No, this is what you wrote...
And I challenged you, by asking where the unregulated capitalism is.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
This gave me more faith in Obama's presidency
- Thread starter DaveTheGoldfish
- Start date
- Status
And I challenged you, by asking where the unregulated capitalism is.
I'm still waiting for an answer.
Bush is the president. Heads of state sometimes spend time together. I would go out on a limb and say that Puttin never babysit for Bush. I would also like to go out on a limb and state that Bush never attended parties for personal friends of Puttin.
Obama is a first term senator. These are not heads of state or government officials that he is friends with. These are domestic and foreign terrorist/terrorist sympathizers, biggots, socialist and communist.
Obama is not meeting with these people to better relations for the US. He is meeting with them because he shares a common view with them.
Peloci is a congresswomen. Hannity is a TV personality. Apples to oranges.
Obama is a first term senator. These are not heads of state or government officials that he is friends with. These are domestic and foreign terrorist/terrorist sympathizers, biggots, socialist and communist.
Obama is not meeting with these people to better relations for the US. He is meeting with them because he shares a common view with them.
Peloci is a congresswomen. Hannity is a TV personality. Apples to oranges.
Bush also was not meeting with these heads of state to better relations for the US, both Bushes met with these people to better relations for their own financial benefit:
Oh, and popeye, From Foxnews.com:
Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill for Second Time
President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children, his second slap-down of a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase funding for the popular program.
Ah, but fuck the children, they don't vote yet.
Oh, and popeye, From Foxnews.com:
Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Bill for Second Time
President Bush vetoed legislation that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children, his second slap-down of a bipartisan effort in Congress to dramatically increase funding for the popular program.
Ah, but fuck the children, they don't vote yet.
You do understand all of these hand outs cost money? You do understand that while it is possible to print money; It is not in the best interest of our economy to do so?
My state takes very good care of children and the old. All poor children have health care and all old people have alternatives to medicaid, if needed. Of course my state is ran by Republicans. Look at states that are ran by democrats. Most are failing.
If your state sucks and can't provide healthcare to the poor you have two choices
1) Vote the democrats out
2) Move
Yes, but that does not mean they should be all happy and friendly with those conditions. And it DEFINITELY does not mean they should be recieving the 2nd highest amount of aid out of any country aside from Israel. Keep in mind this is all current, not in the early 70s.
Also, yes. Bush is the head of state. Which is why the sketchy people he spends time with are also heads of state. So people lower down on the foodchain(like a first term senator) have sketchy connections to people also lower down on the food chain(like a college professor).
I'm not condemning bush for his association with those people(though I do dislike the tone they are in given their current offenses). I'm more getting at the point that powerful people end up talking and associating with other powerful people who are not as clean ethically as they themselves might be.
See above.
Working for education reform with an educator is not benefting the US? If that's the evil 'common view' you're referring to, sign me up for the axis of evil. Education is important. Probably more important than the expense-without-proportional-benefit that is our relationship with Egypt.
I won't defend Peloci, because once again I don't like her at all. But Hannity is pretending to be a journalist. He is pretending to be a reporter.
The media's obligation to benefit the country is just as high, if not higher than that of a Senator. We can't police the latter without at least some intelligent cooperation from the former. And Hannity betrays that every single time he's on the air spewing forth his partisan bullshit pretending like he's even checked his sources.
Like I have stated before. If it was just Ayers; then I would't give a shit but its Ayers, bigot preacher, PLO terrorist and on and on and on and on. My worry is that these radicals will have an ear to whisper in.
Hannity is partison just like many personalities on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS. If you don't want to hear Hannity, turn him off.
Unfortunately, I cannot turn Pelosi/Reid and Barney Fudd off.
Bush did get a couple good judges on the bench. Its pretty balanced right now. The melt down of the mortgage industry, cant be blamed on Bush. Thank Barny Frank and the democrats that were pushing mortgage lending to less qualified and financially unstable individuals.
I can turn him off, but that doesn't mean he stops affecting the world I live in.
Some other news stations do obviously have their own biases, but they at least attempt to cover both sides. Half the things I've seen that people cite as them bein super liberal is them saying that the McCain campaign is failing. Well, guess what. It is.
A proper news organization doesn't have to report 50% one side, then 50% the other side. Their job is to inform truthfully.
You don't see people whining that those skinheads that wanted to assassinate obama didn't for 50% favorable representation in the news, do you?
The things fox says are inflammatory, false, and frequently have racist undertones. It's not a news organization, it's a lynch mob.
You consider providing health to our citizens is a handout.
The bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate. President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.
The handouts went to Haliburton, Betchel, Aegis Defense Services, Custer Battles, etc.
You seem happy to fund these monsters, but are chaffed at having to give handouts to US citizens with health problems.
If we don't provide healthcare to those who can't afford it, it will turn around to bite us in the ass down the road. As the poor get sicker, and have more disease, do think that's just going to stay in their neighborhoods? It's going to spread, like diseases do. Preventative health will help curb chronic health problems, which in the end will be much more costly.
Preemptive war just cost us all a lot with no real benefit that I can see. (unless you are Haliburton that is)
But keep posting, you're really enlightening me. Maybe I'll change my mind like the sheep that I am and vote for who you think I should
The bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. And that's a conservative estimate. President Bush tried to sell the American people on the idea that we could have a war with little or no economic sacrifice. Even after the United States went to war, Bush and Congress cut taxes, especially on the rich -- even though the United States already had a massive deficit. So the war had to be funded by more borrowing. By the end of the Bush administration, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the cumulative interest on the increased borrowing used to fund them, will have added about $1 trillion to the national debt.
The handouts went to Haliburton, Betchel, Aegis Defense Services, Custer Battles, etc.
You seem happy to fund these monsters, but are chaffed at having to give handouts to US citizens with health problems.
If we don't provide healthcare to those who can't afford it, it will turn around to bite us in the ass down the road. As the poor get sicker, and have more disease, do think that's just going to stay in their neighborhoods? It's going to spread, like diseases do. Preventative health will help curb chronic health problems, which in the end will be much more costly.
Preemptive war just cost us all a lot with no real benefit that I can see. (unless you are Haliburton that is)
But keep posting, you're really enlightening me. Maybe I'll change my mind like the sheep that I am and vote for who you think I should
Popeye is still correct!
I have read through this whole thread again, and again I say the Popeye has it right. Senator Obama does not deserve to be the President of the greatest country in the world. Will he keep us safe? That's the most important job of the President. His associations with terrorists, Marxists, and bigoted Black preachers suggests that we should not trust him to keep us safe. You throw in the fact that he would rather rob from the successful to give it to the lazy adds another reason for not voting for him. Trying to shut up a reporter and threatening to not give their station any further interviews just because Joe Biden didn't like the question; that's protecting free speech. McCain is not my first choice but he beats the alternative.
I have read through this whole thread again, and again I say the Popeye has it right. Senator Obama does not deserve to be the President of the greatest country in the world. Will he keep us safe? That's the most important job of the President. His associations with terrorists, Marxists, and bigoted Black preachers suggests that we should not trust him to keep us safe. You throw in the fact that he would rather rob from the successful to give it to the lazy adds another reason for not voting for him. Trying to shut up a reporter and threatening to not give their station any further interviews just because Joe Biden didn't like the question; that's protecting free speech. McCain is not my first choice but he beats the alternative.
Well, last time I checked he was running for president of the US... (I know "greatness" is subjective, but look at GDP per capita, happiness, mortality, or any other measurement of a county's success and I doubt you'll find America at the top... sounds like blind patriotism to me.)
Safe from what? The supposed terrorist threat Bush and co made up to direct your taxes to their cronies and to control the population? (If that makes you feel unsafe then looks like it's working.) How many people have died in America from terrorist actions in the last decade? How many have died from poor healthcare? (Hell, you can even include deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and the numbers don't even come close.)
Perhaps Hannity was a bad example, I will concede that point. But their standard anchors are just as bad. Bill O'Reilly? Just as bad. The entire purpose behind saying "hussein" constantly is to insinuate he is a practicing muslim. Which he is not. There's also many instances of them saying this.
Do you guys realize the difference between media using due diligence investigating backgrounds and fearmongering?
I'll give you a hint. The 2 neo-nazis that almost killed everyone. Yeah, preaching hate and fear is fantastic for ratings. But people get fucking violent when they get scared.
Larry King has a talk show. CNN when I have watched it has nearly always had a republican weighing in against a democrat, or at least announces the persons party affiliation. The anchors themselves rarely say much that could be construed as bias(anywhere near the level of Fox), unless recognizing the McCain campaign as the wreck it statistically is consitutes bias.
They've been plenty critical of Obama in many situations, they just aren't willing to spit out Palin's talking points and pretend they are real. And I say Palin, because John McCain has her do the dirty work that he himself can't.
I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that's because a little bit of the John McCain that was electable and was effective is still present and just can't bring himself to spit out that which he knows is untrue(or stretching the truth dangerously far), but every single day his campaign drags on he proves me a little more wrong.
I have never been attacked (or known anyone attacked by) by a Marxist or a black preacher. In fact, we've already covered that 99% of people in this thread probably know people far more dangerous than either (I seem to recall one of our local wickedfire conservatives saying he wouldn't mind the death of all arabs? Sounds more dangerous to me).
As for the "terrorist" thing, I'm not even going to bother responding to that retardation anymore.
That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read.
It's good to be stolen from, so you can hope to get more of the loot back then your competitors who are also being stolen from.
You lose your net profit, and get it back as gross sales.
Ever heard of diminishing returns?
Fucktards.
Obama fans should stick with making emo arguments and complaining about Bush. Whenever they try to talk economics or business, Obama fans sound like the idiots they are.
Again I must call forth the wisdom of Joe "hair plugs" Biden! "You must be joking?"
Have you every watched Keith Olbermann lose his mind or maybe Chris Mathews describe the chills he gets running down his legs when he listens to Obama speeches. What about that dyke chick on MSNBC or maybe Al Franken.
These guys are a fuckin joke to Journalism. You are very wrong on this one. In fact polls Rasmussen polls reports 57% of Voters (Both Parties) believe the media to be bias toward Obama.
I could give a fuck about McCain. I would be happy with Hillary but Yes I will fight to the end to keep a marxist out of office.
- Status