some may be interested
- Thread starter rslinger
- Start date
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3111749
Come on now, Bush had a relationship with Ted Haggart and he was pretty outspoken about gay people and look how that ended up. Not trying to cause any trouble, just trying to clear up any historical inaccuracies.
Fishtaco
Although I don't agree there is any correlation or similarities between "gay rights" and civil rights. Lets think about this for a second. Did ted marry GW? Did GW attend Ted's church for 20 years? Did GW attribute his "salvation" to Ted?
There is a difference between thinking that certain lifestyles are morally objectionable. And saying, "God Damn America." Because of the "atrocities" of America.
http:///forum/post/3111749
Come on now, Bush had a relationship with Ted Haggart and he was pretty outspoken about gay people and look how that ended up. Not trying to cause any trouble, just trying to clear up any historical inaccuracies.
Fishtaco
There is a difference between thinking that certain lifestyles are morally objectionable. And saying, "God Damn America." Because of the "atrocities" of America.
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Lets look at what the Rev Wright HATES about America. Lets see here. We passed in 1865 an Amendment to our Constition that BANNED SLAVERY. Then in 1866 and 1867 2 more than gave African American the Right to Vote and Gave them the same Rights as Everyone Else in This as He Himself Puts IT GODAMN AMERICA.
Yes things were not perfect for a while However African Americans Had more Rights if they had pressed the ISSUE Than Women. Next lets look at what we did when other nations were oppressed we were the ONLY nation to fight a 2 front war and Win it. I guess WW2 means little to Rev Wright with his Extreme Racist Views he seems more in line with Adlof Hitler and Himmler than in line with the rest of the World since he loves to blame all HIS issues on the Jews. Since a couple months ago he claimed it was ThE JEWS that were keeping him from being able to talk to OBAMA. Sounds like Wright would have a better buddy with Almadinajhad than Obama.
Yes things were not perfect for a while However African Americans Had more Rights if they had pressed the ISSUE Than Women. Next lets look at what we did when other nations were oppressed we were the ONLY nation to fight a 2 front war and Win it. I guess WW2 means little to Rev Wright with his Extreme Racist Views he seems more in line with Adlof Hitler and Himmler than in line with the rest of the World since he loves to blame all HIS issues on the Jews. Since a couple months ago he claimed it was ThE JEWS that were keeping him from being able to talk to OBAMA. Sounds like Wright would have a better buddy with Almadinajhad than Obama.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rslinger
http:///forum/post/3111222
Me I AM. I support health care reform, tax increases on the wealthy, cap in trade, and most of all health care reform..... and you know it is different me calling beck racist and him calling the president a racist. i am not calling the commander in chief of our country out....just some nut job who got a show on the channel with the rest of the nut house... and if anybody is wondering i am a 29 year old white male from Wisconsin.
Ok do you support "health care reform" or "most all of health care reform"? You can't vote for it then vote against it.
Why increase taxes on the wealthy, are they the only patriotic citizens( according to VP Biden)? Why tax hard work effort and the American dream? Why encourage people to do less just so the gov't will not take it?
If you believe in taxing the rich, then you also believe in "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", are you willing to say you are a Marxist?
The amazing thing I work 60-80 hours a week with 2 full time jobs. I provide health care for people regardless of ability to pay and I provide decent homes for lower income folks.
My latest handy work
I make a good living, yet because I am willing to work hard I am evil, need more taxes and vilified by the President as a physician who does procedures only for money, not the best interests of the patient.
http:///forum/post/3111222
Me I AM. I support health care reform, tax increases on the wealthy, cap in trade, and most of all health care reform..... and you know it is different me calling beck racist and him calling the president a racist. i am not calling the commander in chief of our country out....just some nut job who got a show on the channel with the rest of the nut house... and if anybody is wondering i am a 29 year old white male from Wisconsin.
Ok do you support "health care reform" or "most all of health care reform"? You can't vote for it then vote against it.
Why increase taxes on the wealthy, are they the only patriotic citizens( according to VP Biden)? Why tax hard work effort and the American dream? Why encourage people to do less just so the gov't will not take it?
If you believe in taxing the rich, then you also believe in "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs", are you willing to say you are a Marxist?
The amazing thing I work 60-80 hours a week with 2 full time jobs. I provide health care for people regardless of ability to pay and I provide decent homes for lower income folks.
My latest handy work
I make a good living, yet because I am willing to work hard I am evil, need more taxes and vilified by the President as a physician who does procedures only for money, not the best interests of the patient.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Yet the Obama Administration ignores REAL racism
I don't see Glenn Beck outside poll places intimidating voters.
How about the black conservatives?
http://politikditto.blogspot.com/200...servative.html
Apparently free thought is not allowed by SEIU.
I don't see Glenn Beck outside poll places intimidating voters.
How about the black conservatives?
http://politikditto.blogspot.com/200...servative.html
Apparently free thought is not allowed by SEIU.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Everytime I see that picture I see Chris Rock in CB4.
fishtaco
Active Member
Again being a moderate, I can tell you using these two guys as an example is not worth the bandwidth, by your reasoning, then everytime the Klan or a white power group was in public, Bush should have been saying something. Health care is a big issue, but the rest seems kind of petty. If you really want to get on Obama's case, then why not be asking questions like why the hell KBR and Blackwater are still on the government payrole? As for Haggart, Bush never went to his church for twenty years, but he did play a role as Bush's spiritual advisor while he was in office which is just as bad or worse and hate is hate regardless of who it is directed at. So Bush was listening to a total hypocrate who was doing meth. That's not as bad? I'm not happy with many Obama policies, but he is also my president, just like Bush was and this kind of pettyness makes us weaker as a country.
Fishtaco
Fishtaco
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3111387
He also needs to force the dems to work with Republicans to some point. Because of the original August dead line they weren't seen as giving the other side the chance to offer up amendments or debate the bill. Let the Republicans kick and scream all they want, take enough time to let everyone have their say and in the end pass something.
I disagree with this.
"The only thing dumber than a republican, or a democrat, is when these two pricks work together."---Lewis Black.
No, the democrats want this bill.....They don't need any republicans on board. So let the democrats take full credit for whatever outcome we get. If these two work together on this, we will get something completely ridiculous and the lines will be blurred as to whom is to blame. I see nothing good out of a healthcare insurance bill at this time. The democrats want this, let them take full credit, for good or for ill.
NOW if it is healthcare reform (similar to welfare reform many years ago) then, and only then could we possibly see a beneficial bill without a huge increase in cost to our national deficit and budget. IMO.
But as it stands now, neither party sees eye to eye on a national heathcare plan bill....so both of them working together on it will make this thing even more ridiculous.
On a sidenote, if this is such a great idea and the democrats believe it will be a good thing, then grow a set. Cast your vote for it and prove your constituents wrong...much like the republicans had to do many decades ago to pass the civil rights bills. Congressmen at that time faced losing voter confidence and support when they passed these bills way back when. Come on, democrats in congress, are your values not that secure and stroing that you are willing to let the results be your vindication?
http:///forum/post/3111387
He also needs to force the dems to work with Republicans to some point. Because of the original August dead line they weren't seen as giving the other side the chance to offer up amendments or debate the bill. Let the Republicans kick and scream all they want, take enough time to let everyone have their say and in the end pass something.
I disagree with this.
"The only thing dumber than a republican, or a democrat, is when these two pricks work together."---Lewis Black.
No, the democrats want this bill.....They don't need any republicans on board. So let the democrats take full credit for whatever outcome we get. If these two work together on this, we will get something completely ridiculous and the lines will be blurred as to whom is to blame. I see nothing good out of a healthcare insurance bill at this time. The democrats want this, let them take full credit, for good or for ill.
NOW if it is healthcare reform (similar to welfare reform many years ago) then, and only then could we possibly see a beneficial bill without a huge increase in cost to our national deficit and budget. IMO.
But as it stands now, neither party sees eye to eye on a national heathcare plan bill....so both of them working together on it will make this thing even more ridiculous.
On a sidenote, if this is such a great idea and the democrats believe it will be a good thing, then grow a set. Cast your vote for it and prove your constituents wrong...much like the republicans had to do many decades ago to pass the civil rights bills. Congressmen at that time faced losing voter confidence and support when they passed these bills way back when. Come on, democrats in congress, are your values not that secure and stroing that you are willing to let the results be your vindication?
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Rslinger if that is what you want here is a idea for you. Get an overseas job with the company of your choice or something like that in a place like France or Venusula were they have the Socialist Medical System you want. Then if you like it there so much become a Citizen of that country where the BASE INCOME TAX RATE IS 60% then they have a VAT of 10-15% on top of EVERYTHING ELSE. Then in France if the Unions get mad at ANYTHING they go on Strike and Shut down the ENTIRE COUNTRY over so much as losing a coffee break. I give you 6 months before you realize that the USA was not so bad after all.
rslinger
Member
You know there is a difference between a public option and that. the gov wont really run medicine it will put people in a pool and help them get cheaper med. you know competition aka capitalism...... You guys are all worked up over the lies your gods aka rush, beck, bill O tell you get your head out the shade and think about this crap rationally. stop the fear mongering.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rslinger
http:///forum/post/3112102
You know there is a difference between a public option and that. the gov wont really run medicine it will put people in a pool and help them get cheaper med. you know competition aka capitalism...... You guys are all worked up over the lies your gods aka rush, beck, bill O tell you get your head out the shade and think about this crap rationally. stop the fear mongering.
How does it get paid for?
http:///forum/post/3112102
You know there is a difference between a public option and that. the gov wont really run medicine it will put people in a pool and help them get cheaper med. you know competition aka capitalism...... You guys are all worked up over the lies your gods aka rush, beck, bill O tell you get your head out the shade and think about this crap rationally. stop the fear mongering.
How does it get paid for?
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Rslinger here is a question for you. How is your Parties Messiah going to PAY for this when EVEN his own Bugets show him DOUBLING the Nations Debt in 10 years without the Healthcare IN THERE. We owe Over 10 TRILLION dollars now as a Nation and his own Budget for this year has MORE RED INK IN IT THAN ALL OF GEORGE W BUSHES DID FOR 8 YEARS COMBINED. Now How are you going to pay for this WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES OR FEES ON PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN 100K A YEAR OF ANY KIND. BTW THAT INCLUDES GAS TOBACO OR ANY OTHER KIND OF HIDDEN TAX.
Here is a clue IT CAN NOT BE DONE. 60% of Americans what the Deficet handled First then worry about Healthcare costs. Btw if we STOPPED GIVING OUT FREE HEALTHCARE TO ILLEGALS THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ROUGHLY 100-400 BILLION a year in the deficit alone nationwide in Medicaid COSTS. Getting rid of the 12-20 Million persons that are here ILLEGALLY and shipping them back to were they came from would do 2 things for this nation 1 solve the UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. 2 take care of alot of State Budget Problems since they would not be forced to provide Welfare to Illegals that are a HUGE DRAIN ON RESOURCES THAT SHOULD BE USED TO HELP THOSE THAT ARE IN NEED.
Here is a clue IT CAN NOT BE DONE. 60% of Americans what the Deficet handled First then worry about Healthcare costs. Btw if we STOPPED GIVING OUT FREE HEALTHCARE TO ILLEGALS THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF ROUGHLY 100-400 BILLION a year in the deficit alone nationwide in Medicaid COSTS. Getting rid of the 12-20 Million persons that are here ILLEGALLY and shipping them back to were they came from would do 2 things for this nation 1 solve the UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM. 2 take care of alot of State Budget Problems since they would not be forced to provide Welfare to Illegals that are a HUGE DRAIN ON RESOURCES THAT SHOULD BE USED TO HELP THOSE THAT ARE IN NEED.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3112185
Rslinger here is a question for you. How is your Parties Messiah going to PAY for this when EVEN his own Bugets show him DOUBLING the Nations Debt in 10 years without the Healthcare IN THERE. We owe Over 10 TRILLION dollars now as a Nation and his own Budget for this year has MORE RED INK IN IT THAN ALL OF GEORGE W BUSHES DID FOR 8 YEARS COMBINED.
Ummm,
1st) The Federal Fiscal Year starts October 1st. The current budget is not Obama's, it's Bush's.
2nd) The proposed 2010 budget does not contain more red ink than all of Bush's combined.
Bush himself more than doubled the debt from 5 to 11 trillion dollars during his tenure in office.
The more important number however, is not the dollar amt, but the percentage of GDP that that dollar amount represents. When Bush took office, public debt was 58% of GDP. As of the current (2009) budget, it's 90.4%.
http:///forum/post/3112185
Rslinger here is a question for you. How is your Parties Messiah going to PAY for this when EVEN his own Bugets show him DOUBLING the Nations Debt in 10 years without the Healthcare IN THERE. We owe Over 10 TRILLION dollars now as a Nation and his own Budget for this year has MORE RED INK IN IT THAN ALL OF GEORGE W BUSHES DID FOR 8 YEARS COMBINED.
Ummm,
1st) The Federal Fiscal Year starts October 1st. The current budget is not Obama's, it's Bush's.
2nd) The proposed 2010 budget does not contain more red ink than all of Bush's combined.
Bush himself more than doubled the debt from 5 to 11 trillion dollars during his tenure in office.
The more important number however, is not the dollar amt, but the percentage of GDP that that dollar amount represents. When Bush took office, public debt was 58% of GDP. As of the current (2009) budget, it's 90.4%.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3112131
How does it get paid for?
The same way it does under the private system: If I cost more than I pay in, you foot the bill for the balance.
http:///forum/post/3112131
How does it get paid for?
The same way it does under the private system: If I cost more than I pay in, you foot the bill for the balance.
ironeagle2006
Active Member
Rslinger Did you INCLUDE the so called Stimulas aka PORKULAS in YOUR FIGURES. Remember BUSH had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. EVERY DOLLAR OF THAT BELONGS TO OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAPS ONLY. 787 BILLION DOLLARS That alone is bigger that Bushes first 4 YEARS OF BUDGET DEFICETS COMBINED. BTW I get my Numbers from the CBO NOT the White House Budget Office.
uneverno
Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3112265
Rslinger Did you INCLUDE the so called Stimulas aka PORKULAS in YOUR FIGURES. Remember BUSH had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. EVERY DOLLAR OF THAT BELONGS TO OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAPS ONLY. 787 BILLION DOLLARS That alone is bigger that Bushes first 4 YEARS OF BUDGET DEFICETS COMBINED. BTW I get my Numbers from the CBO NOT the White House Budget Office.
Jeez, Iron, you really need to get your facts straight. There have been 3 stimulus packages totaling 2.7 trillion dollars: 1) the 2007 tax rebate (~.7 trillion), 2) 2008 TARP (~1 trillion) and 3) the 2008/9 bank/auto etc. industry bailout (~1 trillion). The first two - totaling 1.7 trillion - were passed by Bush, and the third was initiated by Bush and passed under Obama in February of this year ~ 1 month into his term.
Again w/ the deficit numbers as well. It is absolutely not bigger than Bush's first term deficit. Bush's first term added 1.6 trillion non-inflation adjusted dollars to the existing deficit at the time, over and above the $230 billion surplus Clinton left him...
Additionally, the Republicans held the majority in Congress during Bush's first term. It was not until the 2nd half of his 2nd term that the "Democraps" gained the majority.
Not that I expect the numbers to improve going forward. Just saying - yer recounting of history is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
http:///forum/post/3112265
Rslinger Did you INCLUDE the so called Stimulas aka PORKULAS in YOUR FIGURES. Remember BUSH had NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. EVERY DOLLAR OF THAT BELONGS TO OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRAPS ONLY. 787 BILLION DOLLARS That alone is bigger that Bushes first 4 YEARS OF BUDGET DEFICETS COMBINED. BTW I get my Numbers from the CBO NOT the White House Budget Office.
Jeez, Iron, you really need to get your facts straight. There have been 3 stimulus packages totaling 2.7 trillion dollars: 1) the 2007 tax rebate (~.7 trillion), 2) 2008 TARP (~1 trillion) and 3) the 2008/9 bank/auto etc. industry bailout (~1 trillion). The first two - totaling 1.7 trillion - were passed by Bush, and the third was initiated by Bush and passed under Obama in February of this year ~ 1 month into his term.
Again w/ the deficit numbers as well. It is absolutely not bigger than Bush's first term deficit. Bush's first term added 1.6 trillion non-inflation adjusted dollars to the existing deficit at the time, over and above the $230 billion surplus Clinton left him...
Additionally, the Republicans held the majority in Congress during Bush's first term. It was not until the 2nd half of his 2nd term that the "Democraps" gained the majority.
Not that I expect the numbers to improve going forward. Just saying - yer recounting of history is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3112280
Jeez, Iron, you really need to get your facts straight. There have been 3 stimulus packages totaling 2.7 trillion dollars: 1) the 2007 tax rebate (~.7 trillion), 2) 2008 TARP (~1 trillion) and 3) the 2008/9 bank/auto etc. industry bailout (~1 trillion). The first two - totaling 1.7 trillion - were passed by Bush, and the third was initiated by Bush and passed under Obama in February of this year ~ 1 month into his term.
Again w/ the deficit numbers as well. It is absolutely not bigger than Bush's first term deficit. Bush's first term added 1.6 trillion non-inflation adjusted dollars to the existing deficit at the time, over and above the $230 billion surplus Clinton left him...
Additionally, the Republicans held the majority in Congress during Bush's first term. It was not until the 2nd half of his 2nd term that the "Democraps" gained the majority.
Not that I expect the numbers to improve going forward. Just saying - yer recounting of history is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
How is a tax rebate or tax cut "spending"? If I start working a McDonalds for $7/hours how much have I spent, and what is the cost? Renvenue ( income )is down (maybe), but I have to adjust my lifestyle to the new level.
No more class warfare either, wasn't that the basics of the Red revolution in Russian and the rise in power of Hitler? Why are we pitting American against American based on income. Was one civil war not enough?
"Just words".
The feds (both sides) need to STOP SPENDING!
http:///forum/post/3112280
Jeez, Iron, you really need to get your facts straight. There have been 3 stimulus packages totaling 2.7 trillion dollars: 1) the 2007 tax rebate (~.7 trillion), 2) 2008 TARP (~1 trillion) and 3) the 2008/9 bank/auto etc. industry bailout (~1 trillion). The first two - totaling 1.7 trillion - were passed by Bush, and the third was initiated by Bush and passed under Obama in February of this year ~ 1 month into his term.
Again w/ the deficit numbers as well. It is absolutely not bigger than Bush's first term deficit. Bush's first term added 1.6 trillion non-inflation adjusted dollars to the existing deficit at the time, over and above the $230 billion surplus Clinton left him...
Additionally, the Republicans held the majority in Congress during Bush's first term. It was not until the 2nd half of his 2nd term that the "Democraps" gained the majority.
Not that I expect the numbers to improve going forward. Just saying - yer recounting of history is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
How is a tax rebate or tax cut "spending"? If I start working a McDonalds for $7/hours how much have I spent, and what is the cost? Renvenue ( income )is down (maybe), but I have to adjust my lifestyle to the new level.
No more class warfare either, wasn't that the basics of the Red revolution in Russian and the rise in power of Hitler? Why are we pitting American against American based on income. Was one civil war not enough?
"Just words".
The feds (both sides) need to STOP SPENDING!