YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Views: 35

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well this has become very intereting. Again the bottom line is both parties have made mistakes. Now that being said. The current administrations policies ie health care is completly un-constitutional. That is not to say that what Bush did, in regards to the war, is any different.

In regards to the current administartion I found this link that is quite interesting and show how the media drank the kool aid. http://www.howobamagotelected.com/. I just though it would be kind of interesting for people to see.

Currently like I have stated before. We must stop spending. We need to cut. Lets start with the FDA then the Education Admin. I am tired when anyone in congress says that those are frozen costs. They are not and can be eliminated. They just say that for the idots that have no clue. I use those two departments just and an example. Although I do feel the Education department is the most corrupt. Teachers are great not the departent. When Germany says to the U.S. you cannot print money anymore. It is a warning and they just said recently. You want to see the collapse of the Dollar. Keep printing money.

Just my two cents.


OnlyinPinkerton said:
"What is your fascination with MSNBC?"

- My fascination is that you choose to read article titles and not the articles themselves, and choose to make yourself look like an ass by flaunting around your new found "knowledge" of the republican agenda. It was also pretty funny how you chose an article with a liberal slanted headline, while the article itself wasn't reflected as such.

"Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off?"

- Regarding what? I don't think I've used any of my Poli Sci degree in this discussion. I've only used common sense, which is something you could use more of. Wait I take that back, I did say something along the lines of, "... you obviously haven't watched a presidential debate over the past 10 years." I forgot you had to take a poli sci class to view something like that, seeing as how we have to present a secret Poli Sci ID card to our cable/satellite company before hand.

""Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that?"

You do understand that within a campaign there is a message or an issue (hopefully both), within a message or an issue there is a strategy to inform the public of the issue and your message, and within that strategy there contains a tactic? Stop being so f****** stupid.

"It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda." "

Thanks, I didn't understand that plans are meant to be persuasive. Next time I make a plan to go take a s***, I'll remember that it is either a lie or a distorted truth- just propaganda. F***, I wonder how many times I've missed the toilet seat?

"Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?"

- I was trying to gain evidence for a previous point in a different thread. So yes, it would have been constructive for me.

"Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you. "

- LOL. Maybe I'm not open minded because my eyes make it further down a page than just the headlines. Seriously though, your liberal views are very superficial and one sided, read a little more to support your theories of Republicans relying on fear tactics to win elections, and come back to me with an educated statement.




kilgoretrout45 said:
What is your fascination with MSNBC? I can't stand Olberman or Maddow. They are just the left wing version of Glen Beck and Hannity. I live in a conservative town with lots of big American trucks and thousands of churches. Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off? If you are trying to impress me it does not work. I sure as hell would not consider myself a full on liberal. I want government to shrink(and don't pull out your Jeffersonian Era ideologies). However; I do get along with liberals a hell of a lot better than conservatives. You guys(or just you) are just too angry all of the time. Maybe your cowboy hats are on too tight..or the cucumbers you stuff in your pants are really uncomfortable and it gets you angry.

"Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that? It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda.

Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?

It is hard to listen to a whining little angry boy. If you could just be more constructive. Aegeantyphoon is constructive and offers a lot of insight. he makes me think, but when you say "do you listen to Green Day", I realize that I am talking to a door knob. Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you never did answer the question about your "Bush and D***" video collection.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
"The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President."

- Did you just read a headline off of MSNBC.com? If you had read the article, or watched what Mitch McConnell had said, you may not look like the uninformed dumb ass as you appear to be. He basically said," We have an agenda, and if Obama doesn't like our agenda, we don't want him as president." What senator of a minority party has ever wanted otherwise?

"What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection?"

-The Senate minority leader is not the House majority leader or the leader of the GOP, I hope you are aware of that.

" Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. "

- Yes I forgot, the war in Iraq was never a real issue for either side, or the housing market and the economy in general. You obviously never watched a single presidential debate over the past ten years. Every issue they talk about is a real issue. Also, how did the Dem's get into office in 06 and 08? They ran a campaign of "The Rep's are messing up our economy!" Isn't that a fear tactic? "If you continue with Republican economic ideals, our country will get worse."?

"OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy."

- Right wing fanatic? Hardly, I'm what you would consider a weak republican. I am a fan of conservative economics and the private market. Socially I'm placed just right of center, and no I am not angry, just bewildered at your naive view on politics.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you, what state do you live in, and did you like Greenday's album American Idiot?


kilgoretrout45 said:
The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President. What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection? Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
Or I could just blame the trend and model of American party politics in general? You would have to be an idiot (I'm not holding my breath in your case) to blame a partisan congress on a single presidency. Don't get your liberal panties too wet as they may tighten when the sun comes out (spread your ass-cheeks and find out), it could be much worse- a perfect example is the responsible party system in the UK.

You seem like the type of person who keeps their eyes glued to MSNBC. I hardly think the republicans are going to get their agenda through the house by raising issues of Obama's citizenship, education (he went to Columbia! What a dumb ass!), his religious beliefs, homosexuality etc... As they want to get reelected and keep their jobs.

Bottom line, if the economy gets better, Republicans keep the House, Obama keeps his job. Economy gets worse, no-one's job is safe. So there is a possibility you are going to see Obama pull a Clinton and jump through the middle (which is something he proposed when he was first elected, but has failed to do). Also, I am in no way saying economic success was due in a large part to Clinton's policy. I am almost convinced it was due to the economic boom created by a boost in technology- the internet.



kilgoretrout45 said:
"bi-partisan polar garbage" is what I originally said. There is NO BIPARTISANSHIP. You appear to be the person who blames Obama for this polarization, and I appear to be the guy that blames Bush for it. However; at this point in time, America needs to be working together instead of drifting apart. While I am at it, maybe the Reps need to be concentrating on the real problems here instead of worrying abut Obama's citizenship, his education, his religious beliefs and ridiculous things like homosexuality(even after Foley, Craig and Ashburn...the republicans get caught doing strange things). I fail to see how any of that is going to solve our problems.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?


OnlyinPinkerton said:
What bipartisanship?


kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
I'd vote for you in a heartbeat



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well this has become very intereting. Again the bottom line is both parties have made mistakes. Now that being said. The current administrations policies ie health care is completly un-constitutional. That is not to say that what Bush did, in regards to the war, is any different.

In regards to the current administartion I found this link that is quite interesting and show how the media drank the kool aid. http://www.howobamagotelected.com/. I just though it would be kind of interesting for people to see.

Currently like I have stated before. We must stop spending. We need to cut. Lets start with the FDA then the Education Admin. I am tired when anyone in congress says that those are frozen costs. They are not and can be eliminated. They just say that for the idots that have no clue. I use those two departments just and an example. Although I do feel the Education department is the most corrupt. Teachers are great not the departent. When Germany says to the U.S. you cannot print money anymore. It is a warning and they just said recently. You want to see the collapse of the Dollar. Keep printing money.

Just my two cents.


OnlyinPinkerton said:
"What is your fascination with MSNBC?"

- My fascination is that you choose to read article titles and not the articles themselves, and choose to make yourself look like an ass by flaunting around your new found "knowledge" of the republican agenda. It was also pretty funny how you chose an article with a liberal slanted headline, while the article itself wasn't reflected as such.

"Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off?"

- Regarding what? I don't think I've used any of my Poli Sci degree in this discussion. I've only used common sense, which is something you could use more of. Wait I take that back, I did say something along the lines of, "... you obviously haven't watched a presidential debate over the past 10 years." I forgot you had to take a poli sci class to view something like that, seeing as how we have to present a secret Poli Sci ID card to our cable/satellite company before hand.

""Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that?"

You do understand that within a campaign there is a message or an issue (hopefully both), within a message or an issue there is a strategy to inform the public of the issue and your message, and within that strategy there contains a tactic? Stop being so f****** stupid.

"It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda." "

Thanks, I didn't understand that plans are meant to be persuasive. Next time I make a plan to go take a s***, I'll remember that it is either a lie or a distorted truth- just propaganda. F***, I wonder how many times I've missed the toilet seat?

"Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?"

- I was trying to gain evidence for a previous point in a different thread. So yes, it would have been constructive for me.

"Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you. "

- LOL. Maybe I'm not open minded because my eyes make it further down a page than just the headlines. Seriously though, your liberal views are very superficial and one sided, read a little more to support your theories of Republicans relying on fear tactics to win elections, and come back to me with an educated statement.




kilgoretrout45 said:
What is your fascination with MSNBC? I can't stand Olberman or Maddow. They are just the left wing version of Glen Beck and Hannity. I live in a conservative town with lots of big American trucks and thousands of churches. Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off? If you are trying to impress me it does not work. I sure as hell would not consider myself a full on liberal. I want government to shrink(and don't pull out your Jeffersonian Era ideologies). However; I do get along with liberals a hell of a lot better than conservatives. You guys(or just you) are just too angry all of the time. Maybe your cowboy hats are on too tight..or the cucumbers you stuff in your pants are really uncomfortable and it gets you angry.

"Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that? It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda.

Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?

It is hard to listen to a whining little angry boy. If you could just be more constructive. Aegeantyphoon is constructive and offers a lot of insight. he makes me think, but when you say "do you listen to Green Day", I realize that I am talking to a door knob. Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you never did answer the question about your "Bush and D***" video collection.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
"The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President."

- Did you just read a headline off of MSNBC.com? If you had read the article, or watched what Mitch McConnell had said, you may not look like the uninformed dumb ass as you appear to be. He basically said," We have an agenda, and if Obama doesn't like our agenda, we don't want him as president." What senator of a minority party has ever wanted otherwise?

"What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection?"

-The Senate minority leader is not the House majority leader or the leader of the GOP, I hope you are aware of that.

" Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. "

- Yes I forgot, the war in Iraq was never a real issue for either side, or the housing market and the economy in general. You obviously never watched a single presidential debate over the past ten years. Every issue they talk about is a real issue. Also, how did the Dem's get into office in 06 and 08? They ran a campaign of "The Rep's are messing up our economy!" Isn't that a fear tactic? "If you continue with Republican economic ideals, our country will get worse."?

"OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy."

- Right wing fanatic? Hardly, I'm what you would consider a weak republican. I am a fan of conservative economics and the private market. Socially I'm placed just right of center, and no I am not angry, just bewildered at your naive view on politics.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you, what state do you live in, and did you like Greenday's album American Idiot?


kilgoretrout45 said:
The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President. What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection? Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
Or I could just blame the trend and model of American party politics in general? You would have to be an idiot (I'm not holding my breath in your case) to blame a partisan congress on a single presidency. Don't get your liberal panties too wet as they may tighten when the sun comes out (spread your ass-cheeks and find out), it could be much worse- a perfect example is the responsible party system in the UK.

You seem like the type of person who keeps their eyes glued to MSNBC. I hardly think the republicans are going to get their agenda through the house by raising issues of Obama's citizenship, education (he went to Columbia! What a dumb ass!), his religious beliefs, homosexuality etc... As they want to get reelected and keep their jobs.

Bottom line, if the economy gets better, Republicans keep the House, Obama keeps his job. Economy gets worse, no-one's job is safe. So there is a possibility you are going to see Obama pull a Clinton and jump through the middle (which is something he proposed when he was first elected, but has failed to do). Also, I am in no way saying economic success was due in a large part to Clinton's policy. I am almost convinced it was due to the economic boom created by a boost in technology- the internet.



kilgoretrout45 said:
"bi-partisan polar garbage" is what I originally said. There is NO BIPARTISANSHIP. You appear to be the person who blames Obama for this polarization, and I appear to be the guy that blames Bush for it. However; at this point in time, America needs to be working together instead of drifting apart. While I am at it, maybe the Reps need to be concentrating on the real problems here instead of worrying abut Obama's citizenship, his education, his religious beliefs and ridiculous things like homosexuality(even after Foley, Craig and Ashburn...the republicans get caught doing strange things). I fail to see how any of that is going to solve our problems.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?


OnlyinPinkerton said:
What bipartisanship?


kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
Then it should be the government's job to explain to the people the true costs of buying these overseas products; they should clearly outline what negative externalities are being brought to the table. I'm sure if people were actually aware of the basics of economics they would not be heading for that cheaper option.

I'm not sure if economics is mandatory in America, but in my opinion, at least for the start of high school, it should be. If the majority just had the slightest bit of economic theory down I'm sure that your situation in America would be so much better.


Aegeantyphoon said:
That is a nice thought, but again realistically it is the consumer that denotes where the product is going to be manufactured. It is the consumer that demands lower prices and by doing so have forced manufacturing overseas.

To put it perspective, why should I buy an U.S. Made product for 100.00 when I can get a comparable product made elsewhere for much less.

Also you really have to think globally. In order for a company to adequatly compete in the global economy they have to manuacture overseas to reduce costs not only in the manufacturing process but also in the shipping cost. A company also needs to compete against other companies abroad. By manufacturing overseas they can compete. It is the natural progression. Yes there is the argument that employees are not making as much and the working conditions are poor but those issues are being addressed bt the WTO.

Just some ideas and insight that all. Very good pont but I ust do not see that happening.


SPAZMATIK1 said:
the only way to help the US economy at this point would be to buy american products...the problem being there just aren't many. we got no industry, and a service based economy has nothing else to fall back on.



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well I will not voice my opinion of the Union. You should be able to figure that out. You are right that we need cooperation. Realistically though I do not see much coming. I do not like either party. We are going to be in this mess until we start to cut and that means salaries, entitlement programs, and government employees. If we want to end up like Greece lets keep spending like drunken sailors. We need these cuts. Just for instance did you know that the California education system gets an automatic 8% increase per year and nothing can be done about it. That means every 7 years the budget doubles. We have to stop that. Also a friend of mine works for DWP. He took a promotion for 95,000/year for one year then went back to his previous position with a lesser rate, the reason, he said is because his pension will a percentage of his highest salary not an average. That is ridiculous. Anyway enough said. I do not want this to get into union anti union babble. No matter what we both lose.


kilgoretrout45 said:
We will never agree on the trickle down economics, but there was a recession in 1987. However; you have made some valid points. Congress was Republican during Clinton's term(s) which is an important point. That was the same Congress that said "cut and run" when we were in Somalia. We probably will not get much done. There is a lot of polarization going on right now which is too bad, since this country is really needing some cooperation in D.C. Now, if Poizner had run for Governor he might have had my vote, but as a teacher, I can't let Whitman destroy our union, which is what she would have tried to do. This was a bad election for California since there was really no strong candidates running for Governor. I fail to understand how de-regulation will work. That seems to be one of the major factors that got us into this mess.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Actually, with all due respect, you are quite wrong. Trickle down did work, it was a very prosperous time. And if you remember correctly, when Clinton was in office, he balanced budget with a Republican Congress in play and moved more to the center. They did work together to balance the budget but again it was a republican congress. Now I am NOT a republican I am a conservative constitutionalists. You are right they are all blood suckers. Quite frankly I do not think much will get done but it will be good because they wont raise the taxes. Now take a look at California how in the heck could they elect Brown. I remember when he was governor he did not do a thing I remember the interview and have it on VHS when he said he lied. A bit of trivia on that though is that California elected the youngest Governor and the oldest and they were both Brown. And it is best to deregulate and let the markets take over.






kilgoretrout45 said:
The "trickle down theory" does not work. We had a recession in 1987 that the republicans seem to have forgotten about. Our budget was great when Clinton left office, Bush starts a war on false information, the reps deregulate and we are screwed. Now, are the reps taking us back there again? I don't like politicians in general...Poli=many and ticks=blood sucking insects. The problem is also with the people. Everyone is taking sides and closing off any possibility that other people might have a point. Way too much anger during this decade.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well first of all it is Obama who said the Republican's can sit at the back of the bus so they do not need to to come to the middle. Second If they do not fund Obama Care we will not head into a depression. I do not care who is initially to blame. I did not like Bush and I do not like Obama. This election was really based on the economy and not tripling the deficit. Yes the libtards will argue that It was the Republican's that got us into this mess. May I remind everyone that congress is the one who sets spending and has the purse strings, and for the past six years its has been the hands of Prince Harry Reid and Nancy Strech Pelosi who are in bed with Sorros the NEA and the SEIU.

Which brings up the rich topic. You say republicans suck up to the rich, Have you heard of George Sorros one of the richest men in the US. He is a screaming socialist and all of the Dems suck up to him and do what he says.

There was a saying that I heard and I thought it was great. Do you remember Reagan. When he was in office we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Obama is in office now and we have no Hope and no Cash. We need to not fund any of these programs. We need to stop spending and that is what the election was about.



kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
I do not think that it is the governments job to explain any of the costs, they do not even know. They need to stay out of the private sector. The actual true savings is in wages and overall manufacturing costs. Yes econimics was mandatory when I was in school. I cannot tell you about now. Companies need to be global to survive. For instance Ford is doing very well in Europe where the others ae not.

Our situation would be so much better if we were to get rid of all of the career politicians on both parties stop printing money and let the natural course of the economy run its course. All scare tacticts on both sides are bogus. And the media makes it worse. We know what caused the housing crisis. It was loaning money to people that could not afford it. Courtesy of Barney Frank like wise one of the mistakes that the previous administration made was the first bailout. Both sides seem to forget that the money they sre using is OURS, not theirs. They also forget that this a Government for the people by the people and they can be removed. Which did happen. I hope and pray that it will make a difference.

I feel we should have let businesses fail. We should not have bailed out Government Motors (GM) and the unions associated with them. The media says that if we did not do the bailout we would have hit a depression. I do not think so. It was another scare tactic for the Government to seize control. Not a pretty pcture. The U.S. needs to get back to follow the principles of our Constitution that made us great.




Jamekae said:
Then it should be the government's job to explain to the people the true costs of buying these overseas products; they should clearly outline what negative externalities are being brought to the table. I'm sure if people were actually aware of the basics of economics they would not be heading for that cheaper option.

I'm not sure if economics is mandatory in America, but in my opinion, at least for the start of high school, it should be. If the majority just had the slightest bit of economic theory down I'm sure that your situation in America would be so much better.


Aegeantyphoon said:
That is a nice thought, but again realistically it is the consumer that denotes where the product is going to be manufactured. It is the consumer that demands lower prices and by doing so have forced manufacturing overseas.

To put it perspective, why should I buy an U.S. Made product for 100.00 when I can get a comparable product made elsewhere for much less.

Also you really have to think globally. In order for a company to adequatly compete in the global economy they have to manuacture overseas to reduce costs not only in the manufacturing process but also in the shipping cost. A company also needs to compete against other companies abroad. By manufacturing overseas they can compete. It is the natural progression. Yes there is the argument that employees are not making as much and the working conditions are poor but those issues are being addressed bt the WTO.

Just some ideas and insight that all. Very good pont but I ust do not see that happening.


SPAZMATIK1 said:
the only way to help the US economy at this point would be to buy american products...the problem being there just aren't many. we got no industry, and a service based economy has nothing else to fall back on.



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well I will not voice my opinion of the Union. You should be able to figure that out. You are right that we need cooperation. Realistically though I do not see much coming. I do not like either party. We are going to be in this mess until we start to cut and that means salaries, entitlement programs, and government employees. If we want to end up like Greece lets keep spending like drunken sailors. We need these cuts. Just for instance did you know that the California education system gets an automatic 8% increase per year and nothing can be done about it. That means every 7 years the budget doubles. We have to stop that. Also a friend of mine works for DWP. He took a promotion for 95,000/year for one year then went back to his previous position with a lesser rate, the reason, he said is because his pension will a percentage of his highest salary not an average. That is ridiculous. Anyway enough said. I do not want this to get into union anti union babble. No matter what we both lose.


kilgoretrout45 said:
We will never agree on the trickle down economics, but there was a recession in 1987. However; you have made some valid points. Congress was Republican during Clinton's term(s) which is an important point. That was the same Congress that said "cut and run" when we were in Somalia. We probably will not get much done. There is a lot of polarization going on right now which is too bad, since this country is really needing some cooperation in D.C. Now, if Poizner had run for Governor he might have had my vote, but as a teacher, I can't let Whitman destroy our union, which is what she would have tried to do. This was a bad election for California since there was really no strong candidates running for Governor. I fail to understand how de-regulation will work. That seems to be one of the major factors that got us into this mess.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Actually, with all due respect, you are quite wrong. Trickle down did work, it was a very prosperous time. And if you remember correctly, when Clinton was in office, he balanced budget with a Republican Congress in play and moved more to the center. They did work together to balance the budget but again it was a republican congress. Now I am NOT a republican I am a conservative constitutionalists. You are right they are all blood suckers. Quite frankly I do not think much will get done but it will be good because they wont raise the taxes. Now take a look at California how in the heck could they elect Brown. I remember when he was governor he did not do a thing I remember the interview and have it on VHS when he said he lied. A bit of trivia on that though is that California elected the youngest Governor and the oldest and they were both Brown. And it is best to deregulate and let the markets take over.






kilgoretrout45 said:
The "trickle down theory" does not work. We had a recession in 1987 that the republicans seem to have forgotten about. Our budget was great when Clinton left office, Bush starts a war on false information, the reps deregulate and we are screwed. Now, are the reps taking us back there again? I don't like politicians in general...Poli=many and ticks=blood sucking insects. The problem is also with the people. Everyone is taking sides and closing off any possibility that other people might have a point. Way too much anger during this decade.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well first of all it is Obama who said the Republican's can sit at the back of the bus so they do not need to to come to the middle. Second If they do not fund Obama Care we will not head into a depression. I do not care who is initially to blame. I did not like Bush and I do not like Obama. This election was really based on the economy and not tripling the deficit. Yes the libtards will argue that It was the Republican's that got us into this mess. May I remind everyone that congress is the one who sets spending and has the purse strings, and for the past six years its has been the hands of Prince Harry Reid and Nancy Strech Pelosi who are in bed with Sorros the NEA and the SEIU.

Which brings up the rich topic. You say republicans suck up to the rich, Have you heard of George Sorros one of the richest men in the US. He is a screaming socialist and all of the Dems suck up to him and do what he says.

There was a saying that I heard and I thought it was great. Do you remember Reagan. When he was in office we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Obama is in office now and we have no Hope and no Cash. We need to not fund any of these programs. We need to stop spending and that is what the election was about.



kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
If the government doesn’t inform consumers about the true consequences of gravitating towards “cheaper” products they should at the least consider some serious microeconomic reform. People are just throwing money out of the economy because they think buying cheap now will help them in the long run. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Taxation needs to bring the supply curve back over to the left, to effectively show consumers what the true price of throwing money overseas causes. Yes, it might be a little difficult in the short term, but we’re already looking at a bleak long term at the moment and I feel that it’s probably the most effective way of moving towards stabilizing the economy. For the record, I’m not slagging off globalization here, I think it’s a great thing, but only when the hidden costs are truly evaluated.

I can’t really comment on what your government has done to “alleviate” the burdens of the GFC as I’ve been too involved in my own country’s problems, but the points I do understand seem very true; especially about how the media makes things worse. Every histrionic, melodramatic news article about the failing economy makes my blood boil, they’re just helping to drive down investment and slow down recovery, it’s sickening.


Aegeantyphoon said:
I do not think that it is the governments job to explain any of the costs, they do not even know. They need to stay out of the private sector. The actual true savings is in wages and overall manufacturing costs. Yes econimics was mandatory when I was in school. I cannot tell you about now. Companies need to be global to survive. For instance Ford is doing very well in Europe where the others ae not.

Our situation would be so much better if we were to get rid of all of the career politicians on both parties stop printing money and let the natural course of the economy run its course. All scare tacticts on both sides are bogus. And the media makes it worse. We know what caused the housing crisis. It was loaning money to people that could not afford it. Courtesy of Barney Frank like wise one of the mistakes that the previous administration made was the first bailout. Both sides seem to forget that the money they sre using is OURS, not theirs. They also forget that this a Government for the people by the people and they can be removed. Which did happen. I hope and pray that it will make a difference.

I feel we should have let businesses fail. We should not have bailed out Government Motors (GM) and the unions associated with them. The media says that if we did not do the bailout we would have hit a depression. I do not think so. It was another scare tactic for the Government to seize control. Not a pretty pcture. The U.S. needs to get back to follow the principles of our Constitution that made us great.




Jamekae said:
Then it should be the government's job to explain to the people the true costs of buying these overseas products; they should clearly outline what negative externalities are being brought to the table. I'm sure if people were actually aware of the basics of economics they would not be heading for that cheaper option.

I'm not sure if economics is mandatory in America, but in my opinion, at least for the start of high school, it should be. If the majority just had the slightest bit of economic theory down I'm sure that your situation in America would be so much better.


Aegeantyphoon said:
That is a nice thought, but again realistically it is the consumer that denotes where the product is going to be manufactured. It is the consumer that demands lower prices and by doing so have forced manufacturing overseas.

To put it perspective, why should I buy an U.S. Made product for 100.00 when I can get a comparable product made elsewhere for much less.

Also you really have to think globally. In order for a company to adequatly compete in the global economy they have to manuacture overseas to reduce costs not only in the manufacturing process but also in the shipping cost. A company also needs to compete against other companies abroad. By manufacturing overseas they can compete. It is the natural progression. Yes there is the argument that employees are not making as much and the working conditions are poor but those issues are being addressed bt the WTO.

Just some ideas and insight that all. Very good pont but I ust do not see that happening.


SPAZMATIK1 said:
the only way to help the US economy at this point would be to buy american products...the problem being there just aren't many. we got no industry, and a service based economy has nothing else to fall back on.



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well I will not voice my opinion of the Union. You should be able to figure that out. You are right that we need cooperation. Realistically though I do not see much coming. I do not like either party. We are going to be in this mess until we start to cut and that means salaries, entitlement programs, and government employees. If we want to end up like Greece lets keep spending like drunken sailors. We need these cuts. Just for instance did you know that the California education system gets an automatic 8% increase per year and nothing can be done about it. That means every 7 years the budget doubles. We have to stop that. Also a friend of mine works for DWP. He took a promotion for 95,000/year for one year then went back to his previous position with a lesser rate, the reason, he said is because his pension will a percentage of his highest salary not an average. That is ridiculous. Anyway enough said. I do not want this to get into union anti union babble. No matter what we both lose.


kilgoretrout45 said:
We will never agree on the trickle down economics, but there was a recession in 1987. However; you have made some valid points. Congress was Republican during Clinton's term(s) which is an important point. That was the same Congress that said "cut and run" when we were in Somalia. We probably will not get much done. There is a lot of polarization going on right now which is too bad, since this country is really needing some cooperation in D.C. Now, if Poizner had run for Governor he might have had my vote, but as a teacher, I can't let Whitman destroy our union, which is what she would have tried to do. This was a bad election for California since there was really no strong candidates running for Governor. I fail to understand how de-regulation will work. That seems to be one of the major factors that got us into this mess.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Actually, with all due respect, you are quite wrong. Trickle down did work, it was a very prosperous time. And if you remember correctly, when Clinton was in office, he balanced budget with a Republican Congress in play and moved more to the center. They did work together to balance the budget but again it was a republican congress. Now I am NOT a republican I am a conservative constitutionalists. You are right they are all blood suckers. Quite frankly I do not think much will get done but it will be good because they wont raise the taxes. Now take a look at California how in the heck could they elect Brown. I remember when he was governor he did not do a thing I remember the interview and have it on VHS when he said he lied. A bit of trivia on that though is that California elected the youngest Governor and the oldest and they were both Brown. And it is best to deregulate and let the markets take over.






kilgoretrout45 said:
The "trickle down theory" does not work. We had a recession in 1987 that the republicans seem to have forgotten about. Our budget was great when Clinton left office, Bush starts a war on false information, the reps deregulate and we are screwed. Now, are the reps taking us back there again? I don't like politicians in general...Poli=many and ticks=blood sucking insects. The problem is also with the people. Everyone is taking sides and closing off any possibility that other people might have a point. Way too much anger during this decade.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well first of all it is Obama who said the Republican's can sit at the back of the bus so they do not need to to come to the middle. Second If they do not fund Obama Care we will not head into a depression. I do not care who is initially to blame. I did not like Bush and I do not like Obama. This election was really based on the economy and not tripling the deficit. Yes the libtards will argue that It was the Republican's that got us into this mess. May I remind everyone that congress is the one who sets spending and has the purse strings, and for the past six years its has been the hands of Prince Harry Reid and Nancy Strech Pelosi who are in bed with Sorros the NEA and the SEIU.

Which brings up the rich topic. You say republicans suck up to the rich, Have you heard of George Sorros one of the richest men in the US. He is a screaming socialist and all of the Dems suck up to him and do what he says.

There was a saying that I heard and I thought it was great. Do you remember Reagan. When he was in office we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Obama is in office now and we have no Hope and no Cash. We need to not fund any of these programs. We need to stop spending and that is what the election was about.



kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
Your Comment "Every histrionic, melodramatic news article about the failing economy makes my blood boil, they’re just helping to drive down investment and slow down recovery, it’s sickening." Is great you are absolutly correct in that statement. It also make my blood boil.

As far as taxation, as you probably realize, I am totally against it. You have a point but I am really against taxation. The problem with taxation are the politicians they will continue to spend. A good example of this is our Social Security system. Both parties have pillfered from that general fund to pay for other "pet" projects and then say we will raise taxes again. I am already taxed at 35% I wont give the government anymore.

Here is a quote from one of the local headines this morning "...But the draft presented Wednesday spreads the economic pain so widely and boldly that political opposition is likely to overwhelm it. Among the proposals: cuts to farm subsidies and military budgets, massive reductions in the federal work force and overhauls of the tax code and raising the retirement age to 69."

What the quote says is exactly what we need to due. Massive reductions in the federal work force cuts to social security and elimination of certain government agencies. We cannot be a great country if we go broke. And our economy will not grow without a plan to get this deficit down.






Jamekae said:
If the government doesn’t inform consumers about the true consequences of gravitating towards “cheaper” products they should at the least consider some serious microeconomic reform. People are just throwing money out of the economy because they think buying cheap now will help them in the long run. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Taxation needs to bring the supply curve back over to the left, to effectively show consumers what the true price of throwing money overseas causes. Yes, it might be a little difficult in the short term, but we’re already looking at a bleak long term at the moment and I feel that it’s probably the most effective way of moving towards stabilizing the economy. For the record, I’m not slagging off globalization here, I think it’s a great thing, but only when the hidden costs are truly evaluated.

I can’t really comment on what your government has done to “alleviate” the burdens of the GFC as I’ve been too involved in my own country’s problems, but the points I do understand seem very true; especially about how the media makes things worse. Every histrionic, melodramatic news article about the failing economy makes my blood boil, they’re just helping to drive down investment and slow down recovery, it’s sickening.


Aegeantyphoon said:
I do not think that it is the governments job to explain any of the costs, they do not even know. They need to stay out of the private sector. The actual true savings is in wages and overall manufacturing costs. Yes econimics was mandatory when I was in school. I cannot tell you about now. Companies need to be global to survive. For instance Ford is doing very well in Europe where the others ae not.

Our situation would be so much better if we were to get rid of all of the career politicians on both parties stop printing money and let the natural course of the economy run its course. All scare tacticts on both sides are bogus. And the media makes it worse. We know what caused the housing crisis. It was loaning money to people that could not afford it. Courtesy of Barney Frank like wise one of the mistakes that the previous administration made was the first bailout. Both sides seem to forget that the money they sre using is OURS, not theirs. They also forget that this a Government for the people by the people and they can be removed. Which did happen. I hope and pray that it will make a difference.

I feel we should have let businesses fail. We should not have bailed out Government Motors (GM) and the unions associated with them. The media says that if we did not do the bailout we would have hit a depression. I do not think so. It was another scare tactic for the Government to seize control. Not a pretty pcture. The U.S. needs to get back to follow the principles of our Constitution that made us great.




Jamekae said:
Then it should be the government's job to explain to the people the true costs of buying these overseas products; they should clearly outline what negative externalities are being brought to the table. I'm sure if people were actually aware of the basics of economics they would not be heading for that cheaper option.

I'm not sure if economics is mandatory in America, but in my opinion, at least for the start of high school, it should be. If the majority just had the slightest bit of economic theory down I'm sure that your situation in America would be so much better.


Aegeantyphoon said:
That is a nice thought, but again realistically it is the consumer that denotes where the product is going to be manufactured. It is the consumer that demands lower prices and by doing so have forced manufacturing overseas.

To put it perspective, why should I buy an U.S. Made product for 100.00 when I can get a comparable product made elsewhere for much less.

Also you really have to think globally. In order for a company to adequatly compete in the global economy they have to manuacture overseas to reduce costs not only in the manufacturing process but also in the shipping cost. A company also needs to compete against other companies abroad. By manufacturing overseas they can compete. It is the natural progression. Yes there is the argument that employees are not making as much and the working conditions are poor but those issues are being addressed bt the WTO.

Just some ideas and insight that all. Very good pont but I ust do not see that happening.


SPAZMATIK1 said:
the only way to help the US economy at this point would be to buy american products...the problem being there just aren't many. we got no industry, and a service based economy has nothing else to fall back on.



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well I will not voice my opinion of the Union. You should be able to figure that out. You are right that we need cooperation. Realistically though I do not see much coming. I do not like either party. We are going to be in this mess until we start to cut and that means salaries, entitlement programs, and government employees. If we want to end up like Greece lets keep spending like drunken sailors. We need these cuts. Just for instance did you know that the California education system gets an automatic 8% increase per year and nothing can be done about it. That means every 7 years the budget doubles. We have to stop that. Also a friend of mine works for DWP. He took a promotion for 95,000/year for one year then went back to his previous position with a lesser rate, the reason, he said is because his pension will a percentage of his highest salary not an average. That is ridiculous. Anyway enough said. I do not want this to get into union anti union babble. No matter what we both lose.


kilgoretrout45 said:
We will never agree on the trickle down economics, but there was a recession in 1987. However; you have made some valid points. Congress was Republican during Clinton's term(s) which is an important point. That was the same Congress that said "cut and run" when we were in Somalia. We probably will not get much done. There is a lot of polarization going on right now which is too bad, since this country is really needing some cooperation in D.C. Now, if Poizner had run for Governor he might have had my vote, but as a teacher, I can't let Whitman destroy our union, which is what she would have tried to do. This was a bad election for California since there was really no strong candidates running for Governor. I fail to understand how de-regulation will work. That seems to be one of the major factors that got us into this mess.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Actually, with all due respect, you are quite wrong. Trickle down did work, it was a very prosperous time. And if you remember correctly, when Clinton was in office, he balanced budget with a Republican Congress in play and moved more to the center. They did work together to balance the budget but again it was a republican congress. Now I am NOT a republican I am a conservative constitutionalists. You are right they are all blood suckers. Quite frankly I do not think much will get done but it will be good because they wont raise the taxes. Now take a look at California how in the heck could they elect Brown. I remember when he was governor he did not do a thing I remember the interview and have it on VHS when he said he lied. A bit of trivia on that though is that California elected the youngest Governor and the oldest and they were both Brown. And it is best to deregulate and let the markets take over.






kilgoretrout45 said:
The "trickle down theory" does not work. We had a recession in 1987 that the republicans seem to have forgotten about. Our budget was great when Clinton left office, Bush starts a war on false information, the reps deregulate and we are screwed. Now, are the reps taking us back there again? I don't like politicians in general...Poli=many and ticks=blood sucking insects. The problem is also with the people. Everyone is taking sides and closing off any possibility that other people might have a point. Way too much anger during this decade.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well first of all it is Obama who said the Republican's can sit at the back of the bus so they do not need to to come to the middle. Second If they do not fund Obama Care we will not head into a depression. I do not care who is initially to blame. I did not like Bush and I do not like Obama. This election was really based on the economy and not tripling the deficit. Yes the libtards will argue that It was the Republican's that got us into this mess. May I remind everyone that congress is the one who sets spending and has the purse strings, and for the past six years its has been the hands of Prince Harry Reid and Nancy Strech Pelosi who are in bed with Sorros the NEA and the SEIU.

Which brings up the rich topic. You say republicans suck up to the rich, Have you heard of George Sorros one of the richest men in the US. He is a screaming socialist and all of the Dems suck up to him and do what he says.

There was a saying that I heard and I thought it was great. Do you remember Reagan. When he was in office we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Obama is in office now and we have no Hope and no Cash. We need to not fund any of these programs. We need to stop spending and that is what the election was about.



kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
Pretty good stuff, voters are stupid, that's the bottom line.

Check out this Washington Post article I dug up a few days ago. Wonderful.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2...



Aegeantyphoon said:
Well this has become very intereting. Again the bottom line is both parties have made mistakes. Now that being said. The current administrations policies ie health care is completly un-constitutional. That is not to say that what Bush did, in regards to the war, is any different.

In regards to the current administartion I found this link that is quite interesting and show how the media drank the kool aid. http://www.howobamagotelected.com/. I just though it would be kind of interesting for people to see.

Currently like I have stated before. We must stop spending. We need to cut. Lets start with the FDA then the Education Admin. I am tired when anyone in congress says that those are frozen costs. They are not and can be eliminated. They just say that for the idots that have no clue. I use those two departments just and an example. Although I do feel the Education department is the most corrupt. Teachers are great not the departent. When Germany says to the U.S. you cannot print money anymore. It is a warning and they just said recently. You want to see the collapse of the Dollar. Keep printing money.

Just my two cents.


OnlyinPinkerton said:
"What is your fascination with MSNBC?"

- My fascination is that you choose to read article titles and not the articles themselves, and choose to make yourself look like an ass by flaunting around your new found "knowledge" of the republican agenda. It was also pretty funny how you chose an article with a liberal slanted headline, while the article itself wasn't reflected as such.

"Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off?"

- Regarding what? I don't think I've used any of my Poli Sci degree in this discussion. I've only used common sense, which is something you could use more of. Wait I take that back, I did say something along the lines of, "... you obviously haven't watched a presidential debate over the past 10 years." I forgot you had to take a poli sci class to view something like that, seeing as how we have to present a secret Poli Sci ID card to our cable/satellite company before hand.

""Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that?"

You do understand that within a campaign there is a message or an issue (hopefully both), within a message or an issue there is a strategy to inform the public of the issue and your message, and within that strategy there contains a tactic? Stop being so f****** stupid.

"It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda." "

Thanks, I didn't understand that plans are meant to be persuasive. Next time I make a plan to go take a s***, I'll remember that it is either a lie or a distorted truth- just propaganda. F***, I wonder how many times I've missed the toilet seat?

"Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?"

- I was trying to gain evidence for a previous point in a different thread. So yes, it would have been constructive for me.

"Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you. "

- LOL. Maybe I'm not open minded because my eyes make it further down a page than just the headlines. Seriously though, your liberal views are very superficial and one sided, read a little more to support your theories of Republicans relying on fear tactics to win elections, and come back to me with an educated statement.




kilgoretrout45 said:
What is your fascination with MSNBC? I can't stand Olberman or Maddow. They are just the left wing version of Glen Beck and Hannity. I live in a conservative town with lots of big American trucks and thousands of churches. Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off? If you are trying to impress me it does not work. I sure as hell would not consider myself a full on liberal. I want government to shrink(and don't pull out your Jeffersonian Era ideologies). However; I do get along with liberals a hell of a lot better than conservatives. You guys(or just you) are just too angry all of the time. Maybe your cowboy hats are on too tight..or the cucumbers you stuff in your pants are really uncomfortable and it gets you angry.

"Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that? It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda.

Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?

It is hard to listen to a whining little angry boy. If you could just be more constructive. Aegeantyphoon is constructive and offers a lot of insight. he makes me think, but when you say "do you listen to Green Day", I realize that I am talking to a door knob. Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you never did answer the question about your "Bush and D***" video collection.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
"The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President."

- Did you just read a headline off of MSNBC.com? If you had read the article, or watched what Mitch McConnell had said, you may not look like the uninformed dumb ass as you appear to be. He basically said," We have an agenda, and if Obama doesn't like our agenda, we don't want him as president." What senator of a minority party has ever wanted otherwise?

"What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection?"

-The Senate minority leader is not the House majority leader or the leader of the GOP, I hope you are aware of that.

" Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. "

- Yes I forgot, the war in Iraq was never a real issue for either side, or the housing market and the economy in general. You obviously never watched a single presidential debate over the past ten years. Every issue they talk about is a real issue. Also, how did the Dem's get into office in 06 and 08? They ran a campaign of "The Rep's are messing up our economy!" Isn't that a fear tactic? "If you continue with Republican economic ideals, our country will get worse."?

"OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy."

- Right wing fanatic? Hardly, I'm what you would consider a weak republican. I am a fan of conservative economics and the private market. Socially I'm placed just right of center, and no I am not angry, just bewildered at your naive view on politics.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you, what state do you live in, and did you like Greenday's album American Idiot?


kilgoretrout45 said:
The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President. What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection? Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
Or I could just blame the trend and model of American party politics in general? You would have to be an idiot (I'm not holding my breath in your case) to blame a partisan congress on a single presidency. Don't get your liberal panties too wet as they may tighten when the sun comes out (spread your ass-cheeks and find out), it could be much worse- a perfect example is the responsible party system in the UK.

You seem like the type of person who keeps their eyes glued to MSNBC. I hardly think the republicans are going to get their agenda through the house by raising issues of Obama's citizenship, education (he went to Columbia! What a dumb ass!), his religious beliefs, homosexuality etc... As they want to get reelected and keep their jobs.

Bottom line, if the economy gets better, Republicans keep the House, Obama keeps his job. Economy gets worse, no-one's job is safe. So there is a possibility you are going to see Obama pull a Clinton and jump through the middle (which is something he proposed when he was first elected, but has failed to do). Also, I am in no way saying economic success was due in a large part to Clinton's policy. I am almost convinced it was due to the economic boom created by a boost in technology- the internet.



kilgoretrout45 said:
"bi-partisan polar garbage" is what I originally said. There is NO BIPARTISANSHIP. You appear to be the person who blames Obama for this polarization, and I appear to be the guy that blames Bush for it. However; at this point in time, America needs to be working together instead of drifting apart. While I am at it, maybe the Reps need to be concentrating on the real problems here instead of worrying abut Obama's citizenship, his education, his religious beliefs and ridiculous things like homosexuality(even after Foley, Craig and Ashburn...the republicans get caught doing strange things). I fail to see how any of that is going to solve our problems.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?


OnlyinPinkerton said:
What bipartisanship?


kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
This is getting boring. Now you are stealing your "common sense" ideas from Aegeantyphoon. You have a Poli Sci degree and you said you did not even use it...how lame is that? That is like a doctor going into the operating room and not using his medical degree, or like a soldier going into battle without his M16. So to conclude my side of the conversation, I will only say..."so it goes"(Kurt Vonnegut)...


OnlyinPinkerton said:
"What is your fascination with MSNBC?"

- My fascination is that you choose to read article titles and not the articles themselves, and choose to make yourself look like an ass by flaunting around your new found "knowledge" of the republican agenda. It was also pretty funny how you chose an article with a liberal slanted headline, while the article itself wasn't reflected as such.

"Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off?"

- Regarding what? I don't think I've used any of my Poli Sci degree in this discussion. I've only used common sense, which is something you could use more of. Wait I take that back, I did say something along the lines of, "... you obviously haven't watched a presidential debate over the past 10 years." I forgot you had to take a poli sci class to view something like that, seeing as how we have to present a secret Poli Sci ID card to our cable/satellite company before hand.

""Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that?"

You do understand that within a campaign there is a message or an issue (hopefully both), within a message or an issue there is a strategy to inform the public of the issue and your message, and within that strategy there contains a tactic? Stop being so f****** stupid.

"It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda." "

Thanks, I didn't understand that plans are meant to be persuasive. Next time I make a plan to go take a s***, I'll remember that it is either a lie or a distorted truth- just propaganda. F***, I wonder how many times I've missed the toilet seat?

"Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?"

- I was trying to gain evidence for a previous point in a different thread. So yes, it would have been constructive for me.

"Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you. "

- LOL. Maybe I'm not open minded because my eyes make it further down a page than just the headlines. Seriously though, your liberal views are very superficial and one sided, read a little more to support your theories of Republicans relying on fear tactics to win elections, and come back to me with an educated statement.




kilgoretrout45 said:
What is your fascination with MSNBC? I can't stand Olberman or Maddow. They are just the left wing version of Glen Beck and Hannity. I live in a conservative town with lots of big American trucks and thousands of churches. Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off? If you are trying to impress me it does not work. I sure as hell would not consider myself a full on liberal. I want government to shrink(and don't pull out your Jeffersonian Era ideologies). However; I do get along with liberals a hell of a lot better than conservatives. You guys(or just you) are just too angry all of the time. Maybe your cowboy hats are on too tight..or the cucumbers you stuff in your pants are really uncomfortable and it gets you angry.

"Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that? It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda.

Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?

It is hard to listen to a whining little angry boy. If you could just be more constructive. Aegeantyphoon is constructive and offers a lot of insight. he makes me think, but when you say "do you listen to Green Day", I realize that I am talking to a door knob. Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you never did answer the question about your "Bush and D***" video collection.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
"The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President."

- Did you just read a headline off of MSNBC.com? If you had read the article, or watched what Mitch McConnell had said, you may not look like the uninformed dumb ass as you appear to be. He basically said," We have an agenda, and if Obama doesn't like our agenda, we don't want him as president." What senator of a minority party has ever wanted otherwise?

"What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection?"

-The Senate minority leader is not the House majority leader or the leader of the GOP, I hope you are aware of that.

" Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. "

- Yes I forgot, the war in Iraq was never a real issue for either side, or the housing market and the economy in general. You obviously never watched a single presidential debate over the past ten years. Every issue they talk about is a real issue. Also, how did the Dem's get into office in 06 and 08? They ran a campaign of "The Rep's are messing up our economy!" Isn't that a fear tactic? "If you continue with Republican economic ideals, our country will get worse."?

"OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy."

- Right wing fanatic? Hardly, I'm what you would consider a weak republican. I am a fan of conservative economics and the private market. Socially I'm placed just right of center, and no I am not angry, just bewildered at your naive view on politics.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you, what state do you live in, and did you like Greenday's album American Idiot?


kilgoretrout45 said:
The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President. What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection? Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
Or I could just blame the trend and model of American party politics in general? You would have to be an idiot (I'm not holding my breath in your case) to blame a partisan congress on a single presidency. Don't get your liberal panties too wet as they may tighten when the sun comes out (spread your ass-cheeks and find out), it could be much worse- a perfect example is the responsible party system in the UK.

You seem like the type of person who keeps their eyes glued to MSNBC. I hardly think the republicans are going to get their agenda through the house by raising issues of Obama's citizenship, education (he went to Columbia! What a dumb ass!), his religious beliefs, homosexuality etc... As they want to get reelected and keep their jobs.

Bottom line, if the economy gets better, Republicans keep the House, Obama keeps his job. Economy gets worse, no-one's job is safe. So there is a possibility you are going to see Obama pull a Clinton and jump through the middle (which is something he proposed when he was first elected, but has failed to do). Also, I am in no way saying economic success was due in a large part to Clinton's policy. I am almost convinced it was due to the economic boom created by a boost in technology- the internet.



kilgoretrout45 said:
"bi-partisan polar garbage" is what I originally said. There is NO BIPARTISANSHIP. You appear to be the person who blames Obama for this polarization, and I appear to be the guy that blames Bush for it. However; at this point in time, America needs to be working together instead of drifting apart. While I am at it, maybe the Reps need to be concentrating on the real problems here instead of worrying abut Obama's citizenship, his education, his religious beliefs and ridiculous things like homosexuality(even after Foley, Craig and Ashburn...the republicans get caught doing strange things). I fail to see how any of that is going to solve our problems.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?


OnlyinPinkerton said:
What bipartisanship?


kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
Well, that's because we haven't really talked about anything that qualifies its use. If you would like to talk about voting statistics, demographics, trends, or how campaigns are run (finances, advertisements, mobilization, etc...) politics in the BSEC/AL, I'd be happy to use it. Talking about misquoting news articles and how you feel about the Republican and Democratic party can be discussed using common sense. Seriously though, if you have any questions regarding those areas, I'd be happy to provide you with some insight.

As for stealing "common sense" ideas from Agent, that's not the case. I haven't read your discussion with him, but if he's calling for you to use it, and I am too...



kilgoretrout45 said:
This is getting boring. Now you are stealing your "common sense" ideas from Aegeantyphoon. You have a Poli Sci degree and you said you did not even use it...how lame is that? That is like a doctor going into the operating room and not using his medical degree, or like a soldier going into battle without his M16. So to conclude my side of the conversation, I will only say..."so it goes"(Kurt Vonnegut)...


OnlyinPinkerton said:
"What is your fascination with MSNBC?"

- My fascination is that you choose to read article titles and not the articles themselves, and choose to make yourself look like an ass by flaunting around your new found "knowledge" of the republican agenda. It was also pretty funny how you chose an article with a liberal slanted headline, while the article itself wasn't reflected as such.

"Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off?"

- Regarding what? I don't think I've used any of my Poli Sci degree in this discussion. I've only used common sense, which is something you could use more of. Wait I take that back, I did say something along the lines of, "... you obviously haven't watched a presidential debate over the past 10 years." I forgot you had to take a poli sci class to view something like that, seeing as how we have to present a secret Poli Sci ID card to our cable/satellite company before hand.

""Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that?"

You do understand that within a campaign there is a message or an issue (hopefully both), within a message or an issue there is a strategy to inform the public of the issue and your message, and within that strategy there contains a tactic? Stop being so f****** stupid.

"It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda." "

Thanks, I didn't understand that plans are meant to be persuasive. Next time I make a plan to go take a s***, I'll remember that it is either a lie or a distorted truth- just propaganda. F***, I wonder how many times I've missed the toilet seat?

"Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?"

- I was trying to gain evidence for a previous point in a different thread. So yes, it would have been constructive for me.

"Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you. "

- LOL. Maybe I'm not open minded because my eyes make it further down a page than just the headlines. Seriously though, your liberal views are very superficial and one sided, read a little more to support your theories of Republicans relying on fear tactics to win elections, and come back to me with an educated statement.




kilgoretrout45 said:
What is your fascination with MSNBC? I can't stand Olberman or Maddow. They are just the left wing version of Glen Beck and Hannity. I live in a conservative town with lots of big American trucks and thousands of churches. Are you one of those college kids that just learned something in your political science class and want to show off? If you are trying to impress me it does not work. I sure as hell would not consider myself a full on liberal. I want government to shrink(and don't pull out your Jeffersonian Era ideologies). However; I do get along with liberals a hell of a lot better than conservatives. You guys(or just you) are just too angry all of the time. Maybe your cowboy hats are on too tight..or the cucumbers you stuff in your pants are really uncomfortable and it gets you angry.

"Who says fear tactics can't be true?" What kind of lame statement is that? While it is possible to be true, the word tactic confuses me. You do know that a tactic is a strategy right? You know(let me put this so you understand)...a tactic is a plan. Do you understand that? It is usually persuasive in nature, thus it is either is a lie, a distorted truth or an exaggeration of a possible truth. Either way, it is a form of propaganda.

Green Day? What the heck does that have to do with anything? Do you consider that constructive? Do you listen to Garth Brooks?

It is hard to listen to a whining little angry boy. If you could just be more constructive. Aegeantyphoon is constructive and offers a lot of insight. he makes me think, but when you say "do you listen to Green Day", I realize that I am talking to a door knob. Obviously, you are not very open minded and I feel sorry for you.
By the way, you never did answer the question about your "Bush and D***" video collection.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
"The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President."

- Did you just read a headline off of MSNBC.com? If you had read the article, or watched what Mitch McConnell had said, you may not look like the uninformed dumb ass as you appear to be. He basically said," We have an agenda, and if Obama doesn't like our agenda, we don't want him as president." What senator of a minority party has ever wanted otherwise?

"What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection?"

-The Senate minority leader is not the House majority leader or the leader of the GOP, I hope you are aware of that.

" Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. "

- Yes I forgot, the war in Iraq was never a real issue for either side, or the housing market and the economy in general. You obviously never watched a single presidential debate over the past ten years. Every issue they talk about is a real issue. Also, how did the Dem's get into office in 06 and 08? They ran a campaign of "The Rep's are messing up our economy!" Isn't that a fear tactic? "If you continue with Republican economic ideals, our country will get worse."?

"OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy."

- Right wing fanatic? Hardly, I'm what you would consider a weak republican. I am a fan of conservative economics and the private market. Socially I'm placed just right of center, and no I am not angry, just bewildered at your naive view on politics.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you, what state do you live in, and did you like Greenday's album American Idiot?


kilgoretrout45 said:
The republicans have already stated that their number one goal is to make Obama a one term President. What a healthy way to start after taking the majority in the House. Worried about reelection? Heck, that is how the reps get into office. Throwing fear, mistrust, accusations...instead of talking about the real issues. Hell, you guys did it to John Kerry also. OnlyinPinkerton, you seem very angry. Is that the normal temperament of a right wing fanactic? Are you angry because all you have in 2012 is Palin? She would be a very sexy librarian in some adult movie , but she might quit her job...just like she did in Alaska. I am definitely not a Pelosi fan either...maybe her and Palin can be in the same movie "Bi" Partisanship B******. Just think, you could own as many copies you want! You could add it to your library with "Bush and D***" unless you over used that copy.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
Or I could just blame the trend and model of American party politics in general? You would have to be an idiot (I'm not holding my breath in your case) to blame a partisan congress on a single presidency. Don't get your liberal panties too wet as they may tighten when the sun comes out (spread your ass-cheeks and find out), it could be much worse- a perfect example is the responsible party system in the UK.

You seem like the type of person who keeps their eyes glued to MSNBC. I hardly think the republicans are going to get their agenda through the house by raising issues of Obama's citizenship, education (he went to Columbia! What a dumb ass!), his religious beliefs, homosexuality etc... As they want to get reelected and keep their jobs.

Bottom line, if the economy gets better, Republicans keep the House, Obama keeps his job. Economy gets worse, no-one's job is safe. So there is a possibility you are going to see Obama pull a Clinton and jump through the middle (which is something he proposed when he was first elected, but has failed to do). Also, I am in no way saying economic success was due in a large part to Clinton's policy. I am almost convinced it was due to the economic boom created by a boost in technology- the internet.



kilgoretrout45 said:
"bi-partisan polar garbage" is what I originally said. There is NO BIPARTISANSHIP. You appear to be the person who blames Obama for this polarization, and I appear to be the guy that blames Bush for it. However; at this point in time, America needs to be working together instead of drifting apart. While I am at it, maybe the Reps need to be concentrating on the real problems here instead of worrying abut Obama's citizenship, his education, his religious beliefs and ridiculous things like homosexuality(even after Foley, Craig and Ashburn...the republicans get caught doing strange things). I fail to see how any of that is going to solve our problems.

OnlyinPinkerton said:
WHAT BIPARTISANSHIP?


OnlyinPinkerton said:
What bipartisanship?


kilgoretrout45 said:
That was not my point. I said if the Republicans want to change the country like they promised, it is going to take compromise. Basically, both sides will have to humble themselves(kiss butt). If the Republicans don't allocate any money, and this recession dips into a depression, we Americans will have B****....I mean Boehner to blame. Especially when the Reps suck up to the rich and screw the middle and lower class. Don't get me wrong, I am not completely happy with Obama either, but this bi-partisan polar garbage is only hurting the American people.

Aegeantyphoon said:
Well quite frankly they wont need to over-ride a veto all they have to do is not fund which is in their power. Remember it is the congress that allocates funds not the white house.



kilgoretrout45 said:
Now the republicans are going to have to kiss Obama's *** to try to make all the changes they promised. They will have a hard time over-riding a veto when they need 2/3's of the House to do it. Then their "change" is going to have to be approved by a liberal Supreme Court. LONG LIVE THE LIBERALS...and ENGLISH SOCCER.
this thread delivers

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Weezer Bootlegs

SOCIAL

  • Weezer Links

Weezer Mailing List

Music

Loading…

© 2014   Created by Weezer.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Offline

Live Video