Would you do it again? - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 10:45 AM on j-body.org
Quote:

As I've pointed out in the past, big capital letters doesn't make you right.

That was not my objective. My objective was to grab your attention, and guess what? It worked. Every time you don't answer, sadly I will have to result to that.

Quote:

Just because I haven't said anything about Bush's spending in this thread, you blow a fuse and post another ignorant rant. I can picture the smoke coming from your ears while you typed it out. LOL. And now you want to bring Nixon into this? Seriously pathetic. You can't keep on a subject.

See this is the difference between you and me, I know the history, you obviously don't. By me knowing history I can bring Nixon, Reagan, Bush to this topic that you blatantly are complaining about Obama. See you think we are all idiots like Rush Limbaugh's audience and can easily brainwash society with nonsense rederic. See your strategy on that Obama will cause an Apocalypse with mass spending, yet your "conservative-liberal Republican folks (learn how to label people) spent WAY more for it's time, you don't say any thing on it. So what if it's not in our time? Point is: YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK!

Quote:

Also, while I am against the level of spending being done, (and I have never said that Bush was any better in that department), it's more about how he and congress are spending the money right now. They are trying to chop down the producers of the country, and make as many people dependant on the government as possible. If you can't see it (which I'm guessing you can't), you're simply blind.

Hey fortune teller we will see 4-5 years time if Obama will "chop down producers." Because as of today Bush jr has chopped at least one US company weekly. As for where the money is being spent, hmm where would it be better... on the occupation in Iraq or in the US internally? $hit, that is a toughie, no?

Quote:

This thread was about what's going on right now in our country, but you would rather try to argue on sh!t that happened long ago, and leave out parts that blow holes in your theory. This is starting sh!t, (which you accuse me of doing).

Read above. And since you're starting $hit, basically you're looking for attention and want to retaliate from the negative but factual publicity your buddy Bush got. You're pathetic, mostly because your basing your opinions on pity assumptions. Oh wait... I forgot in this thread, you're role your playing is "Miss Cleo."

Quote:

Again, you left out the fact that Reagan raised the breakpoints on the tax brackets, still making it a net tax cut. Of course, if you recognize that fact, then you can not b!tch about him raising taxes on the middle class while severely lowering them on the rich. Typical liberal BS.

Still don't know what liberal is, heh? Reagan simplified the break point and the percentage on the middle bracket was raised, while the upper dropped significantly.

Quote:

You also left out the fact that when he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%, not 50%. He brought it down to 50%, and then lowered it again to 38%, and then cut all of the brackets down so that there were essentially only 4 brackets, and the second from the top was the highest bracket. And yes, the largest cuts were on the rich, but that's because they were paying more than double the rates of the majority of Americans. This is completely unfair. But then again, the liberal version of "fair" is when everyone has the same amount of money, regardless of what they earned.

I didn't leave that out, I was referring to the 1986 tax reform, you know the one where middle class brackets got a hike. And it lowered from 50% rate down to 28% by 1988. So in total in his era it did go from 70% to 28%, a nice drop. Hey I want a 50+% tax cut too just like that upper 5%!
But the wonderful tax reducing Reagan increased social security and medicare taxes. Oh and since the upper class was not paying taxes so to speak and there was extreme spending on military. There were large budget deficits, the U.S. trade deficit expansion,and contributed to the "Savings and Loan crisis," (wow history repeating it self). In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily from abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion---- in the 80s! That is equivalent to about $10-15 trillion today. But wait a Republican did it, so it must be OK!

Quote:

And you seriously don't think we're going to get to even 11% unemployment? Pure delusion. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we're not there this year, and well beyond that in 2010.

I was being sarcastic, it can surely pass the worst unemployment rate from the Reagan era, what Bush did or "lack of a fix" thereof is severe enough that it might meet Reagan's unemployment numbers or even surpass it. Sad how your party just keeps F-ucking up a beautiful country, no?

Quote:

So again, are you capable of staying on topic, and answering the relevant questions that I posed, or would you rather waste time pissing and moaning about the past in a thread about our present and future, as if somehow it makes everything that's going on right now OK.

Oh brother, ONCE AGAIN, READ THE FIRST PAGE TO YOUR RESPONSE!
It is sad I have to result to that.

Lastly beside the fact you're doing this to start $hit, your tactic is a mirror image to Rush Limbaugh's "opening up the umbrella before it rains" theory. If you are American, party affiliation aside do you want to see this nation fail? Rush says this because he gets ratings and signs $100 million dollar contracts and he will get the biggest hits, but you... unless you are in the same category as him, if you're not, what do you get out by thinking/acting like Rush?

Wait 4 years and then maybe you may have room to talk.



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.


Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 12:11 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

And you seriously don't think we're going to get to even 11% unemployment? Pure delusion. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we're not there this year, and well beyond that in 2010.

I was being sarcastic, it can surely pass the worst unemployment rate from the Reagan era, what Bush did or "lack of a fix" thereof is severe enough that it might meet Reagan's unemployment numbers or even surpass it. Sad how your party just keeps F-ucking up a beautiful country, no?

I called that one months ago. How predictable you are. You blamed the high unemployment numbers during the early Reagan years on him, not Carter, and I said during that time that you would probably be blaming Bush for economic problems well into the Obama presidency. So next year, when we're still sprialing toward a depression, it's still Bush's fault, and Obama is not responsible, huh? When it's a Republican in office, you can blame everything on them starting day 1. When it's a Democrat, you can keep blaming things on the previous administration for years. But consistency doesn't work for your argument, so just throw it out the window.

Your entire post was pure fail. Thank you for illustrating my points. You can't seem to answer simple questions, and stay on that topic, without somehow trying to divert attention and/or make excuses.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

Just because I haven't said anything about Bush's spending in this thread, you blow a fuse and post another ignorant rant. I can picture the smoke coming from your ears while you typed it out. LOL. And now you want to bring Nixon into this? Seriously pathetic. You can't keep on a subject.

See this is the difference between you and me, I know the history, you obviously don't. By me knowing history I can bring Nixon, Reagan, Bush to this topic that you blatantly are complaining about Obama. See you think we are all idiots like Rush Limbaugh's audience and can easily brainwash society with nonsense rederic. See your strategy on that Obama will cause an Apocalypse with mass spending, yet your "conservative-liberal Republican folks (learn how to label people) spent WAY more for it's time, you don't say any thing on it. So what if it's not in our time? Point is: YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO TALK!

You have not answered the questions that I asked on page 2, not page 1, you moron. But as I said, you obviously don't really read all of my posts, so I can't have expected you to catch that.

This has nothing to do with Bush, or revenge for his negative publicity, or any other bullsh!t excuse you want to throw out there. It is purely about what is going on right now in our country, but you can't seem to understand that. You are obviously unable to comprehend anything I have posted.

By the way, go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you know economic history better than I do, but consider this: not only have I studied it, but I was also aware and paying attention to it during much of that which you have only read about, or learned about, most likely from a liberal history teacher.
(Yes, I said liberal. You can get your panties in a bunch again over it. )

And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist? He has never said that he wants the country to fail. That's what the MSM's and Democrats would like you to believe. Sure, you can take a sentence out of context and make that assumption from it, but if you hear the entire discussion or speach in context, you'd get it (well, maybe you wouldn't, you're obviously not intelligent enough). Why do I think like that? Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.

Let me ask you another question (which you're likely to avoid, but what the hell): do you believe we are better off being a socialist country than a capitalist country? If yes, what about a socialist economy do you think works better than they system which made this country what it is in such a relatively short time?







Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 1:43 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:
And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist? He has never said that he wants the country to fail. That's what the MSM's and Democrats would like you to believe. Sure, you can take a sentence out of context and make that assumption from it, but if you hear the entire discussion or speach in context, you'd get it (well, maybe you wouldn't, you're obviously not intelligent enough). Why do I think like that? Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.


Quoted for truth. That being said I have no problem voluntarily helping out by means of charity to organizations I support. I have a problem with the government forcibly taxing me and giving charity in the form of bailouts, expanding entitlement programs, and generally spreading the wealth. When you spread the wealth you destroy capitalism it then becomes socialism.

If you want socialism fine GTFO go to a socialist country. But I don't want it and as long as I have a voice I will fight to defend what our country was founded on.

MR Goodwrench:
Until they take as high of a percentage of your income as they do from the rich you have no business saying the rich don't pay enough. The class warfare needs to end! But don't worry you are being a good little liberal by feeding on the left's rhetoric and class warfare.

I don't listen to Limbaugh but I would bet he gets paid well because people are interested in what he has to say. If you think people would be interested in hearing your view point by all means join talk radio. Just don't be surprised when your career crashes and burns just like Air america did. Perhaps it is because nobody wanted to listen to that crap.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Monday, March 02, 2009 1:54 PM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 3:19 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:
spoiler wrote:might as well

Yep, might as well, since you can't post anything of substance that's actually on topic.



Go pull the hair out of your Vagina
Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 3:24 PM on j-body.org
Quicklilcav wrote:This guy came out of the gates cramming legislation through without giving anyone enough time to fully read and understand it, using fear tactics to scare everyone into believing it needs to be passed now before the world ends.



Ummmmmm... Patriot Act, anyone??? Or the half-assed, almost comical, "Terrorist Threat level" color coordinated kindergarten chart that was splayed out on every network, every day like a f.vcking Weather Channel advisory??? Or how the threat level bounced up or down with no real or apparent reason???

"Uh, oh, there was a fire-bombing in Eastern Canuckistan today, better raise the threat level to magenta, Bob!"


I honestly believe the drop in Obama's approval ratings is simply because some idiots actually believed that as soon as he was elected, that everything would instantly be fixed. On the other hand, some people, such as Rush Limbaugh and the like, were villifying him as the anti-Christ and destroyer of god, government, and the family, BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE!!!

Even if Obama were the almighty savior that some people think, and some people think that others think, he was, I'm sure the "Conservative" talk radio windbags and others of the like would still find something to complain about.




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!

Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 4:21 PM on j-body.org
ron paul ftw




Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 4:30 PM on j-body.org
spoiler wrote:Go pull the hair out of your Vagina

LOL. Another useless post by you. Go figure.
Roofy wrote:Ummmmmm... Patriot Act, anyone??? Or the half-assed, almost comical, "Terrorist Threat level" color coordinated kindergarten chart that was splayed out on every network, every day like a f.vcking Weather Channel advisory??? Or how the threat level bounced up or down with no real or apparent reason???

"Uh, oh, there was a fire-bombing in Eastern Canuckistan today, better raise the threat level to magenta, Bob!"


I honestly believe the drop in Obama's approval ratings is simply because some idiots actually believed that as soon as he was elected, that everything would instantly be fixed. On the other hand, some people, such as Rush Limbaugh and the like, were villifying him as the anti-Christ and destroyer of god, government, and the family, BEFORE HE EVEN TOOK OFFICE!!!

Even if Obama were the almighty savior that some people think, and some people think that others think, he was, I'm sure the "Conservative" talk radio windbags and others of the like would still find something to complain about.

LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.

So you're comparing massive deficit spending on socialist programs that the Democrats have been trying to get passed for years, that they finally manage to get crammed through hidden in the bill touted as economic stimulus, with the legislation enacted with the intent on increasing our security after the worse terrorist attack on American soil? I'm sure the thousands of people who lost friends and relatives that day would be offended at your comparison.

The drop in his ratings was based on Obama's actions, lies, and slippery conduct in his first month, not his inaction. He crammed through legislation without letting the people voting on it read it, without letting the American people read it, after promising transparency. Now that it's passed, and people are actually finding out what's in it, and how it expands the power of the government in general, and particularly of his administration, they're beginning to see him for what he is.

And why were people bashing him before he took office? Because they looked at what he has said and done in the past, and they could tell that he was not what he tried to portray himself as. And surprize, surprize, he proved those people right. He's trying to get as many left-wing bills passed as he can, giving the Republicans zero input, and claiming to be the moderator between the two parties. I don't think all the people who expected him to make their lives better will realize it for some time, because their still listening to the MSM's tripping all over themselves to say how great he is, and how beautiful and Jackie-O-like our new First Lady is. If the MSMs would actually start reporting truth and substance objectively, as they're supposed to be doing, his approval ratings would be non-existant. Why won't they ever really get that low for a long time to come? Because the majority of Americans will never find the information on their own. They will never read the "stimulus" bill.

By the way, since I touched on the massive increase in power of the administration, anyone know about the new board that bears the apt acronym of RAT, that was created in the stimulus bill? I'll give you the brief: it's a 5 member board, called the Responsibility And Transparency board, who reports to Rahm Immanuel, and is appointed by the President. They have the ability to call off any investigation by an Inspector General into the conduct of a government agency. Note the twist in words, making it sound like a board meant to maintain the transparency in the government? In reality, it gives them the power to protect their own asses when they are breaking the law. Tell me how that stimulates the economy.

And that is just one of the attrocities. Since you pulled out the Patriot Act, which everyone screamed about Bush shredding The Constitution with, have you noticed that now Obama is refusing to eliminate any of the powers of it, now that they are his? They were bad when Bush had them, but for Obama, they're OK.






Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 4:43 PM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:
spoiler wrote:Go pull the hair out of your Vagina

LOL. Another useless post by you. Go figure


No,
I just had to insult you back.
it was pending on my account LOL

Anyway:
The bottom line is
Anything that is not an insult, criticism, attack, or strike against Obama is useless in your eyes.
Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 5:11 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

I called that one months ago. How predictable you are. You blamed the high unemployment numbers during the early Reagan years on him, not Carter, and I said during that time that you would probably be blaming Bush for economic problems well into the Obama presidency. So next year, when we're still sprialing toward a depression, it's still Bush's fault, and Obama is not responsible, huh? When it's a Republican in office, you can blame everything on them starting day 1. When it's a Democrat, you can keep blaming things on the previous administration for years. But consistency doesn't work for your argument, so just throw it out the window.
Your entire post was pure fail. Thank you for illustrating my points. You can't seem to answer simple questions, and stay on that topic, without somehow trying to divert attention and/or make excuses


BIG difference, Reagan's extreamly high and record unemployment rate went in 2-3 years after he went into office. Obama on the other hand has been in office for 4-5 weeks. Yet I'm the one who failed? Answer this; when you typed that I failed, were you looking in the mirror at yourself?
Once again.... no room to talk.

Quote:

You have not answered the questions that I asked on page 2, not page 1, you moron. But as I said, you obviously don't really read all of my posts, so I can't have expected you to catch that.

You're right I only answered the only question you asked me on page 1.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with Bush, or revenge for his negative publicity, or any other bullsh!t excuse you want to throw out there. It is purely about what is going on right now in our country, but you can't seem to understand that. You are obviously unable to comprehend anything I have posted.

Really? Post all the 25 threads per week links on how Bush Jr was screwing up all the way up to 2009. I want to review what you wrote. (I should be expecting cricket sounds on your side)

Quote:

By the way, go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you know economic history better than I do, but consider this: not only have I studied it, but I was also aware and paying attention to it during much of that which you have only read about, or learned about, most likely from a liberal history teacher.

False & try me. You are prime example what happens when funding was put into the defense dept instead of public schools. Worst thing, your answer in order to compensate in furthering your knowledge on history is to turn on the radio and hit AM and search for Rush. Big no-no.

Quote:

And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist.
Wait he's not? lol

Quote:

Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.

Agreed on that aspect "the land of opportunity" and it should always stay. Now your slogan "The land of equal outcome" is a extremest view and quite frankly doesn't pertain to today. When we gave free for all to banks and lenders,the ugly "greed" came about, this is the crap that happened in the 80s and now today. As much as we want Lassier-fair, history and current times still show WE are not responsible enough.

Quote:

do you believe we are better off being a socialist country than a capitalist country? If yes, what about a socialist economy do you think works better than they system which made this country what it is in such a relatively short time?

You do know we are a by-product of both, call it a hybrid if you will. IMO none is perfect and both have equal amounts of faults. And both "isms" is there to fix what the other screwed up. One ugly circle. There are capitalist nations on both side have worked great 18-19th and very early 20th century USA was a good example how a capitalist economy nation works. USA today is an example how capitalism doesn't work. Socialsm from many Scandenavian countries or England or Israel works. Late 1970-80s USSR or now-migrant-rich France the socialist regime is getting faulty as the new folks don't contribute to the system and suck the system dry. I still stand, both will not work 100%. We have to know this socialism is only there to clean up capitalism's mess. If capitalism works cleanly, then capitalism could be great, but sadly humans and how our culture is brought up won't let that happen.




THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 5:34 PM on j-body.org
Roofy wrote:

Ummmmmm... Patriot Act, anyone??? Or the half-assed, almost comical, "Terrorist Threat level" color coordinated kindergarten chart that was splayed out on every network, every day like a f.vcking Weather Channel advisory??? Or how the threat level bounced up or down with no real or apparent reason???

.




Quote:

Birthday: February 8, 1985


Mike, Go Enlist,


There are reasons for the threat levels.... believe me.

Moving on.


I'm not going to read or contribute to the argument about different government types, for me its this simple

We are, by definition of our Constitution, and Bill of Rights, a REPUBLIC, however the government has @!#$ it up since 1910, It may be time to get it back on track.

First, don't speak English, By By.

NO job=No Money, Earned NEVER Given. welfare Creates a class in and of its self.

If you don't Like the Pledge of Allegiance , ya know "To the Republic for which it stands" BY BY, you have England or the frenchies to run to.

If you don't like the fact that this is a Republic, or even if you don't like this democratic type government we have now, no one is stopping you from LEAVING to find the type of government you do like.


This Nation was made a Republic. its time we find ourselves.



Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Would you do it again?
Monday, March 02, 2009 11:35 PM on j-body.org
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Mike, Go Enlist,


There are reasons for the threat levels.... believe me.




Actually, I have tried to enlist in the military multiple times. I even scored a 99 on the ASVAB, and had recruiters from every branch constantly visiting me and calling me. What did they all have in common??? They wanted another body to push through into the system. Don't get me wrong, i respect the hell out of our armed forces, but if i were to ever enlist the military, its going to be as something i want to be, not what they want me to be.

If there are or were legitimate reasons for the different terrorist threat levels, then why aren't they explained? What better way to prevent an attack if everyone is aware, instead of all the shrouded in secrecy bull$#!t???

Quicklilcav wrote:So you're comparing massive deficit spending on socialist programs that the Democrats have been trying to get passed for years, that they finally manage to get crammed through hidden in the bill touted as economic stimulus, with the legislation enacted with the intent on increasing our security after the worse terrorist attack on American soil?


No, i'm comparing the similarities between the two related to the quote of yours that i cited in my other post. The legislators on both sided acted like sheeple during the post 9/11 events and after the financialocalypse, with little debate and foresight from either side. Different situations, same reaction both times. Only differing point is who came out in favor and at which time.



Quicklilcav wrote: He crammed through legislation without letting the people voting on it read it, without letting the American people read it, after promising transparency.


HE didn't cram through legislation, the House and Senate did. The President doesn't have the power to do that, fortunately. And I'm pretty sure that it's against the law to be required to vote on a bill that you don't know the details of, or at least it was the last time I checked.


And yes it's a shame that you can't go online and research every detail of the Stimulus Bill and read it for yourself.

If people would research, the government puts out more information than alot of people are aware of.

Now instead of resorting to calling me names, try to act civil in this debate and answer me this one question...

Would you feel any differently about the stimulus plan if the Republicans, and McCain, if he were elected, enacted the EXACT SAME legislation???




Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!


Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:39 AM on j-body.org
the terrorist threat level meter was something the democrats screamed for after 9/11. they said that the public should know about any threat to the country so they could act accordingly. they said its not right for the govement to hide threats. so they came up with the threat meter so the public could know when things could get dicey just as they wanted and then the cry came out from the democrats that the terror threat meter was just a way for the repulicans to instill fear into the people. proof positive that no matter what you do in office you can't win. if you dont do something people scream your hiding information, when you put the information out there people scream that your trying to be a fear monger and scare the public. you can't win no matter what side you are. and until people realise this and start compromising, nothing will ever get done.







as for obama's popularity dropping, isnt it quite normal for the ratings to drop? i mean he went in with very high numbers to begin with. so it only seems natural that its going to drop. now that he's in office its no longer here comes the great savior. its. heres the guy thats in charge of all the problems. how come im still out of work. why hasn't the goverment giving me money. etc.etc.etc.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:48 AM on j-body.org
Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.


This coming from the most ignorant conservative I have ever seen, oh sweet irony.

















KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.


Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:32 AM on j-body.org
i missed the last couple posts when i made mine this morning


posted by roofy
"If there are or were legitimate reasons for the different terrorist threat levels, then why aren't they explained? What better way to prevent an attack if everyone is aware, instead of all the shrouded in secrecy bull$#!t???"



actually i heard them on the new everytime they raised the threat level. the news reporters would say blah blah blah elevated threat levels to do concerns of terrorist attacks on subways in this city or that city, or possible attacks on buses in such and such city, and after about 3-4 months of this people started screaming that bush was trying to just get people scared for no reason so they stopped reporting what was going on and just started telling people what the color was. again as i said, the people screamed for it, they go it, and then they screamed it was lies.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:43 AM on j-body.org
The Terrorist threat level is a joke.

Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.



Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 9:50 AM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.

Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.


ummm, you do nothing. It is meant to inform you that there is a higher threat level based on information they have obtained. aka be more aware of your surroundings and look for unusual happenings. Wether you care to listen to it or not, it's still there for those who listen

but yes, THIS is really an important issue in the current climate of the country





Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:26 AM on j-body.org
J03Y wrote:
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.

Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.


ummm, you do nothing. It is meant to inform you that there is a higher threat level based on information they have obtained. aka be more aware of your surroundings and look for unusual happenings. Wether you care to listen to it or not, it's still there for those who listen

but yes, THIS is really an important issue in the current climate of the country


I'm just saying, I cannot name one person I know that pays attention to it, or even knows what level we're at. I don't care who screamed for it, dem's or rep's, it's just dumb.



Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:05 PM on j-body.org
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:
Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.

This coming from the most ignorant conservative I have ever seen, oh sweet irony.
You've been around here long enough to know this certainly isn't true.




fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:45 PM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:
J03Y wrote:
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.

Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.


ummm, you do nothing. It is meant to inform you that there is a higher threat level based on information they have obtained. aka be more aware of your surroundings and look for unusual happenings. Wether you care to listen to it or not, it's still there for those who listen

but yes, THIS is really an important issue in the current climate of the country


I'm just saying, I cannot name one person I know that pays attention to it, or even knows what level we're at. I don't care who screamed for it, dem's or rep's, it's just dumb.


I don't think should live in the fear zone all the time but we should be ready for any attack.


A terrorist attack can happen any where at any time IMO
Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:29 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

I called that one months ago. How predictable you are. You blamed the high unemployment numbers during the early Reagan years on him, not Carter, and I said during that time that you would probably be blaming Bush for economic problems well into the Obama presidency. So next year, when we're still sprialing toward a depression, it's still Bush's fault, and Obama is not responsible, huh? When it's a Republican in office, you can blame everything on them starting day 1. When it's a Democrat, you can keep blaming things on the previous administration for years. But consistency doesn't work for your argument, so just throw it out the window.
Your entire post was pure fail. Thank you for illustrating my points. You can't seem to answer simple questions, and stay on that topic, without somehow trying to divert attention and/or make excuses

BIG difference, Reagan's extreamly high and record unemployment rate went in 2-3 years after he went into office. Obama on the other hand has been in office for 4-5 weeks. Yet I'm the one who failed? Answer this; when you typed that I failed, were you looking in the mirror at yourself?
Once again.... no room to talk.

Yes, but Obama has signed legislation that will only keep the rate increasing, when he could have passed tax cuts, which would have slowed it. His stimulus plan had almost no stimulus in it. It had, instead, massive amounts of government programs that had nothing to do with growth of the economy. He has also given himself and his cabinet members increasing power in this bill, and through moves such as giving Rahm Immanuel control of the cencus bureau. Also, back to the point, if you want to blame Reagan for the unemployment rate in his second and third year, then you have to concede that it's Obama to blame when our unemployment rate surpases that well into next year. What I will guarantee you is this: if this congress and administration continues doing what they are doing now, you will absolutely not see the peak in unemployment followed by a steep and consistant drop that we saw in 1983. And you can save this thread and quote me on that at any later date of your chosing.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

You have not answered the questions that I asked on page 2, not page 1, you moron. But as I said, you obviously don't really read all of my posts, so I can't have expected you to catch that.

You're right I only answered the only question you asked me on page 1.
Quote:

This has nothing to do with Bush, or revenge for his negative publicity, or any other bullsh!t excuse you want to throw out there. It is purely about what is going on right now in our country, but you can't seem to understand that. You are obviously unable to comprehend anything I have posted.

Really? Post all the 25 threads per week links on how Bush Jr was screwing up all the way up to 2009. I want to review what you wrote. (I should be expecting cricket sounds on your side)

Bring it on. As a matter of fact, why don't you dig them all up, and start an entire new thread with the sole purpose of discrediting me on the subject. I want you to show everyone all of the quotes, complete with a link to where you found it, where I stood up and defended Bush's spending and increasing of the national debt. I can tell you there are two things that you will find: one, where you claimed that Bush doubled the debt, and Clinton had a surplus. Nowhere did I say it was acceptable that Bush increased the debt. I will also tell you that I have defended him against the bullsh!t claims that he lied to get us into war, because all available intelligence at the time led both him, and congress to believe it was the right thing to do. The majority of the Democrats even supported him at the time. It wasn't until his approval ratings went through the roof that they started all the sh!t about him being a liar. You will also find where I supported the TARP bill back in September, because at the time, I believed it was a good thing, in the wake of the economic crash. Now that it was proven to not do sh!t, I was against the second half of it being spent. If you look, you will also find where I criticized Bush for using it for the auto industry, after congress refused to pass an auto bailout in December. Now, since this thread is not about Bush, as I have already pointed out, feel free to start that thread. However, if you wish to continue to argue anything in this one, keep it on the subject of the here and now.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

By the way, go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you know economic history better than I do, but consider this: not only have I studied it, but I was also aware and paying attention to it during much of that which you have only read about, or learned about, most likely from a liberal history teacher.

False & try me. You are prime example what happens when funding was put into the defense dept instead of public schools. Worst thing, your answer in order to compensate in furthering your knowledge on history is to turn on the radio and hit AM and search for Rush. Big no-no.

Ahh, further proof that you read nothing, or that you read it but simply dismiss it. I do not get my education from Rush, or any other talk show host. I find my information by reading, researching, and making my own decision. Do you get your education by turning on a radio or television? By the way you repeat the rhetoric (spelled correctly for the phoneticly challenged such as yourself), I would say most of it probably comes from CNN or MSNBC.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

And since you so love to bring Limbaugh into arguments, why don't you try getting it right? Or do you simply get the excerpts the MSM's hand to you to try to make him sound like an extremist.
Wait he's not? lol

And still more proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. I have an audio clip that I'm going to post later, that will blow holes in your theory, or anyone else's, that he is an extremist. I am moderately curious as to how you respond to it. LOL.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

Because I believe the same thing: I want America to continue to be "The Land of Opportunity". When has our slogan ever been "The land of equal outcome"? As the founders of our country wrote in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere did they say government had the obligation, or the right, to hand it out to people.

Agreed on that aspect "the land of opportunity" and it should always stay. Now your slogan "The land of equal outcome" is a extremest view and quite frankly doesn't pertain to today. When we gave free for all to banks and lenders,the ugly "greed" came about, this is the crap that happened in the 80s and now today. As much as we want Lassier-fair, history and current times still show WE are not responsible enough.

The "ugly greed" as you like to call it (or should I say, you like to repeat from the Democratic rhetoric), is absolutely not what got us in this mess, and it's been proven. It was precisely the attempts at directing the market, in the name of "fairness", that caused the collapse. The only place where I will agree that we should have regulated banking just a hair more would be in the mortgage-backed securities market. However, twice in this decade, attempts to pull in the reigns on Fannie and Freddy were stifled and vilified by the Democrats, with support of the MSM's. It was touted as racism, because it would cause the number of mortgages to minorities to decrease. And as far as the rest of it, when the economy is left fully alone, and the government does not try to manipulate it, it is survival of the fittest. Some will fail, but they will be replaced by those that succeed. Those that succeed will employ more people, and the economy grows. As with any system, it's not perfect, and corruption will creep into it here and there, but for the most part, it will self-regulate. Contrast with that a system where the power of government is continually increased, and the system is under the control of it, and the corruption can crush the people, and go unchecked. That is exactly what the founders of our country were getting away from, and what they wanted to ensure would never happen here.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
Quote:

do you believe we are better off being a socialist country than a capitalist country? If yes, what about a socialist economy do you think works better than they system which made this country what it is in such a relatively short time?

You do know we are a by-product of both, call it a hybrid if you will. IMO none is perfect and both have equal amounts of faults. And both "isms" is there to fix what the other screwed up. One ugly circle. There are capitalist nations on both side have worked great 18-19th and very early 20th century USA was a good example how a capitalist economy nation works. USA today is an example how capitalism doesn't work. Socialsm from many Scandenavian countries or England or Israel works. Late 1970-80s USSR or now-migrant-rich France the socialist regime is getting faulty as the new folks don't contribute to the system and suck the system dry. I still stand, both will not work 100%. We have to know this socialism is only there to clean up capitalism's mess. If capitalism works cleanly, then capitalism could be great, but sadly humans and how our culture is brought up won't let that happen.

We are not a by-product of socialism and capitalism. We have been a capitalist nation, who over the last 100 years has been slowly being turned socialist, one program at a time. That is corruption of the country, and what made it the economic super power that it is. You can not argue that fact. For over 200 years this country has experienced huge amounts of growth. As with anything, there have been setbacks. However, that large growth was made possibly purely by capitalism. Every socialist system that has been put in place has been completely ruined by the governement. Public education lasted a long time, but they managed to ruin that over the past 50 years. Social Security? Completely perverted from it's original design, and the money blown, so that it would begin on a path to bankruptsy, which we are rapidly approaching. Do I really need to go on, or can people see that it is government running things, and poorly, that has caused more major failures in this country than anything.
spoiler wrote:The bottom line is
Anything that is not an insult, criticism, attack, or strike against Obama is useless in your eyes.

False. Anything that has no substance to make a valid argument for or against something is useless, as most of your posts has been. Had you even tried making a point that supports your view, even if I don't agree with it, I would not have called your posts useless. I will not waste more space in this already large post quoting your foolishness.
Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:
Quiklilcav wrote:LOL. This thread is pulling lots of ignorant libs out of the woodwork.


This coming from the most ignorant conservative I have ever seen, oh sweet irony.

Fail. Once again, statistics prove my points, which I have illustrated in many threads. You have not managed to back up one single point you have made, and much like spoiler, have ceased to even make a useful post recently. It's one thing when someone tries to argue without a solid fact to back it up, but it's pathetic when you simply post weak attempts at wise-ass comments, contributing nothing to a thread.
Roofy wrote: HE didn't cram through legislation, the House and Senate did. The President doesn't have the power to do that, fortunately. And I'm pretty sure that it's against the law to be required to vote on a bill that you don't know the details of, or at least it was the last time I checked.

No, he did, with the help of Pelosi and Reid. He went on a little tour spreading fear mongering and bullsh!t to convince everyone that the world would end if congress didn't get it passed immediately. He repeatedly accused the Republicans of wanting to stand in the way of creating jobs and saving the economy.
Roofy wrote:And yes it's a shame that you can't go online and research every detail of the Stimulus Bill and read it for yourself.

If people would research, the government puts out more information than alot of people are aware of.

Yes, but that was not available until after it was passed, as was Obama's recovery.gov website that he was telling everyone about before hand. It simply had a message to check back after the bill was passed to see where the money would be spent. It was ReadTheStimulus.org who was the first to get the document parsed and posted online during the debating, and that was after screaming to the congress about freedom of information. (oh look! I posted that almost a month ago!: http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=36&i=58644&t=58644&p=1). I have read quite a bit of it, which is exactly why I have been trying to tell people whats in it. It's a long read (obviously), but I would suggest that everyone read it. If you do, I will be shocked if you don't find things in there that enfuriate you.
Roofy wrote:Would you feel any differently about the stimulus plan if the Republicans, and McCain, if he were elected, enacted the EXACT SAME legislation???

Absolutely no different. However, they would not have written that bill. I can guarantee you that. As a matter of fact, the Republicans proposed a bill half the size, with better potential, and the response was this: party line vote, followed by the Democrats passing a motion to prohibit further alternate bills from being proposed. A new era of bi-partisan cooperation, huh?





Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 6:42 PM on j-body.org
Here you go: a clip of Rush taking a call from someone who said he was hoping that the economy would continue to crash so that people would realize how bad Obama is doing. Anyone who has listened to just the clips that the MSMs have aired from his show or his speech, and/or anyone who thinks he's an extremist might think that we would be excited to have such a call, and that he would agree with them. Listen to what his response to this caller is.

Rush Clip








Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:54 PM on j-body.org
ThatGuy85 wrote:The Terrorist threat level is a joke.

Does ANYONE here know what to do differently when the threat level is raised from yellow to orange? No you do not.




Oh?


Hm.

I know ... A lot of people that do @!#$ different.... hell, i know the ones... that "may" have gotten the info for it.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:41 PM on j-body.org




Seriously who gives a @!#$?



Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:43 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

Yes, but Obama has signed legislation that will only keep the rate increasing, when he could have passed tax cuts, which would have slowed it. His stimulus plan had almost no stimulus in it. It had, instead, massive amounts of government programs that had nothing to do with growth of the economy. He has also given himself and his cabinet members increasing power in this bill, and through moves such as giving Rahm Immanuel control of the cencus bureau. Also, back to the point, if you want to blame Reagan for the unemployment rate in his second and third year, then you have to concede that it's Obama to blame when our unemployment rate surpases that well into next year. What I will guarantee you is this: if this congress and administration continues doing what they are doing now, you will absolutely not see the peak in unemployment followed by a steep and consistant drop that we saw in 1983. And you can save this thread and quote me on that at any later date of your chosing.

Blah, blah, blah, blah-- just Like I told you before, next time think before you post something stupid.
Now I am not going to stoop to your low level and predict prosperity nor failure, why, because no body on this Earth knows what's going to happen.

Quote:

Bring it on. As a matter of fact, why don't you dig them all up, and start an entire new thread with the sole purpose of discrediting me on the subject. I want you to show everyone all of the quotes, complete with a link to where you found it, where I stood up and defended Bush's spending and increasing of the national debt. I can tell you there are two things that you will find: one, where you claimed that Bush doubled the debt, and Clinton had a surplus. Nowhere did I say it was acceptable that Bush increased the debt.

Great. So where are all your thread staters much how you're doing on Obama? You had 8 years of dissecting Bush So "Post all the 25 threads per week links on how Bush Jr was screwing up all the way up to 2009." (suddenly the cricket sounds are louder)

Quote:

because all available intelligence at the time led both him, and congress to believe it was the right thing to do. The majority of the Democrats even supported him at the time. It wasn't until his approval ratings went through the roof that they started all the sh!t about him being a liar.

This is one main reason I don't like the Democrats, no back-bone to stand up to Bush. But at the time you were labeled "unpatriotic" if you went against his call. What F-ing BS!
And our intelligence and UN said the there were no WMDs, hell the UN could not even finish doing ground search because Bush wanted to rip Saddam's head off.

Quote:

By the way you repeat the rhetoric (spelled correctly for the phoneticly challenged such as yourself),

Heh, and this coming from a guy who doesn't know what liberal or ignorant is, good one Tonto. But you got me on the typo, but one thing though at least I know how to put it in a sentence and what's more know the definition to it. Can you say the same? (Another round of cricket sounds)

Quote:

Do you get your education by turning on a radio or television?I would say most of it probably comes from CNN or MSNBC.

Well Tonto, I don't have cable, so the answer is neither. The little t.v I watch I get it over the air.

Quote:

The "ugly greed" as you like to call it (or should I say, you like to repeat from the Democratic rhetoric), is absolutely not what got us in this mess, and it's been proven.

Really, so nobody wanted to get wealthier at what ever cost?
What did Rush tell you on this matter?

Quote:

The only place where I will agree that we should have regulated banking just a hair more would be in the mortgage-backed securities market.

So now you're Communist, socialist, anti-capitalist blah-blah. Don't let Rush hear you on that.

Quote:

The only place where I will agree that we should have regulated banking just a hair more would be in the mortgage-backed securities market. However, twice in this decade, attempts to pull in the reigns on Fannie and Freddy It was touted as racism, because it would cause the number of mortgages to minorities to decrease. And as far as the rest of it, when the economy is left fully alone, and the government does not try to manipulate it, it is survival of the fittest. Some will fail, but they will be replaced by those that succeed. Those that succeed will employ more people, and the economy grows. As with any system, it's not perfect, and corruption will creep into it here and there, but for the most part, it will self-regulate. Contrast with that a system where the power of government is continually increased, and the system is under the control of it, and the corruption can crush the people, and go unchecked

Agreed Tonto.

Quote:

We are not a by-product of socialism and capitalism. We have been a capitalist nation, who over the last 100 years has been slowly being turned socialist, one program at a time. That is corruption of the country, and what made it the economic super power that it is. You can not argue that fact. For over 200 years this country has experienced huge amounts of growth. As with anything, there have been setbacks. However, that large growth was made possibly purely by capitalism. Every socialist system that has been put in place has been completely ruined by the governement. Public education lasted a long time, but they managed to ruin that over the past 50 years. Social Security? Completely perverted from it's original design, and the money blown, so that it would begin on a path to bankruptsy, which we are rapidly approaching. Do I really need to go on, or can people see that it is government running things, and poorly, that has caused more major failures in this country than anything.

Heh, contradiction is the devil isn't it?

Quiklilcav wrote:Here you go: a clip of Rush taking a call from someone who said he was hoping that the economy would continue to crash so that people would realize how bad Obama is doing. Anyone who has listened to just the clips that the MSMs have aired from his show or his speech, and/or anyone who thinks he's an extremist might think that we would be excited to have such a call, and that he would agree with them. Listen to what his response to this caller is.

Rush Clip


Back pedaling is a no-no. Damage is done.
The problem is not what he said... as he is out there being a smart business man by being controversial no matter how stupid and "unpatriotic" he sounds, the problem here is there are people who think he is correct and factual.


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: Would you do it again?
Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:50 PM on j-body.org
Quote:

And our intelligence and UN said the there were no WMDs, hell the UN could not even finish doing ground search because Bush wanted to rip Saddam's head off.



This depends who you ask.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry


Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search