yea the closest thing we ever had to a dictatorship in this country was the Bush Administration. Patriot act anyone?



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

Quote:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research on Monday, angering abortion opponents but cheering those who believe the study could produce treatments for many diseases.

"We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research," Obama said to vigorous applause at a White House gathering.

"We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

NOW THAT BASTARD IS TRYING TO MAKE US LIVE LONGER!!! IMPEACH HIM!

Link

ThatGuy85 wrote:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research on Monday, angering abortion opponents but cheering those who believe the study could produce treatments for many diseases.

"We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research," Obama said to vigorous applause at a White House gathering.

"We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

NOW THAT BASTARD IS TRYING TO MAKE US LIVE LONGER!!! IMPEACH HIM!

Link

I don't understand how you can miss the big picture soooo often. Bush did not ban them he only banned FEDERAL FUNDING! During an economic downturn the last thing we need is the government using our tax dollars on programs that are not absolutly neccasary.




FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Wade Jarvis wrote:

ThatGuy85 wrote:

Quote:

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research on Monday, angering abortion opponents but cheering those who believe the study could produce treatments for many diseases.

"We will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research," Obama said to vigorous applause at a White House gathering.

"We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

NOW THAT BASTARD IS TRYING TO MAKE US LIVE LONGER!!! IMPEACH HIM!

Link

I don't understand how you can miss the big picture soooo often. Bush did not ban them he only banned FEDERAL FUNDING! During an economic downturn the last thing we need is the government using our tax dollars on programs that are not absolutly neccasary.

Ah, my bad... I was under the impression Bush banned ALL stem cell research.

I retract my previous statement, but also could think of quite a few ways the Human Race itself could benefit from this.

Stem cell research for the win, the medical benefits that come out of government funding for this is going to be revolutionary.

And yes Tabby, you spotted my sarcasm, but in a way I was oh so serious. If one @!#$ up got two terms, why not the next guy?

I also love how the righties are trying to play it like Bush was cool with Stem Cell research now too... just not with government funding of it.... he exasperated all of his options for stopping it before realizing that just wasn't an option - so he outlawed federal funding for it.

I mean that's all neat and tidy, but when this comes to fruition the world needs to know that the right pissed, moaned, and fought this as hard as they could based upon their abortion stance.

God I love spewing my leftyism in the right-wing thread. I AM FTFW!

I'll even make the same point the Bush cronies did for other crap - if you're against saving American lives you should be convicted of treason.

Yes, and anyone who followed his campaign closely won't be surprised by any actions he has taken. So, I'm not sure that the question is terribly interesting. I guess those who voted for him just for the hype might be surprised by certain things, but I certainly am not.

KFLO wrote:And yes Tabby, you spotted my sarcasm, but in a way I was oh so serious. If one @!#$ up got two terms, why not the next guy?

because two wrongs dont make a right. neither do two lefts (hyuk hyuk)

all of the liberals were @!#$ting their collective eco-friendly diapers these past 8 years. the last thing that is needed now is to allow the pendulum to swing this far the other way. all it does is make an even bigger mess than what we have now. they will end up spending so much time and money reversing the last admin's policies (even the good ones) just because they can that the only possible thing for the next admin to do is clean up everything from this one's. 8 years are gone and we cant get them back. if we waste another 8 going in the diametrically opposite way, then where does that leave us? with another 4-8 years of clean up just to get back to where we were at the beginning. thats a quarter of a century wasted because going from one extreme to another does nothing to solve our problems and in the end it just becomes a huge pissing contest.

right now the left wingers are feeling vindicated...and that is blinding them to how bad the administration is already being mismanaged. i mean seriously---in 8 weeks weve thrown like 1.5 TRILLION dollars at.....at......well im not really sure where that money is going. all i can say is that, except for a meager few hundred bucks that taxpayers will be receiving this year, the money isnt going to the people who need it. and that is supposedly the whole purpose of the stimulus.

in reality all it is doing is exponentially expanding the governments control over YOU. you think the patriot act was bad for individual rights? its laughable compared to what is being done right now. socialism and socialistic policies completely sap an individual of any desire to acheive (because the more they do, the less they have to show for it) and in the end that is more detrimental to human survival than free speech or any other (supposedly) inalienable right that we possess.

KFLO wrote:I love this thread. I remember in the beginning the guy that started it said that it wasn't for debate, but as soon as someone disagreed with him he started swinging fists and slinging @!#$ like it was his day job... Way to hold up your end of the bargain Tonto

The V for Vendetta reference is incredibly laughable as well, that whole thing could be reconstructed with the Bush family dynasty rather easily too.

Two things: first, I said "f&$k it" and got into the debate because that's what was happening, and I wasn't going to sit back and let people fill this up with one-sided rhetoric that they got from the MSM.

Second, you do realize that V for Vendetta was written about the early Bush years, 9/11, and the Patriot Act, etc., right? LOL. Good job in missing the irony.


As for all of the douchebaggery regarding the stem cells, as Wade said, good thing in the middle of an economic recession, when the government is already just about bankrupting itself with rapid expansion, that we start funding something else.

Also, they have found that adult stem cell research has yielded better results, so this is kind of a pointless move anyway. However, look at this administrations moves, and you will clearly see a pattern: anything regarding abortion or embryos that Bush enacted, preventing government funding, or to protect the rights of doctors and/or medical institutions to make moral decisions, has been reversed. This administration is not pro-choice, they are clearly pro-abortion. Pelosi even had her little Freudian slip about it saving money by having less people around. Hello?

Pro-choice is pro-abortion you silly sally, and I also know about V for Vendetta being about the Bushies, hence my reference.

Way to shoot yourself in the dick twice in one post. maybe even three times.

I meant whole thing in terms of your signature, not the story. Though I'm sure you'll attempt to piss on me for not being more clear about this from the beginning.

KFLO wrote:Pro-choice is pro-abortion you silly sally.

no, it isnt. pro choice is meant to refer to an individuals CHOICE to do whatever they want regarding their bodies. while pro choice and pro abortion are often synonymous in peoples eyes, its important to differentiate the two. a person can CHOOSE to keep their baby too, you know. by assimilating the term pro choice, the pro abortion camp is simply spinning their image as being something more than it is, making it more friendly to the public and media. if they referred to themselves as pro death, how many people do you think would associate themselves with the movement? all it is is a public relations toy

Tabs - show me exactly in any specific spot where the stimulus package has infringed upon anything I, or your red-headed stepchildness can do as a male human beings in America. I'll wait.

Your republican party abandoned your tax bracket, QLC's, and Joeybaggs' a long time ago. It baffles me to see you guys still stick up for them so hardcore when they consistently shift wealth away from the middle class.

KFLO wrote:Your republican party abandoned your tax bracket, QLC's, and Joeybaggs' a long time ago. It baffles me to see you guys still stick up for them so hardcore when they consistently shift wealth away from the middle class.

A common myth. Please re-educate yourself by going through the changes to the tax codes over the years.

My taxes went down under Bush. While the marginal rate did not change, the deductions did. People continue to miss the fact that deductions change the tax as much, and many times more, than marginal rate changes.

Also, the reason why we believe in the Reaganomics, and to a lesser degree, the Bush tax policies (they weren't as effective, because they were softer), is because they create jobs better than any plan of "tax the rich" redistributionist bullsh!t. And this administration is using semantics to hide their real moves. Note the fact that Obama has repeatedly said how he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making under $250K? Yet he has removed the mortgage payment deduction starting at $200K, there's the first step down. Now he is talking about eliminating the FICA cap, which means everyone making over $100K will see their taxes go up. This also means that employers will be affected, because anyone they pay over $100K per year will cost them more to employ because of the contribution to FICA they have to make.

The pattern is clear: they intend on taxing as many as possible, but making as many at the bottom recipients of hand-outs. This will solidify their voter base, even if millions of people still don't have jobs, because almost no one out there has the balls to stand up for principle and make a hard choice to give up the hand outs and have the opportunity to earn a better life. The redistributionist ideology misses one major point, and that is the drive to better your own situation. It encourages mediocrity and punishes those who succeed. It's a recipe for economic implosion.

I won't lie, I would like to educate myself better on the economy, but it was kind of obvious in the 80s that trying to keep more money in the goods production industry wasn't cutting it. I'm not calling what Clinton did a godsend, but creating all of those marginal level service jobs boosted the @!#$ out of the economy and few were bitching at the time.

KFLO wrote:Tabs - show me exactly in any specific spot where the stimulus package has infringed upon anything I, or your red-headed stepchildness can do as a male human beings in America. I'll wait.

Your republican party abandoned your tax bracket, QLC's, and Joeybaggs' a long time ago. It baffles me to see you guys still stick up for them so hardcore when they consistently shift wealth away from the middle class.

do you honestly not realize what the stimulus package is, and what it represents? it is the largest push towards socialism that our country has seen since FDRs new deal. is it a coincidence that obama has tagged it "the new new deal"?

what this stimulus package does is pushes big government and welfare. welfare means that i can bust my ass to make something of myself, and make money for myself and my family, only to have it taken away and given to some lazy @!#$ who doesnt want to work. i definitely call that an infringement.

and while i am a registered republican, i am a libertarian and proud of it. im registered as one of the two parties for a simple reason: to effect change by voting in the primaries.

also i get tired of people believing the rhetoric that the republican party is only for upper class people. the democrats have abandoned the middle class just as much, if not more, than the republicans have. right now they are going to have to pay more in taxes just so the government can redistribute that wealth to the lazy @!#$ on the bottom end. at least the republicans are against this big govt welfare state and they allow people to keep what they earn instead of trying to give it to uneducated voters just so they will vote for them.

Quiklilcav wrote:The pattern is clear: they intend on taxing as many as possible, but making as many at the bottom recipients of hand-outs. This will solidify their voter base, even if millions of people still don't have jobs, because almost no one out there has the balls to stand up for principle and make a hard choice to give up the hand outs and have the opportunity to earn a better life. The redistributionist ideology misses one major point, and that is the drive to better your own situation. It encourages mediocrity and punishes those who succeed. It's a recipe for economic implosion.

this is really the crux of the matter. redistribution of wealth, through welfare projects, encourages people to be lazy and look to the government for handouts. eventually, if they get enough people into the system, they basically ensure that enough of the voters go blue every four years. if you think our two party system is bad, then just imagine a one party system.

KFLO wrote:I won't lie, I would like to educate myself better on the economy, but it was kind of obvious in the 80s that trying to keep more money in the goods production industry wasn't cutting it. I'm not calling what Clinton did a godsend, but creating all of those marginal level service jobs boosted the @!#$ out of the economy and few were bitching at the time.

the problem with that is that service jobs are actually bad for a nation. once the manufacturing jobs went overseas, we became a service economy. but a nation needs to PRODUCE to continue to be on top. service jobs just serve your own countrymen, not outsiders, which means that all of our money keeps trickling out of the country to places like china. this is why they own more US debt than any other country. we need manufacturing jobs so that we can produce something that other nations need, increasing the money we receive from them, instead of vice versa.

Right, you read my posts enough to quote me twice, but I think you missed my point...

I didn't say the service jobs were the best thing, but do you know what they did? Keep us out of this @!#$hole of a mess for an extra 10 - 15 years. Not that avoiding the problem does anything to fix it, but I don't see your hotshots coming up with any badass ideas, ya know? Obviously they knew what would happen if they're anything like Quikness, so with all of that time to act and then a Republican congress and President and all they could do was screw the pooch worse...

Lovely.

Besides, if the Repub's were uber gung ho to kill wellfare it would be dead all ready. Paying into it is something americans have done forever, so no, this is nothing new, not a new infringement at all.

I want to put you in a headlock and give you a nuggie. In a loving way, not a total knuckles to the dome kind of way.

LOL

KFLO wrote:Right, you read my posts enough to quote me twice, but I think you missed my point...

I didn't say the service jobs were the best thing, but do you know what they did? Keep us out of this @!#$hole of a mess for an extra 10 - 15 years. Not that avoiding the problem does anything to fix it, but I don't see your hotshots coming up with any badass ideas, ya know? Obviously they knew what would happen if they're anything like Quikness, so with all of that time to act and then a Republican congress and President and all they could do was screw the pooch worse...

Lovely.

Besides, if the Repub's were uber gung ho to kill wellfare it would be dead all ready. Paying into it is something americans have done forever, so no, this is nothing new, not a new infringement at all.

service jobs did what, then? prolonged the inevitable at the cost of trying to find a real solution? you do recall who it was that signed nafta, dont you? clinton did more to send manufacturing jobs away from this country than anyone else. and in their place he gave us a short term solution to a problem he exacerbated. so how is that better than presiding over post 911 america? you and every other democrat on this planet keep tossing the last 8 years up like it is the norm to republican administrations instead of the exception. it wasnt.

the problem with welfare is that lazy people wont vote for anyone who tries to kill or even diminish it. and weve only been paying into welfare since FDR. it was meant as a short term fix to help people during the great depression. then lazy people kept whining for it, so dems kept pushing and trying to expand it. now its about to be taken to a whole new level, and im supposed to say "well gosh, thats ok"?

do you really want to pay for some fat ass to get a heart transplant, even knowing that it was his choice to clog his arteries with mcdonalds? or a liver for a alkie? how about a lung for a smoker? i sure as hell dont, and thats what the next step for universal healthcare is--just another form of welfare where i have to pay for other people's mistakes. everyone on here is bitching about the stimulus and how they have to pay for people that overextended theirselves with mortgages. are you saying that you enjoy bailing those people out? because thats what this is....social programs where there is no personal responsibility because if you make a bad decision, the government fixes it for you. all of these things are what this new administration is pushing. and all of those things infringe upon my ability to live and thrive because in the end it will be me and people like me that have to pay for all of these things. its not the governments job to redistribute wealth, and thats what they are trying to do.

KFLO wrote:Tabs - show me exactly in any specific spot where the stimulus package has infringed upon anything I, or your red-headed stepchildness can do as a male human beings in America. I'll wait.

Your republican party abandoned your tax bracket, QLC's, and Joeybaggs' a long time ago. It baffles me to see you guys still stick up for them so hardcore when they consistently shift wealth away from the middle class.

You clearly pay attention to my posts.

I'm a registered Libertarian, thank you very much.

Secondly, it would be the current administration that is going after my tax bracket. What baffles me is people like you blatantly asking for a handout.

But thanks for assuming you know my financial and political situations.

<3


edit - PS, see sig(below the baby punching)




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:26 AM

^^^^^
Your sig is one of the truest quotes I have ever heard.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

True to what the OP mentioned about his popularity declining I found a poll on MSN of all places where he is getting bashed.

The question read: Midway through his first 100 days, how would you grade Barack Obama?
31.5% A
9.4% B
7.3% C
16.1% D
35.7% F



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Also, in the one of the latest polls, his spread between strongly disapprove and strongly approve was only +6 points (IIRC, it was 32% and 38% respectively).

And it should be noted that many Democrats (mostly Blue Dogs) are starting to distance themselves. A few are even voting against the omnibus.