with being able to actually put it into action. That's not how our government works. You can't just make a declaration - and it happens. There are a whole lot of steps that need to be taken -- and not much of it is actually in the hands of the President (Elect).

You have no idea what you're talking about. A good explanation, from everybody's favorite nobel prize winning economist, can be read here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/opinion/14krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss): To pull us out of this downward spiral, the federal government will have to provide economic stimulus in the form of higher spending and greater aid to those in distress — and the stimulus plan won’t come soon enough or be strong enough unless politicians and economic officials are able to transcend several conventional prejudices. One of these prejudices is the fear of red ink. In normal times, it’s good to worry about the budget deficit — and fiscal responsibility is a virtue we’ll need to relearn as soon as this crisis is past. When depression economics prevails, however, this virtue becomes a vice. F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget in 1937 almost destroyed the New Deal. Another prejudice is the belief that policy should move cautiously. In normal times, this makes sense: you shouldn’t make big changes in policy until it’s clear they’re needed. Under current conditions, however, caution is risky, because big changes for the worse are already happening, and any delay in acting raises the chance of a deeper economic disaster. The policy response should be as well-crafted as possible, but time is of the essence.Finally, in normal times modesty and prudence in policy goals are good things. Under current conditions, however, it’s much better to err on the side of doing too much than on the side of doing too little. The risk, if the stimulus plan turns out to be more than needed, is that the economy might overheat, leading to inflation — but the Federal Reserve can always head off that threat by raising interest rates. On the other hand, if the stimulus plan is too small there’s nothing the Fed can do to make up for the shortfall. So when depression economics prevails, prudence is folly.

I would be all for that 600 Billion stimulus if the Government didn't give that "bailout" to the faulty banks. But we'll see how this all pans out.

Regarding the promises, I know that there are a a lot of trivial steps to getting that promise into law or into an act. But it seems a lot easier when the President is Dem, House is Dem, and the Senate is Dem, to get your promises intact. Or would I be wrong?

But onto another point, the cost of national health would be about 10 billion dollars a month, yet we spent an approximate 700 billion plus for that bailout. Why did politicians, mostly the republicans say that the national health would cost too much? I've been trying to find reasons why and I have come up empty handed.

[Jason Tate]

I would be all for that 600 Billion stimulus if the Government didn't give that "bailout" to the faulty banks. But we'll see how this all pans out.

Regarding the promises, I know that there are a a lot of trivial steps to getting that promise into law or into an act. But it seems a lot easier when the President is Dem, House is Dem, and the Senate is Dem, to get your promises intact. Or would I be wrong?

But onto another point, the cost of national health would be about 10 billion dollars a month, yet we spent an approximate 700 billion plus for that bailout. Why did politicians, mostly the republicans say that the national health would cost too much? I've been trying to find reasons why and I have come up empty handed.
If the government had not done what they did - we would be absolutely fucked right now. As in - massive bank runs and probable depression. Honestly, this is the part where you should go do some more research before getting involved in this discussion -- you don't know enough about what you are talking about.

They are nowhere near "trivial" - at all. You would be very wrong.

[derian2219]

If the government had not done what they did - we would be absolutely fucked right now. As in - massive bank runs and probable depression. Honestly, this is the part where you should go do some more research before getting involved in this discussion -- you don't know enough about what you are talking about.

They are nowhere near "trivial" - at all. You would be very wrong.

Bailout still was not needed IMO.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/no_bailout_necessary.html

[open mind]

If the government had not done what they did - we would be absolutely fucked right now. As in - massive bank runs and probable depression. Honestly, this is the part where you should go do some more research before getting involved in this discussion -- you don't know enough about what you are talking about.

They are nowhere near "trivial" - at all. You would be very wrong.

didn't paulson decide to stop handing out money because it wasn't helping in opening up credit?

i wish that rpm guy would come back. i could really use another laugh.

[derian2219]

Also, let the failed businesses crash. Words of well respected politician Ron Paul

1987 Stock market crash 22.6%
2000 Stock market crash 45.9%
2002 NASDAQ crash 78.4%


We still survived.

[open mind]

Also, let the failed businesses crash. Words of well respected politician Ron Paul

1987 Stock market crash 22.6%
2000 Stock market crash 45.9%
2002 NASDAQ crash 78.4%


We still survived.

the way our economy is structured we really can't just let our financial institutions just fail, the domino effect it would create would be economically catastrophic.
the airlines got a bailout in 2002 i believe.

[Burn That Shit]

Ron Paul isn't very respected at all actually, most people ignore him. I do agree with some of his economic views however.

[derian2219]

the way our economy is structured we really can't just let our financial institutions just fail, the domino effect it would create would be pretty much catastrophic.
the airlines got a bailout in 2002 i believe.

yeah i believe it was about 15 billion.

[Jason Tate]

Also, let the failed businesses crash. Words of well respected politician Ron Paul

1987 Stock market crash 22.6%
2000 Stock market crash 45.9%
2002 NASDAQ crash 78.4%


We still survived.
You're continuing to embarrass yourself. First quoting Fox News - and now Ron Paul? The failed businesses "crash" - and we are looking at something potentially worse than the Great Depression. Unemployment rates hitting 30-40% and entire generations wiped of savings and retirement. It's simply not an option.

[Jason Tate]

didn't paulson decide to stop handing out money because it wasn't helping in opening up credit?

i wish that rpm guy would come back. i could really use another laugh.
Recent TED spread indicates it has opened up. And the TARP is still being used ...

[open mind]

yeah i believe it was about 15 billion.

what a bargain in comparison to what we're looking at today.....bailouts piss me off but if they're needed to keep vital parts of the economy going they're needed. they shouldn't be free though, taxpayers should break even in the long run and sensible regulations should come attached with bailouts.

[open mind]

Recent TED spread indicates it has opened up. And the TARP is still being used ...

good news....kinda has me wondering why paulson changed course though.

[Nevuk]

What's the opinion on the automaker's bailout whining?

[derian2219]

You're continuing to embarrass yourself. First quoting Fox News - and now Ron Paul? The failed businesses "crash" - and we are looking at something potentially worse than the Great Depression. Unemployment rates hitting 30-40% and entire generations wiped of savings and retirement. It's simply not an option.
Obviously a Democrat, which isn't a bad thing.

Specially since 13 of the top 15 most violent cities have democrats as mayors.

[Jason Tate]

Bailout still was not needed IMO.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/no_bailout_necessary.html
Your, extremely uneducated, opinion doesn't make it anywhere close to true.