Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The brain damaged voted for him because they think they will get something out of it for themselves. Handouts without working, interested only in what their country can do for them. And the Antithesis to John Kennedy is hoodwinking them into thinking they will get said goodies. Repugnant that John Kennedy's famous quote has become so twisted and misused.
Reagan was greedy? No he actually felt one should be responsible for themselves instead of stealing from the haves and hand it to the have nots.
Google the "tricke-down theory"
Quote:
Sick of it or not, majority of Obama voters are standing in line for the free lunch box of goodies from those of us who have something and actually earned it.
Way to generalize. A few are and you think it's the majority of Obama voters. I live in New Jersey, which is Obama country, and I've never met anyone like that. More people I know are going to college and trying to save up their money, and most if not all of them are Obama supporters.
Quote:
Come on, most, but not all Obama voters are welfare types and you know it. Acorn told them to register and sign the form with an "X" and most of them cannot spell their own name or even write. That is why they had to vote 10 times for Obama, they could not get the X correct!
No one in my family is on welfare and we're all Obama supporters. Like I said, I live in Jersey. I'm a lot more in touch with Obama supporters than you are apparently. I'd say the sweeping majority of them aren't what you'd call "welfare types". And I can spell my and write my name, and though I've never asked I'd say all the Obama supporters I know are able to as well.
Quote:
If you see a car loaded with overweight dirty people and the car is falling apart you bet it is full of Obama voters. The Obama stickers are holding the car together.
You criticize people for being working class and poor? Who are you? Scrooge? That's a riciculous statement anyway. I can go down to Alabama or Texas and find plenty of "dirty" people that are staunch republicans.
Well, that's the way I feel. Look at this ad - Obama is all about the package... who knows what's inside...
"An empty suit" is another phrase that comes to mind.
Obama has been steeped in Black Liberation Theology, Marxism, and socialism, and African culture all his life. He also had considerable Muslim teaching, having attended a Muslim school, and is very sympathetic to Muslims.
Any thought that he is "Christian" can quickly be dispelled by hearing some of Rev. Wrights rantings, which Obama listened to for 20 years or more. Wright is about as far from Christian as one can get. It matters little what one calls himself. One can live in a garage;but, that does not make one a car.
This man is intent upon destroying America as our founders created it, and substituting for it, a Marxist/socialist form of government. This is why he has said, he "will return America's wealth to it's rightful owners".
One could argue that that should mean we give all the land and it's resources back to the native Americans. But that isn't what Obama means. Obama believes that for one to become wealthy means that someone else gets poorer. In other words, the wealthy (corporations) have gained their wealth on the backs of the "workers".
This is nonsense on it's face. An employer/employee relationship is a contract, where a workers skills, which are needed to produce a product, are exchanged for a set wage. This does not in any way give the employee any claim on company profits, unless there is a profit sharing agreement in the employment contract.
Obama does not agree with this concept. But that is the basis of a capitalistic society. Entrepreneurs are risk takers. They put their money at risk in the hope of creating wealth for themselves and their families.
Obama has duped the American people into thinking he was something else. But we had plenty of warning. What we did not have was a press that was willing to expose him. One had to dig it out from blogs, the so called "right-wing" media, and talk radio (which has been vilified for not supporting this fraud).
If Obama ends up being as bad as you think, you likely have George W. Bush to blame for it. Can you blame people for voting for the exact opposite after the eight years he served?
Bush was a good President, by-and-large, though he spent too much; however, this could not have happened without a willing Congress. Congress it the body that authorizes spending. They could have said "no" to as much as they wanted.
Secondly, most of what you heard about George Bush wasn't true. There was an ongoing effort by the left to smear him in any way possible, much as the are doing with people like Sarah Palin, and all others that are opposed to their "agenda". The public bought into the lies.
Throughout most of the Bush years, we had an expanding economy, and much job growth. We were brought out of the "Clinton recession", which was mild, and which had begun in the final year of Clinton's term. The Democrats tried to blame Republicans for "talking the economy down", but that wasn't the case. There was an undeniable downturn. Bush's tax cuts are what turned things around (as tax cuts always do). Tax cuts are what Obama should have done (specifically, reduce or end the capital gains tax). But that is not what Barack Obama is about. He believes in taxing the rich to the max. He believes they aren't paying enough, even though they carry well over 90% of the tax burden.
It is unfortunate that 9-11 occurred, especially given that it was preventable (not by the Bush Administration — it was already too late. The plans were already laid down and being executed in secret). The Clinton Administration should have known. In fact, they had all the intelligence necessary. They just did not "connect the dots", so to speak, and they were further hampered by Jamie Gorelick's "wall" in intelligence sharing between agencies.
The Bush response to 9-11 was correct, and as I have posted elsewhere, the reasons for going into Iraq were strategic, but the WMD issue was real (and the world knew this) even though the press has propagandized that issue to the max, and convinced the majority of Americans that "he never had them". We know he did. He had used them. But I digress. Perhaps Bush overplayed that issue. A better case could have been made for going into Iraq for purely strategic reasons, and the fact that Saddam was a threat to the region, and could have thwarted our attempts to flush out and deal with (kill) terrorists, where ever they were (which was one of the stated goals). No safe haven, Bush said. No place to hide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yman97
I voted for Obama and I'm certainly not dumb. I read one of his books and I did a ton of research. I never thought he was a savior but this is the key...
I thought he was the best of the available candidates.
If you had read "one of his books" (you didn't say which one), how could you possibly think he was anything other than what he is? How could you possibly think he was the "best candidate"?
From excerpts I have heard read (and one reading was Obama reading it aloud; his own voice) the evidence that he had strong Marxist teaching and was an admirer of Marx was clear. It was also clear that he had no love for America, and that he was indeed a racist, and believer in "black liberation theology".
How could you have thought otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yman97
Do I support the bailouts? No and if you don't believe, I challenge you to find one post in which I say that I do. Do you think John McCain wouldn't have used bailouts? If so, you're kidding yourself. He would have done the exact same thing especially following the person that started this mess: George W. Bush.
George W. Bush did not "start this mess", except that he authorized the first "bailout". But that literally pales in comparison to the debt that Barack H. Obama has saddled us with, and the rest of the mess he, and he alone, has gotten us into.
As for the mortgage/banking mess, it was a long time coming, having been started in the Carter Administration with the CRA, which, expanded under Clinton, became the largest government housing boondoggle in American history. This is what created the "sub-prime" market.
Republicans warned and called for more oversight and reform many years ago. But powerful Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and all the others with them, insisted that there was nothing wrong, and accused the Republicans of attempting to create a crisis where none existed, for purposes of political gain.
Well, guess who was right?
Finally, as to your last assertion (McCain would have done exactly the same thing), I strongly disagree. McCain, even as a "moderate", would not, I believe, have gone the way of Barack Obama.
McCain would have cut taxes, and especially he would have cut or eliminated the Capital gains. Even McCain did not (and does not) believe we could spend our way out. Obama's agenda was not McCain's agenda. Obama's agenda all along was to do exactly as he is doing. This kind of thing, the taking over of private business, nationalizing the banks etc., would never have happened under McCain. Show me the evidence.
It is unfortunate that 9-11 occurred, especially given that it was preventable (not by the Bush Administration — it was already too late. The plans were already laid down and being executed in secret).
The FBI had information that told them that there were individuals in this country taking flying lessons, learning to take off but not learning to land; and the information never got off the desk into Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you should read rather than listen to clips from what I'm assuming were probably aired on Fox. The book that I read was Dreams From my Father. Obviously, I completely disagree with what your assesment. It's funny that you're actually naive enough to blame virtually every problem on Democrats. I may be a moderate liberal but I don't think that all problems were caused by one party or the other. They're both to blame for this mess and you're right about the economy, it's a long time coming and our response is wrong. Bailouts, however, weren't started by the Obama administration. George H.W. Bush had bailouts way before Obama even thought about becoming president. Bush followed those up and unfortunately, Obama took his lead.
Guess what? The world will go on after four (or even eight) years of Obama. Most of the problems were facing weren't the fault of Obama. The overspending as the result of two wars isn't his fault. The failing infrastructure wasn't his fault. The hatred that many outside of the U.S. isn't his fault. Sure, he owns these problems now and I believe he will do his best to deal with even though I don't agree with his stance on ever issue. He will not lead this country to Socialism or whatever else you claim. By the way, it was here (to some degree) before he was born.
Hoover wasn't a 'liberal' by any means. He was a republican and he may have been the polar opposite of Obama. Low tax, low spending, free enterprise to the nth degree, banks collapsed and the rest was history. It wasn't until Roosevelt came in when taxes were raised, government revenue was stimulated and industry had oversight. It's eerily similar to the Bush-Obama scenario going on right now.
I am confused by this statement. Are you saying the banks collapsed because of Low tax, low spending, free enterprise to the nth degree?
Low spending and low taxes got the US out of its depression in 1921.
Federal spending and taxes
1920 $6.3 billion and $6.6 billion
1921 $5 billion and $5.5 billion
1922 $3.2 billion and $4 billion
FDR prolonged the Depression by allowing monopolys and price and wage fixing.
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices.Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.
Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.
"An empty suit" is another phrase that comes to mind.
Obama has been steeped in Black Liberation Theology, Marxism, and socialism, and African culture all his life. He also had considerable Muslim teaching, having attended a Muslim school, and is very sympathetic to Muslims.
Any thought that he is "Christian" can quickly be dispelled by hearing some of Rev. Wrights rantings, which Obama listened to for 20 years or more. Wright is about as far from Christian as one can get. It matters little what one calls himself. One can live in a garage;but, that does not make one a car.
This man is intent upon destroying America as our founders created it, and substituting for it, a Marxist/socialist form of government. This is why he has said, he "will return America's wealth to it's rightful owners".
One could argue that that should mean we give all the land and it's resources back to the native Americans. But that isn't what Obama means. Obama believes that for one to become wealthy means that someone else gets poorer. In other words, the wealthy (corporations) have gained their wealth on the backs of the "workers".
This is nonsense on it's face. An employer/employee relationship is a contract, where a workers skills, which are needed to produce a product, are exchanged for a set wage. This does not in any way give the employee any claim on company profits, unless there is a profit sharing agreement in the employment contract.
Obama does not agree with this concept. But that is the basis of a capitalistic society. Entrepreneurs are risk takers. They put their money at risk in the hope of creating wealth for themselves and their families.
Obama has duped the American people into thinking he was something else. But we had plenty of warning. What we did not have was a press that was willing to expose him. One had to dig it out from blogs, the so called "right-wing" media, and talk radio (which has been vilified for not supporting this fraud).
Bush was a good President, by-and-large, though he spent too much; however, this could not have happened without a willing Congress. Congress it the body that authorizes spending. They could have said "no" to as much as they wanted.
Secondly, most of what you heard about George Bush wasn't true. There was an ongoing effort by the left to smear him in any way possible, much as the are doing with people like Sarah Palin, and all others that are opposed to their "agenda". The public bought into the lies.
Throughout most of the Bush years, we had an expanding economy, and much job growth. We were brought out of the "Clinton recession", which was mild, and which had begun in the final year of Clinton's term. The Democrats tried to blame Republicans for "talking the economy down", but that wasn't the case. There was an undeniable downturn. Bush's tax cuts are what turned things around (as tax cuts always do). Tax cuts are what Obama should have done (specifically, reduce or end the capital gains tax). But that is not what Barack Obama is about. He believes in taxing the rich to the max. He believes they aren't paying enough, even though they carry well over 90% of the tax burden.
It is unfortunate that 9-11 occurred, especially given that it was preventable (not by the Bush Administration — it was already too late. The plans were already laid down and being executed in secret). The Clinton Administration should have known. In fact, they had all the intelligence necessary. They just did not "connect the dots", so to speak, and they were further hampered by Jamie Gorelick's "wall" in intelligence sharing between agencies.
The Bush response to 9-11 was correct, and as I have posted elsewhere, the reasons for going into Iraq were strategic, but the WMD issue was real (and the world knew this) even though the press has propagandized that issue to the max, and convinced the majority of Americans that "he never had them". We know he did. He had used them. But I digress. Perhaps Bush overplayed that issue. A better case could have been made for going into Iraq for purely strategic reasons, and the fact that Saddam was a threat to the region, and could have thwarted our attempts to flush out and deal with (kill) terrorists, where ever they were (which was one of the stated goals). No safe haven, Bush said. No place to hide.
If you had read "one of his books" (you didn't say which one), how could you possibly think he was anything other than what he is? How could you possibly think he was the "best candidate"?
From excerpts I have heard read (and one reading was Obama reading it aloud; his own voice) the evidence that he had strong Marxist teaching and was an admirer of Marx was clear. It was also clear that he had no love for America, and that he was indeed a racist, and believer in "black liberation theology".
How could you have thought otherwise?
George W. Bush did not "start this mess", except that he authorized the first "bailout". But that literally pales in comparison to the debt that Barack H. Obama has saddled us with, and the rest of the mess he, and he alone, has gotten us into.
As for the mortgage/banking mess, it was a long time coming, having been started in the Carter Administration with the CRA, which, expanded under Clinton, became the largest government housing boondoggle in American history. This is what created the "sub-prime" market.
Republicans warned and called for more oversight and reform many years ago. But powerful Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and all the others with them, insisted that there was nothing wrong, and accused the Republicans of attempting to create a crisis where none existed, for purposes of political gain.
Well, guess who was right?
Finally, as to your last assertion (McCain would have done exactly the same thing), I strongly disagree. McCain, even as a "moderate", would not, I believe, have gone the way of Barack Obama.
McCain would have cut taxes, and especially he would have cut or eliminated the Capital gains. Even McCain did not (and does not) believe we could spend our way out. Obama's agenda was not McCain's agenda. Obama's agenda all along was to do exactly as he is doing. This kind of thing, the taking over of private business, nationalizing the banks etc., would never have happened under McCain. Show me the evidence.
Liberals forget that Bush brought us out of the Clinton recessions quickly and even with 9-11 killing our financial markets, Bush gets credit for turning he Clinton recession around and doing a fantastic job.
Liberals are a very mixed up group right now, they are in total denial and shock that Obama has done what he has done to us.
One day they look backwards and blame Bush, then when you bring up back about Clinton they denial looking backwards. They will never take any blame for being the party that destroys good economies and taxes there way out of bad decisions.
The clear fact is we allowed the liberals to take control in 2007 on the basis they could do better. Then we turned around and allowed Obama to run on the same ideas after watching almost 2 years of a totally controlled liberal congress fail us.
Now we are stuck with liberals in total control once again. And it is easy to see where it is taking us, even I did not believe it would happen this quickly.
We are going down a road to the destruction of America, what made us a great country is getting torn down by the liberals and their policies.
I do not see any way out of this mess that the liberals have put us in. We cannot make enough money in this country to even begin to pay our own way out of the massive spending that was suppose to fix all the problems.
Instead it causing more problems.
When on earth will the liberals take a deep breathe and stop to see that what they are doing is not working?
THEY are digging a hole deeper then I think we can ever come out of.
The FBI had information that told them that there were individuals in this country taking flying lessons, learning to take off but not learning to land; and the information never got off the desk into Washington, D.C.
good read, a mention of the UnAmerican Patriot Act also.
Much of what was in the Patriot Act was already contained in other law. There wasn't a lot new there, so I remember it being reported at the time.
I don't know of anything in particular about the Patriot Act that I would call "unAmerican". We should be able to find out what suspected terrorists are up to. I'm not for hamstringing law enforcement and tying their hands behind their backs. As long as there is some amount of oversight so that abuse is kept in check.
Those taking the flying lessons were doing so under the Clinton Administration. By the time Bush took office, the planned attack was already in the process of being executed. These things don't happen overnight. This was a carefully choreographed plan, requiring much study and planning. It wasn't something thrown together in a hurry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You criticize people for being working class and poor? Who are you? Scrooge? That's a riciculous statement anyway. I can go down to Alabama or Texas and find plenty of "dirty" people that are staunch republicans.
