World Politics

[ravens]

WTF are you rambling on about it? This rant has nothing to do with my statement. Sounds like someone has a few serious issues that he feels the need to vent about.

You must be the life of the party. I can see it now:

Some poor bastard: "How about the Knicks last night?"

Ravens: "Obama is really a very small man and an empty suit. And not nearly as smart as billed. He needs a teleprompter to talk to 20 people? He is a marionette! The speech was sarcastic and hostile. And I am loving it. He is going to be held to account before you know it. And you will spin that too, in order to keep from facing the truth."

"It's only a matter of time before we take over. The damned libs will rue the day. Rue the day, I tell you. We already have the camps set up, and we have the master list of who to arrest. The reeducation is coming. I am loving this. Loving it, I tell you."

Some poor bastard: "I had better go check on my wife."

Ravens: "Don't go. I have to tell you about the new torture practices we intend to use on those we deem to be not American enough. Boiling people alive under the Bush administration was too soft. We will..."

uhhh...whatever....

 

[Anonymous]

That is true, as I said many posts ago, he is getting a lot done. His aim is to permanently wound this country in such a way that it can never fully recover. Government programs, once they get started, never go away. They never even get smaller. He wants the government running every detail and making every choice for its citizens as possible.

Right now it's a race against time and a battle to see which Democrats can resist the bullying to vote for things their constituents do NOT want. He has been doing and will continue to do as much as he can between inauguration and the mid-terms to do as much as he can to destroy freedom.

He loses one little seat and it's the end of the world? Only because the work they were doing was enacting crud that no one wanted in the first place. If it was any good, it would have sailed through even if he didn't control both houses.

Drinking the Limbaugh semen I see. Yea, yea, the evil black man is trying to destroy our country...

 

[Hugh Januss]

Your delusions amuse me. In case the prozac is finally starting to help you focus:

I WANT You To Keep Blaming Bush For Everything

It's a losing bet. So bet the farm on it. Quick, how many seats did Bush lose in the 2002 mid-terms?

Yeah Bush, the blameless one. It is clear he did nothing wrong during his 8 year reign. Obama inherited a strong vibrant economy and ran it into the ground within 12 months.
I almost wish I didn't share the same country with you so I could watch you get your ultimate "small government" wish and wind up free (to do whatever the guy with the most money and hired thugs tells you to do).

 

[ravens]

Yeah Bush, the blameless one. It is clear he did nothing wrong during his 8 year reign. Obama inherited a strong vibrant economy and ran it into the ground within 12 months.
I almost wish I didn't share the same country with you so I could watch you get your "small government" wish and wind up free (to do whatever the guy with the most money and hired thugs tells you to do).

Thanks for continuing to blame bush.

Are you actually this dumb?

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for continuing to blame bush.

Are you actually this dumb?

Says the man who is the worst kind if conservative, a stupid liberal who turned stupid conservative.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thanks for continuing to blame bush.

Are you actually this dumb?

Whatever.........

 

[Anonymous]

Whatever.........

The saying "all sizzle and no steak" comes to mind here. I think the ignore function is in order at this point.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

His whole problem is that the center is exactly where he is trying to govern from now. With just about every politician in DC in the pocket of big business that is not likely to change, although his comments about the supremes make me think he wishes it could.

I would agree with that.

Top drawn taxes goes directly into the budgeting equation.

As you probably know by now I'd like to see that, and a BBA, but the tax incentives and cuts are not designed to cut the deficit as much as stimulate the economy through a form of supply-side, "top down" thinking that has dominated the political economic thought for three decades now. That being, cut taxes for various businesses and they will in theory spend the money hiring people. He also spoke about equipment purchases. This was fine back in 1959 when the vast majority of such purchases would be made in the USA, but now, they are not. There's also no guarantee that such cuts and incentives will directly result in higher employment. It's a best-guess, hope type of cut that's been shown to work at times in the last decades (mid-80's, mid-90's) and not work at all (Bush tax cuts). The only supply-side type of tax incentives I would fully press today are opening up the spigot on SBA micro-loans, where nearly ALL of that money would directly go to the economy very quickly. Though he talked about small businesses, it wasn't even mentioned last night.

He did talk about energy, but didn't put things into direct enough words to me. He also left out Nuclear power, which to me is a huge, huge key towards energy independence over the next 25 years. Building the plants would be expensive, but less than the war(s) were fighting and dealing with oil problems in the many years to come. And it would put people to work on high paying jobs building them. And once the plants are there, a lot of high paying, highly skilled jobs running and maintaining them. Really disappointed the GOP isn't jumping on this.

Again, a lot of generalities and staying the course talk, but a lack of specifics to me, from both parties.

 

[BroDeal]

Uh, unlike you, I don't wear a jersey. I voted for Bush in 2000 for reasons just like that. Why not ask yourself why you don't have any indignation towards the current decision if you are so against the decision by Clinton? Oh wait, you don't do introspection.

Yup. I supported Bush in 2000 because Clinton was such a amoral sh!tbag. What a terrible decision that turned out to be.

That is true, as I said many posts ago, he is getting a lot done. His aim is to permanently wound this country in such a way that it can never fully recover. Government programs, once they get started, never go away. They never even get smaller. He wants the government running every detail and making every choice for its citizens as possible.

LOL. Let me see. After Bush destroys the economy, bankrupts the country, deceives the public into a costly and unnecessary war, sh!ts all over the Constitution, and presides over unprecedented growth of the government, the man who is ineptly trying to pick up the pieces is the one trying to wound the country. Uh-huh. I would give more weight to delusional opinions like this if the people who claim to hold them would have lifted one freakin' finger to stop Bush's destruction of America. Instead they were cheering it on until a black man got elected.

 

[Anonymous]

Yup. I supported Bush in 2000 because Clinton was such a amoral sh!tbag. What a terrible decision that turned out to be.

Yea, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time...maybe I was on too many cold meds?

 

[ravens]

Yup. I supported Bush in 2000 because Clinton was such a amoral sh!tbag. What a terrible decision that turned out to be.



LOL. Let me see. After Bush destroys the economy, bankrupts the country, deceives the public into a costly and unnecessary war, sh!ts all over the Constitution, and presides over unprecedented growth of the government, the man who is ineptly trying to pick up the pieces is the one trying to wound the country. Uh-huh. I would give more weight to delusional opinions like this if the people who claim to hold them would have lifted one freakin' finger to stop Bush's destruction of America. Instead they were cheering it on until a black man got elected.

And I say I hope you and [edit for brodeal who insists he has no party but hates republicans or it seems just about anyone who doesn't agree with the messiah] the democratic party stick with that mentality, at all costs. Sorry Gore didn't win, we could have had an ideological marionette 8 years earlier than this POS.

 

[Anonymous]

The decision is not capable of stopping a multi-national corporation from funneling funds through its American subsidiary and influencing an election. He didn't lie, he merely pointed out a significant weakness of the decision. Sorry you Republicans don't want to fight for the individual voter, but in this case you are carrying the water for people who can corrupt the election process like no other. The tea bagging populism falls on deaf ears for precisely that reason. And lets not even get into the fact that many of you decried the decision to bail out banks and AIG, yet neither you nor your party's leaders want to regulate those institutions because in reality, they are your base. Now that the Supreme Court has rubber stamped their right to buy elections, you guys are in great shape. You'll get the trifecta when they shoot down the theft of honest services criminal code. It must be sweet to have the most corrupt Supreme Court in history in your hands.

The decision didn't change or address EXISTING laws addressing this. Obama lied. It shouldn't surprise you.

The decision was about individual free-speech. Even in politics.

What is falling on deaf ears is the voice of the electorate to the Obama administration. The administration is viewing the Brown victory as a referendum for more Obama. Great! I disagree with that characterization but I agree with the administration. MORE OBAMA, MORE OBAMA!

Wrong. Decried the bail-outs and certainly don't want monopolies. I know of no one advocating for zero regulations, especially in the financial sector. I was completely against the Exxon/Mobil merger (not the financial sector, I realize) for example. Sensible, effective regulations (in my view) are better than total or no regulations. Can we agree on this point at least?

Are you really suggesting that corporations were not previously involved in elections past? Kinda like Jeff Immelt being the CEO of GE, who is the parent of NBC/MSNBC and all that cutting edge reporting of candidate/President Obama? Oh, and then there is Immelt betting the future of GE on technology to combat global warming, errrr climate change and in a position to add to their bottom line if in fact they help elect Obama? Hmmm, I don't think recent SC decision will mess up that cozy little relationship, do you?

Corrupt SC? Man, I hope not. Probably wouln't shock me tho...

 

[ravens]

Gosh, the Bigot's Messiah delivers one dud of a speech and the cultists are pulling out all the stops today!

Could it be his ideas stink? Naaaaaahhhh.

It's OK, as soon as every American voter knows that it was all Bush's fault, the mid-term's will be a resounding success for the democrats. The message just hasn't been repeated enough. Try it a few trillion more times, geniuses.

 

[BroDeal]

And I say I hope you and your party stick with that mentality, at all costs. Sorry Gore didn't win, we could have had an ideological marionette 8 years earlier than this POS.

I don't have a party, you dumbsh!t. I dislike both parties.

You seem very intent on seeing everyone here as a card carrying member of an exaggerated boogeyman of a Democratic Party. No matter what anyone says, you carry on as though you were ranting to Ted Kennedy himself.

 

[ravens]

Wrong. Decried the bail-outs and certainly don't want monopolies. I know of no one advocating for zero regulations, especially in the financial sector. I was completely against the Exxon/Mobil merger (not the financial sector, I realize) for example. Sensible, effective regulations (in my view) are better than total or no regulations. Can we agree on this point at least?

Are you really suggesting that corporations were not previously involved in elections past? Kinda like Jeff Immelt being the CEO of GE, who is the parent of NBC/MSNBC and all that cutting edge reporting of candidate/President Obama? Oh, and then there is Immelt betting the future of GE on technology to combat global warming, errrr climate change and in a position to add to their bottom line if in fact they help elect Obama? Hmmm, I don't think recent SC decision will mess up that cozy little relationship, do you?

Corrupt SC? Man, I hope not. Probably wouln't shock me tho...

I think there are a few gazillion regulations. Lawmakers are very good at passing laws. After all, it IS their job!

The problem is enforcement.

I think the left's issue with the SC decision is that they have had an imbalance of funding funneled their way through unions and he has done everything he can to demonize corporations (and it seems to work well with some people in this forum) and I think he has taken it to such an extent to hide his own shortcomings that now they are a little worried about the pushback that may occur at the next election.

Capitalism has shortcomings; every system of rule does. I don't think it's some utopian philosophy that should be without checks and balances, but to read some of these folks in here, it's the problem. I just see no common ground with that thinking.

 

[ravens]

I don't have a party, you dumbsh!t. I dislike both parties.

You seem very intent on seeing everyone here as a card carrying member of an exaggerated boogeyman of a Democratic Party. No matter what anyone says, you carry on as though you were ranting to Ted Kennedy himself.

For a guy with no party, you seem pretty defensive. Go natter on to someone who cares. I really have no interest in whatever crawled up your backside and died.

I edited it. Sorry if I inferred from your rabid hatred of ...well apparently ... everyone.... that you were a democrat. I am duly shamed for my presumption.

 

[scribe]

Yea, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time...maybe I was on too many cold meds?

At the time, I liked Bush on the surface more than I did Gore. But I knew better....

 

[ravens]

At the time, I liked Bush on the surface more than I did Gore. But I knew better....

Who could ever question your wisdom?

 

[scribe]

I would agree with that.


As you probably know by now I'd like to see that, and a BBA, but the tax incentives and cuts are not designed to cut the deficit as much as stimulate the economy through a form of supply-side, "top down" thinking that has dominated the political economic thought for three decades now. That being, cut taxes for various businesses and they will in theory spend the money hiring people. He also spoke about equipment purchases. This was fine back in 1959 when the vast majority of such purchases would be made in the USA, but now, they are not. There's also no guarantee that such cuts and incentives will directly result in higher employment. It's a best-guess, hope type of cut that's been shown to work at times in the last decades (mid-80's, mid-90's) and not work at all (Bush tax cuts). The only supply-side type of tax incentives I would fully press today are opening up the spigot on SBA micro-loans, where nearly ALL of that money would directly go to the economy very quickly. Though he talked about small businesses, it wasn't even mentioned last night.

He did talk about energy, but didn't put things into direct enough words to me. He also left out Nuclear power, which to me is a huge, huge key towards energy independence over the next 25 years. Building the plants would be expensive, but less than the war(s) were fighting and dealing with oil problems in the many years to come. And it would put people to work on high paying jobs building them. And once the plants are there, a lot of high paying, highly skilled jobs running and maintaining them. Really disappointed the GOP isn't jumping on this.

Again, a lot of generalities and staying the course talk, but a lack of specifics to me, from both parties.

I'd have to go back and check, but didn't he mention nuclear power plants as an initiative? He definitely ran his ticket in favor of what he referred to as 'safe' nuclear technology.

 

[scribe]

Who could ever question your wisdom?

Well over 50 million morons.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I may have slept through that part if he did mention Nuclear power. Good.

 

[ravens]

Well over 50 million morons.

....and counting!!

 

[ravens]

I may have slept through that part if he did mention Nuclear power. Good.

Harry Reid looked at least as interested as you sound.

 

[BroDeal]

I'd have to go back and check, but didn't he mention nuclear power plants as an initiative? He definitely ran his ticket in favor of what he referred to as 'safe' nuclear technology.

"Safe" nuclear technology is a code word that means "no" nuclear technology. The people demanding safety still carp about Chernobyl and other plants build with second generation designs that rely upon active safety measures instead of modern designs that use passive safety. Meanwhile China and Russia plan on having a massive number of new plants operating by 2020.

 

[BroDeal]

For a guy with no party, you seem pretty defensive. Go natter on to someone who cares. I really have no interest in whatever crawled up your backside and died.

You are the one who keeps going nusto everytime someone mentions Bush. Did he give you a handjob once? Mighty strange that someone feels the need to defend a president who damaged the nation as much as Bush did. You might want to check with Palin to find out if you are a true American.