PDA

View Full Version : Jeb! Obama a socialist?


Fire Haley
07-09-2009, 01:17 PM
'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist'

(CNN) – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told an interviewer that he could not say whether or not President Barack Obama is a socialist, and that the president would not have been elected if he had been honest with Americans about his agenda.

Bush would not answer the question of whether he agreed with the assessment of some congressional Republicans that the president is a socialist. "I don't know. Define socialism for me," he told Esquire magazine.

"It's a word… I believe he's a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems." He added that he believed the word "socialism" was a pejorative, and "didn't help" the GOP make its case.

The Democrats have won on tactics," he said. "Barack Obama would not have gotten elected if he'd let us in on his secret plan prior to the election," he said, pointing to the president's economic agenda and energy proposals.

"….He made it appear like McCain was going to raise taxes, which was unfair, but there was no response back. When there was an ideological component, it was generally centrist or even center-right. Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/09/jeb-bush-i-dont-know-if-obama-is-a-socialist/#more-59734

---------------------------

'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist'

But we do Jeb, we do.

Godfather
07-09-2009, 02:20 PM
'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist'

(CNN) – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told an interviewer that he could not say whether or not President Barack Obama is a socialist, and that the president would not have been elected if he had been honest with Americans about his agenda.

Bush would not answer the question of whether he agreed with the assessment of some congressional Republicans that the president is a socialist. "I don't know. Define socialism for me," he told Esquire magazine.

"It's a word… I believe he's a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems." He added that he believed the word "socialism" was a pejorative, and "didn't help" the GOP make its case.

The Democrats have won on tactics," he said. "Barack Obama would not have gotten elected if he'd let us in on his secret plan prior to the election," he said, pointing to the president's economic agenda and energy proposals.

"….He made it appear like McCain was going to raise taxes, which was unfair, but there was no response back. When there was an ideological component, it was generally centrist or even center-right. Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/09/jeb-bush-i-dont-know-if-obama-is-a-socialist/#more-59734

---------------------------

'I don't know' if Obama is a socialist'

But we do Jeb, we do.

I wish the Bush family would just go away. They've done enough damage already.

trauben
07-09-2009, 02:50 PM
I wish the Bush family would just go away. They've done enough damage already.
Holy Mary, Jesus and Joseph......... if you think that was bad, you just wait......
OBAMA (One Bad Assed Mistake America) is really gonna do a number on you. Bend over Godfather, and make sure you're smiling when he and his current czars take it to you! :doh:

Godfather
07-09-2009, 03:25 PM
Holy Mary, Jesus and Joseph......... if you think that was bad, you just wait......
OBAMA (One Bad Assed Mistake America) is really gonna do a number on you. Bend over Godfather, and make sure you're smiling when he and his current czars take it to you! :doh:

It's not just what the Bushes did. It's the long-term political effects of their policies. If you're under 35 you don't remember Carter and you have little meaningful memory of Reagan. That' s the real demographic problem for the GOP. For an entire generation of Americans, the Republican Party = those two mealy mouthed big spending RINO losers. That gives the Democrats a big electoral advantage, and the nominees are generally picked by the extreme wing of the party :banging:

What's even worse is they talked like fiscal conservatives but didn't govern accordingly. So that's going to make small government a hard sell in the future. People are going to say "Oh sure, that's what Bush said. How did that work out?" Of course it isn't what he did, but people are going to remember what he said.

revefsreleets
07-09-2009, 04:30 PM
Bush I now?

I mean, allowing that Clinton balanced the budget through a combination of a tax increase, social security tax on payrolls, and a bubble (which later burst), how does Bush I now get the rap of being fiscally "loose"?

Godfather
07-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Bush I now get the rap of being fiscally "loose"?

Well, he did run up record deficits. Or at least it was the record until his son and then Obama made him look like a piker.

Fire Haley
07-09-2009, 08:22 PM
Jeb! 100X better than Sarah

Discuss

PisnNapalm
07-09-2009, 09:19 PM
(CNN) – Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told an interviewer that he could not say whether or not President Barack Obama is a socialist, and that the president would not have been elected if he had been honest with Americans about his agenda.

The farking problem is that his agenda was right out in the open. He told America what he wanted to do and he still got voted into office.

Change is not always for the better folks. Uncle Obama wants $1,800,000,000,000 in deficit spending next year!! WAKE UP AMERICA!! We're already bankrupt, we just haven't been held accountable for it yet.

HometownGal
07-09-2009, 09:36 PM
make sure you're smiling when he and his current czars take it to you! :doh:

He's already taken it to all of us - I started stocking up on Preparation H the day he was elected.

Look - I'm not fan of Jeb Bush. He's an overgrown lummox who always came across to me as being dumb as an asparagus tip, though I held and still hold a lot of respect for both his father and our former President. However, for the first time in my life, I actually can agree with most of what he stated, especially this comment:

Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost."


He's spot on here. Voters bought and ate Obaaaaaaaaaaama's creme of bullshit pie and those of us who saw him clearly for what he is will pay the consequences just as those who put him into office will feel the brunt of their misinformed vote.

Godfather
07-09-2009, 10:19 PM
Jeb! 100X better than Sarah

Discuss

That's like saying the Bungholes are 100X better than the Steelers.

tony hipchest
07-09-2009, 10:22 PM
That's like saying the Bungholes are 100X better than the Steelers.

.... better criminals.

:scratchchin: you may be on to something.... :idea:

Fire Haley
07-09-2009, 11:25 PM
Paris ne s'est pas fait en un jour

Il n'y a pas de fumée sans feu

tony hipchest
07-09-2009, 11:44 PM
lol.


being that the german air force is one of our biggest customers and half my employees speak spanish, 3 years of french in HS may be one of the biggest wastes of my life (other than not scrogging every piece of ass in sight during 2 of my years in college).

it can be hard to make up for lost time.

Fire Haley
07-09-2009, 11:59 PM
Listen up pilgrims


I collect broadswords - when the fats hits the fat

I am your man

coo coo ca choo, baby

http://www.northstarzone.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/114-1887.jpg

trauben
07-10-2009, 06:14 AM
It's not just what the Bushes did. It's the long-term political effects of their policies. If you're under 35 you don't remember Carter and you have little meaningful memory of Reagan. That' s the real demographic problem for the GOP. For an entire generation of Americans, the Republican Party = those two mealy mouthed big spending RINO losers. That gives the Democrats a big electoral advantage, and the nominees are generally picked by the extreme wing of the party :banging:

What's even worse is they talked like fiscal conservatives but didn't govern accordingly. So that's going to make small government a hard sell in the future. People are going to say "Oh sure, that's what Bush said. How did that work out?" Of course it isn't what he did, but people are going to remember what he said.
I remember watching Kennedy's funeral LIVE on TV....... President Kennedy, not the son! I served our country under Regan's administration ........... so you were saying? :coffee: I stand by what I said, and the Bushes, as with any administration that will make some mistakes, were the least of our problems. Obama is out to re write our Constitution, redefine our country's political being from one of free capitalism to socialism. When you have a President who feels he's got the power to demand a private company's CEO to resign........... we've got much bigger problems on our hands.

revefsreleets
07-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Well, he did run up record deficits. Or at least it was the record until his son and then Obama made him look like a piker.


Bush I had a record deficit for 2 of 4 years, but didn't he also have a Democratically controlled Congress?

Godfather
07-10-2009, 10:24 AM
I remember watching Kennedy's funeral LIVE on TV....... President Kennedy, not the son! I served our country under Regan's administration ........... so you were saying? :coffee: I stand by what I said, and the Bushes, as with any administration that will make some mistakes, were the least of our problems. Obama is out to re write our Constitution, redefine our country's political being from one of free capitalism to socialism. When you have a President who feels he's got the power to demand a private company's CEO to resign........... we've got much bigger problems on our hands.

Thank you for your service :drink: I didn't mean you personally, it was a more general "you" to illustrate one of the long-term demographic problems facing the GOP.

I

revefsreleets
07-13-2009, 09:43 AM
I also feel that this is indicative of the Bushes running from the right and governing from the middle, which makes sense since this is still a middle-right country (and will be even more so after this failed "experiment" with electing a far-left guy)...

steelax04
07-13-2009, 01:39 PM
Listen up pilgrims


I collect broadswords - when the fats hits the fat

I am your man

coo coo ca choo, baby

]

You're The Walrus?

The guy back here with the speargun says you are, too.

millwalldavey
07-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Socialist is just a convenient slam to use. Most of the people who use it (especially in Obama's case) have no idea what it even means.

Fire Haley
07-13-2009, 03:45 PM
Socialist is just a convenient slam to use. Most of the people who use it (especially in Obama's case) have no idea what it even means.

sip your Kool-aid

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.
Barack Obama

I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.
Barack Obama

You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.
Barack Obama


Why can't I just eat my waffle?
Barack Obama

revefsreleets
07-13-2009, 03:48 PM
It's actually more accurate to call it "Collectivism". It's the polar opposite of Individualism, which in our society is most closely related to the political entity known as libertarianism.

In economic terms, socialism is most closely associated with egalitarian distribution of wealth, meaning "equal" distribution of wealth.

Or, in this case, those who work hardest will give up, by force if necessary, what they worked hardest for, and have it distributed to those who contribute the least to society.

Fire Haley
07-13-2009, 03:50 PM
He'd nationalize the auto industry, the power companies and the banks just like his boy Chavez, if he could (and he's working on it.)

MACH1
07-13-2009, 04:35 PM
He'd nationalize the auto industry, the power companies and the banks just like his boy Chavez, if he could (and he's working on it.)

He's still has 3 1/2 years to try.

millwalldavey
07-14-2009, 09:45 AM
sip your Kool-aid



Sip yours. Can you tell me what the TRUE definition socialist is without looking it up?

revefsreleets
07-14-2009, 09:51 AM
Sip yours. Can you tell me what the TRUE definition socialist is without looking it up?

I'll be your hucklebuck: I already posted this, and I did it off the top of my head.

It's actually more accurate to call it "Collectivism". It's the polar opposite of Individualism, which in our society is most closely related to the political entity known as libertarianism.

In economic terms, socialism is most closely associated with egalitarian distribution of wealth, meaning "equal" distribution of wealth.

Or, in this case, those who work hardest will give up, by force if necessary, what they worked hardest for, and have it distributed to those who contribute the least to society.
__________________

Fire Haley
07-14-2009, 10:42 AM
Sip yours. Can you tell me what the TRUE definition socialist is without looking it up?

I don't play word games with commies.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Killer
He'd nationalize the auto industry, the power companies and the banks just like his boy Chavez, if he could (and he's working on it.)

He's still has 3 1/2 years to try.


Yeah - they'll redistribute the wealth alright - from your pocket to the taxman.

Beer prices just went up - the next "sin tax" after cigs.



Now these Bolsheviks are telling us how to live

Cig smoking is now a CRIME!


RICHMOND, Calif. -- City officials in Richmond are snuffing out smoking in apartments, condominiums and public places, making it the hardest place in the San Francisco Bay area to smoke.

The City Council approved an ordinance this month that will ban lighting up in all multiunit housing by Jan. 1, 2011. Officials say smoking in multiunit housing exposes people to secondhand smoke, which can travel between apartments.

The city has already banned smoking in parks, farmers markets and other public places. Fines start at $100 for violating the bans

revefsreleets
07-14-2009, 10:45 AM
I heard (and I'm not making this up) that Obama is considering prohibiting the troops from smoking. Ain't that nice?

HometownGal
07-14-2009, 06:25 PM
I heard (and I'm not making this up) that Obama is considering prohibiting the troops from smoking. Ain't that nice?

Considering that he was (and I've heard still is) a smoker, that's hypocrisy at its finest.

tony hipchest
07-14-2009, 06:32 PM
:shout: PANIC!!!

obama is a smoker.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/11/smoking-ban-strike-military/

Pentagon health experts are pressing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and ends its sale on military property, according to USA Today.

Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, told the newspaper that he will advise Gates to adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The VA and the Pentagon requested the study, which found that troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study also found that tobacco use in the military rose after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, according to the study, which was released last month and used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, the study found.

nope. no mention of obama. looks like its the VA and pentagon to bu bu bu blame. :smoker:

St33lersguy
07-14-2009, 08:08 PM
I'd call him communist. Dictator will come if he continues to violate our constitutional rights and continues all the King George III B.S. our founding fathers avoided

tony hipchest
07-14-2009, 08:14 PM
none of my constitutional rights have been infringed upon. :hunch:

The Patriot
07-14-2009, 10:49 PM
I'll be your hucklebuck: I already posted this, and I did it off the top of my head.

It's actually more accurate to call it "Collectivism". It's the polar opposite of Individualism, which in our society is most closely related to the political entity known as libertarianism.

In economic terms, socialism is most closely associated with egalitarian distribution of wealth, meaning "equal" distribution of wealth.

Or, in this case, those who work hardest will give up, by force if necessary, what they worked hardest for, and have it distributed to those who contribute the least to society.
__________________

Okay, enough of this bull crap. I can understand a person being upset about deficit spending and universal healthcare, but your perception of Obama and the income tax is irritatingly incorrect.

Let’s say I worked hard in 2007 and made $1,000,000 (before Obama’s tyrannical taxes crushed my business). I would have been taxed (by the Bush Administration) $350,000! Now, you perceive that the government is taking away one third of my income and is giving it to undeserving lazy welfare recipients, but where does the money really go?

- $82,215 (23.49%) would pay for Foreign Affairs, Defense, Veteran Benefits, and Homeland security. Freedom isn’t free, right? I see that on your bumper stickers all the time. Essentially, you paid for a wounded marine’s knee surgery. I think he deserves it.

- $152,565 (43.59%) would pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What!?! We don’t have universal healthcare, yet nearly half of my income tax goes to healthcare services? The Bush Administration is unjustly forcing me to pay for a 70 year old woman’s cancer treatment! Now, I’m starting to see where you’re coming from.

- $31,850 would pay for National Debt Interest. Debt which, we all know, had to have been set in motion by the Clinton Administration, because the National Debt grew a record increase during the Bush Administration. But, you are correct, with the way Obama is spending; Bush might have to settle for second place.

-Lastly, $83,370 (23.82%) would pay for education, transportation, community & regional development, unemployment & welfare, agriculture, law enforcement, criminal justice, and everything that has to do with government. So, basically, my money helps pave a section of the highway, which I use everyday to get to work and make my million dollars.

I am not happy that welfare recipients receive roughly $42,000 dollars of my hard-earned money, but the fact is that this occurred under a republican administration. This, I think, dispels the myth that Obama is a money-spending radical. In fact, if you do the math and observe the trend, you will find Obama to be one of the more conservative democrats. Anti-healthcare and deficit spending are valid issues, but to tackle them, we must first remove these counterproductive misleading arguments that are cluttering up the table.

Fire Haley
07-15-2009, 12:19 AM
Obama's boy at it again - I bet he's taking lessons


Venezuela tells oil workers: join socialist groups

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuela's oil workers will be suspected of conspiring against President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution if they do not join socialist workplace groups in the OPEC nation, the oil minister said on Tuesday.

Ramirez, who told oil workers to support Chavez ahead of his 2006 reelection, has long headed the president's drive to bring politics into Venezuela's main industry.

"By now, there should not be a single counter-revolutionary in the heart of our company, our industry," Ramirez said at a rally with workers taken on by state-oil company PDVSA after it nationalized dozens of oil service companies earlier this year.

"There cannot be a single PDVSA installation where socialist committees do not exist," he said. "Whoever is not in a committee will be suspected of conspiring against the revolution."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090714/wl_nm/us_venezuela_oil_1

tony hipchest
07-15-2009, 12:40 AM
:rofl:

bu..bu..but... chavez???

wow :coffee:

Vincent
07-15-2009, 04:28 AM
Socialist is just a convenient slam to use. Most of the people who use it (especially in Obama's case) have no idea what it even means.

You’re right. He’s a Stalinist.

Sip yours. Can you tell me what the TRUE definition socialist is without looking it up?

To borrow another’s signature line, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.” - Winston Churchill

Considering that he was (and I've heard still is) a smoker, that's hypocrisy at its finest.

Hypocrisy - all part of the Stalinist package.

In fact, if you do the math and observe the trend, you will find Obama to be one of the more conservative democrats..

From an otherwise lucid post. I'd love to hear the case for that. :toofunny:

tony hipchest
07-15-2009, 09:13 AM
Man charged 23 quadrillion dollars for smokes

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-15-new-hampshire-charge_N.htm

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (AP) — A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars.
Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours after the purchase and saw the 17-digit number — a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500 (twenty-three quadrillion, one hundred forty-eight trillion, eight hundred fifty-five billion, three hundred eight million, one hundred eighty-four thousand, five hundred dollars).

Muszynski told WMUR-TV that he spent two hours on the phone with Bank of America trying to sort out the string of numbers — and the $15 overdraft fee.



i heard its all part of obamas secret hypocritical plan.

:rolleyes:

trauben
07-15-2009, 09:25 AM
none of my constitutional rights have been infringed upon. :hunch:

Yet.............. :coffee:

revefsreleets
07-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Okay, enough of this bull crap. I can understand a person being upset about deficit spending and universal healthcare, but your perception of Obama and the income tax is irritatingly incorrect.

Let’s say I worked hard in 2007 and made $1,000,000 (before Obama’s tyrannical taxes crushed my business). I would have been taxed (by the Bush Administration) $350,000! Now, you perceive that the government is taking away one third of my income and is giving it to undeserving lazy welfare recipients, but where does the money really go?

- $82,215 (23.49%) would pay for Foreign Affairs, Defense, Veteran Benefits, and Homeland security. Freedom isn’t free, right? I see that on your bumper stickers all the time. Essentially, you paid for a wounded marine’s knee surgery. I think he deserves it.

- $152,565 (43.59%) would pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What!?! We don’t have universal healthcare, yet nearly half of my income tax goes to healthcare services? The Bush Administration is unjustly forcing me to pay for a 70 year old woman’s cancer treatment! Now, I’m starting to see where you’re coming from.

- $31,850 would pay for National Debt Interest. Debt which, we all know, had to have been set in motion by the Clinton Administration, because the National Debt grew a record increase during the Bush Administration. But, you are correct, with the way Obama is spending; Bush might have to settle for second place.

-Lastly, $83,370 (23.82%) would pay for education, transportation, community & regional development, unemployment & welfare, agriculture, law enforcement, criminal justice, and everything that has to do with government. So, basically, my money helps pave a section of the highway, which I use everyday to get to work and make my million dollars.

I am not happy that welfare recipients receive roughly $42,000 dollars of my hard-earned money, but the fact is that this occurred under a republican administration. This, I think, dispels the myth that Obama is a money-spending radical. In fact, if you do the math and observe the trend, you will find Obama to be one of the more conservative democrats. Anti-healthcare and deficit spending are valid issues, but to tackle them, we must first remove these counterproductive misleading arguments that are cluttering up the table.

First off, what left-wing rag did you crib that from? It's CLASSIC "Bu-bu-Bush", I mean, the best example of it I've seen. It says NOTHING about what's coming, and everything about what's been done. It can be dismissed with ONE sentence: By years end, the deficit will be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

Obama: He's only been in office 175 days, yet he's already nationalized the banks and auto industry, and now he's after healthcare. The taxes come later, which I've already pointed out...he's turned conventional "tax and spend" on it's ear...he spends (and spends and spends and spends and spends) and taxes later.

Speaking of constitutional rights being infringed upon, under the current healthcare bill, if you DON'T sign up for at least the new government health plan, you will be penalized 2.5% of your payroll.

How about the CA energy nonsense about monitoring your power consumption and CONTROLLING IT? That's called "hydraulic despotism". Look it up. Anyway, that's just the beta test...it'll be nationwide soon. Bank it.

The Patriot
07-15-2009, 01:10 PM
First off, what left-wing rag did you crib that from? It's CLASSIC "Bu-bu-Bush", I mean, the best example of it I've seen. It says NOTHING about what's coming, and everything about what's been done. It can be dismissed with ONE sentence: By years end, the deficit will be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

Obama: He's only been in office 175 days, yet he's already nationalized the banks and auto industry, and now he's after healthcare. The taxes come later, which I've already pointed out...he's turned conventional "tax and spend" on it's ear...he spends (and spends and spends and spends and spends) and taxes later.

Speaking of constitutional rights being infringed upon, under the current healthcare bill, if you DON'T sign up for at least the new government health plan, you will be penalized 2.5% of your payroll.

How about the CA energy nonsense about monitoring your power consumption and CONTROLLING IT? That's called "hydraulic despotism". Look it up. Anyway, that's just the beta test...it'll be nationwide soon. Bank it.

I got that information from the Congressional Budget Office. You're so certain of yourself that you'll dismiss actual facts to keep your argument afloat.

A 2 trillion dollar deficit sounds astronomical, but when you realize that we spent 2.66 trillion dollars in 2008 (under Bush) that number seems a bit more manageable. The Bush Administration’s 2008 Federal Budget spent 994 billion dollars on Social Security and Medicare alone. I cannot emphasize this enough. So if you were really worried about the Federal Deficit being 2 trillion dollars, we could cut these two programs for two years and pay off the deficit.

Obama is not nationalizing the banks and auto industry because he’s a socialist, he’s doing it because if the government hadn’t stepped in, there would be no more banks and auto industry! Bush and McCain concurred with this too. You missed the bus.

Obama is nationalizing healthcare because economists have projected that it will be unaffordable for the majority of Americans by 2012. And a healthcare penalization is perfectly within the constitution. If I send my children to a private school, the government still taxes me 2% of my income to fund public schools.

Nobody wants the government to spend more money, but if they failed to pump any stimuli into this economy, we would have spiraled out of control. It worked for FDR during the Great Depression and it could work again. Stop pretending that everything would be grand if we had just sat on our hands, and find me a presidential candidate who was willing to do that.

Monitoring power consumption is a very reasonable idea. If somebody’s irresponsibility is affecting other people, then government has the right to step in.

These wails of woe sound more like a tantrum to me.

St33lersguy
07-15-2009, 03:19 PM
First off, what left-wing rag did you crib that from? It's CLASSIC "Bu-bu-Bush", I mean, the best example of it I've seen. It says NOTHING about what's coming, and everything about what's been done. It can be dismissed with ONE sentence: By years end, the deficit will be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

Obama: He's only been in office 175 days, yet he's already nationalized the banks and auto industry, and now he's after healthcare. The taxes come later, which I've already pointed out...he's turned conventional "tax and spend" on it's ear...he spends (and spends and spends and spends and spends) and taxes later.

Speaking of constitutional rights being infringed upon, under the current healthcare bill, if you DON'T sign up for at least the new government health plan, you will be penalized 2.5% of your payroll.

How about the CA energy nonsense about monitoring your power consumption and CONTROLLING IT? That's called "hydraulic despotism". Look it up. Anyway, that's just the beta test...it'll be nationwide soon. Bank it.

Where did you hear about the payroll penalty?
I know you're correct on everything else

Vincent
07-15-2009, 03:40 PM
A 2 trillion dollar deficit sounds astronomical, but when you realize that we spent 2.66 trillion dollars in 2008 (under Bush) that number seems a bit more manageable.

Congress spent the money. Clinton handed a surplus to Bush because he had a repub congress. Dutch had deficits because he had a dem congress.

Your reasoning is remarkable though. Its OK to spend another $2T because they spend even more in 2008. Like "neener neener neener".

Obama is not nationalizing the banks and auto industry because he’s a socialist,

You're right. He's doing it because he's a Stalinist.

Obama is nationalizing healthcare because economists have projected that it will be unaffordable for the majority of Americans by 2012.

What "economists"? "Scientists" would have you believe the Earth is warming too. Oh wait, another Stalinist bill just passed the house.

"Unaffordable by 2012". Thats bull@#$%. bho doesn't give a rats ass about healthcare. Or "the environment" Or "soshacurity" This is all a Stalinist power grab by the Chicago mob.

These wails of woe sound more like a tantrum to me.

We had a revolution some years back over these sorts of issues. If memory serves, it was a 2% tax on tea that got the patriots out trashing the kings boats. The patriots were real men and women, many of whom risked all to escape tyranny, only to risk all again to rid their hew home of tyranny. Its a sad irony that so many from what were those fragile little colonies are hellbent on enslaving this great Union by another tyrant.

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2009-04/46608615.jpg

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Patriot
07-15-2009, 05:43 PM
Congress spent the money. Clinton handed a surplus to Bush because he had a repub congress. Dutch had deficits because he had a dem congress.

Your reasoning is remarkable though. Its OK to spend another $2T because they spend even more in 2008. Like "neener neener neener".



You're right. He's doing it because he's a Stalinist.



What "economists"? "Scientists" would have you believe the Earth is warming too. Oh wait, another Stalinist bill just passed the house.

"Unaffordable by 2012". Thats bull@#$%. bho doesn't give a rats ass about healthcare. Or "the environment" Or "soshacurity" This is all a Stalinist power grab by the Chicago mob.



We had a revolution some years back over these sorts of issues. If memory serves, it was a 2% tax on tea that got the patriots out trashing the kings boats. The patriots were real men and women, many of whom risked all to escape tyranny, only to risk all again to rid their hew home of tyranny. Its a sad irony that so many from what were those fragile little colonies are hellbent on enslaving this great Union by another tyrant.

http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2009-04/46608615.jpg

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

What a load of BS, guy. I don't care anymore. I've given you the numbers and projections, and you've pissed it away as "bullshit Stalinism" and rallied around the tea tax. :shake02:

And a quick history lesson: all the rights and liberties we enjoy today did not emerge until a desperate convention in 1787. Anything before that was just political power endeavors and sporadic terrorist attacks until the British finally lost interest in the colonies. A third of colonials were patriots, a third were loyalists, and a third were indifferent to the cause. People didn't necessarily opposed monarchy, they opposed foreign rule. All the revolution accomplished was reaffirming the rights of white males in society. It has nothing to do with the stimulus package.

NJarhead
07-15-2009, 06:02 PM
"All F'in liberals must F'in hang"

http://ruthlessreviews.com/pics5/fmj3.jpg

:laughing:

Vincent
07-15-2009, 08:59 PM
I don't care anymore.

So will you be punting or forfeiting?

"bullshit Stalinism"

At no point did I say "bullshit Stalinism". I pointed out that some positions are bull@#$% and that some political agendas are Stalinist.

and rallied around the tea tax.

Did the "tea party not happen?

And a quick history lesson: all the rights and liberties we enjoy today did not emerge until a desperate convention in 1787.

The entire revolution was desperate. Watch the film.

A third of colonials were patriots, a third were loyalists, and a third were indifferent to the cause.

That is among the most amazing facets of the revolution - only a third supported it. And that is why patriots have hope. This country is off its nut, seriously. A small number of us can take it back.

All the revolution accomplished was reaffirming the rights of white males in society. It has nothing to do with the stimulus package.

You've lost me entirely.

tony hipchest
07-15-2009, 09:51 PM
That is among the most amazing facets of the revolution - only a third supported it. And that is why patriots have hope. This country is off its nut, seriously. A small number of us can take it back.

.:toofunny:

an obama led military would kick the shit out of any sour grape, psychopathic, piss ant revolutionaries.

and just for shits and giggles (not even giving any legitimacy to it happening), if the right wing nut jobs were successful in their revolt, they would try to eradicate democracy and a 2 party system and impose their own republican will.

all the wannabe mini-mussolini's in this country just need to chill.

fansince'76
07-16-2009, 12:07 AM
an obama led military would kick the shit out of any sour grape, psychopathic, piss ant revolutionaries.

LMAO! :toofunny: An "Obama-led" military would probably do nothing. Peace at all costs, after all. "Let's talk." Actually, I take that back - nothing would be done until his handlers take a poll and the polling indicates he should do something. :coffee:

tony hipchest
07-16-2009, 12:26 AM
LMAO! :toofunny: An "Obama-led" military would probably do nothing. Peace at all costs, after all. "Let's talk." Actually, I take that back - nothing would be done until his handlers take a poll and the polling indicates he should do something. :coffee:and tom brady scoffed at the idea of the giants holding them to 17 points.

"famous" last words.

talk is cheap, especially when one cant put money where their mouth is.

fansince'76
07-16-2009, 12:28 AM
and tom brady scoffed at the idea of the giants holding them to 17 points.

"famous" last words.

talk is cheap, especially when one cant put money where their mouth is.

Yeah, I know - it would never happen anyway. The Soldier of Fortune-reading crowd are a bunch of wannabe Rambos who by and large are too stupid to pull anything like that off to begin with.

MACH1
07-16-2009, 12:45 AM
LMAO! :toofunny: An "Obama-led" military would probably do nothing. Peace at all costs, after all. "Let's talk." Actually, I take that back - nothing would be done until his handlers take a poll and the polling indicates he should do something. :coffee:

Then he'd have to give orders off the teleprompter

stlrtruck
07-16-2009, 07:18 AM
:toofunny:

an obama led military would kick the shit out of any sour grape, psychopathic, piss ant revolutionaries.

How can Obama have a military if they don't have guns?

Plus, I'm seeing his leadership first hand. He couldn't lead "his" military out of a double open-ended bag without a teleprompter and a GPS.

trauben
07-16-2009, 08:23 AM
All Obama's been doing is opening a bag of idiots on all of us!

Vincent
07-16-2009, 08:41 AM
an obama led military would kick the shit out of any sour grape, psychopathic, piss ant revolutionaries.

Tony, the days of armed revolt are long since past. Ballot box. As corrupt as the dems are, they can be defeated at the polls. The last election was a referendum on Boooosh, nothing more. A significant number that voted for "change" are looking at the insanity in DC and awaking to the alarming reality that they have handed the gubmint to Stalinists.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/july_2009/obama_index_july_15_2009/232790-1-eng-US/obama_index_july_15_2009.jpg

The dems are intoxicated with their power and are doing what they always do when unchecked - behave arrogantly and spend obscene amounts of our money. There is a strong prospect of 94 happening again in 2010.

and just for shits and giggles (not even giving any legitimacy to it happening), if the right wing nut jobs were successful in their revolt, they would try to eradicate democracy and a 2 party system and impose their own republican will.

The sad irony here is that the left wing nut jobs are doing just that to any form of opposition. Historically the right (and thats laughable) have always sought to "get along".

all the wannabe mini-mussolini's in this country just need to chill.

Another irony - Ben was from your side of the isle. Lenin regarded him, as did all socialists of the time, as one of the great emerging leaders in "the movement". He was given the name Il Duce by the national socialist congress on his first attendance. They just loved his speech apparently. "Modern" socialists regard him as a "fascist", and that is also an amusing irony. That term was first adopted into the left's lexicon when Uncle Joe, noting the emerging European socialist landscape and seeking to differentiate himself, declared that there are other brands of socialism that didn't entirely adhere to the soviet model, and were therefore "fascist". The left, always waiting for the next cue from their soviet masters, agreed. "Yes, yes, soviet communism is indeed the highest distillation of socialism. All the pretenders are, um, um, 'fascists'.".

Even a casual glimpse at socialist history reveals the same pattern. The socialists gain control of the gubmint either by force or at the polls. Once they've consolidated their power, they destroy all opposition and seize business. Then they eliminate any segment of the population that doesn't fit their model - the religious, old folks, etc. That is the fascist stage of the socialist continuum. They all did it.

And here we are, several generations of leftist inculcation later, walking around thinking the term "fascist" applies to the right. "education" has done its job well.

For the record, I'm less impressed with the repubs than you are.

revefsreleets
07-16-2009, 09:14 AM
The spin form the left is mind boggling. Two trillion (which is just a start) is actually ok? It really WAS all Bush's fault? Really?

Wrong.

First off, the administration itself predicted 1.84 trillion. They've been wrong (by being too conservative) on everything else so far, so two trillion is real.

As for the tax charts, they are based on what WAS, not what will come to pass. If things stay as they are, and there are no tax increases, we will run HUGE deficits (and that's again coming from an administration who's numbers have ALL been wrong) of SEVEN POINT ONE TRILLION DOLLARS from 2010 to 2019. Remember, those are THEIR numbers...

But that's Bush's fault? 7.1 trillion is okay?

They will HAVE to cut spending, roll back the stimulus package, abandon this stupid cap and trade, forget about 1.5 trillion EXTRA for healthcare (the numbers, I'm sure, will be far, far, FAR worse than what they are predicting, and FORGET about it ever paying for itself...nonsense) AND raise taxes to stem this tide, none of which will happen.

Read the REAL story about the deficit here:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090713/BUSINESS/907130328/Budget+deficit+tops+$1+trillion+for+first+time


As for the 2.5% penalty, that is here:
http://www.ohio.com/news/politics/50841932.html


The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

Also: Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.

Don't let these facts get in the way of the spin, though!

xfl2001fan
07-16-2009, 12:11 PM
First off, the administration itself predicted 1.84 trillion. They've been wrong (by being too conservative) on everything else so far, so two trillion is real.

Maybe this is what lefties mean when they say that Obama is a conservative Dem? :noidea:

NJarhead
07-16-2009, 05:14 PM
:toofunny:

an obama led military would kick the shit out of any sour grape, psychopathic, piss ant revolutionaries.



Hopefully it'd never come down to that, but don't be so sure Obama would still have control over the U.S. Military if it did. I'd venture to say that about 75% of the military would be against him.

It'd be like the entire Army going to war with the Coast Guard. :chuckle:

tony hipchest
07-16-2009, 07:14 PM
Tony, the days of armed revolt are long since past. Ballot box. As corrupt as the dems are, they can be defeated at the polls. .

oh, ok.

by the tone in your original post, i thought you meant a literal torch and pitchfork, with muskets drawn, revolution.

sure, the dems can be defeated at the polls if the GOP can pull their heads out of their collective asses long enough to take a breath.

shoot, despite what seemed to be amateurs and novices advising him and running his campaign, i gave mccain an equal shot of winning until he chose his running mate.

perhaps they shoulda been vetting their own VP instead of calling the obama camp stupid for naming his first, (as if whoever goes first really matters and can be spun into actual strategy).

to her credit, she campaigned pretty well against william ayers and if it were a head to head election between her and him she may have actually kept it close.

good luck with that in '12. :drink: hell, even huckabee is practically begging her to not go away. hopefully he advise her that when she is asked what publications she reads, "Twitter" is not an appropriate answer. :chuckle:

rock the vote! :jammin: :guitar: :beerbang:

revefsreleets
07-17-2009, 05:49 AM
"Bu-bu-bu-Palin"

Obama outspent McCain in key battle ground states as much as 8-1. He was a lot less like Bush than McCain. That's all it took...Palin actually probably HELPED McCain's numbers.

Here's one example:

http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/683232-p2.html

Fire Haley
07-17-2009, 01:36 PM
All Obama's been doing is opening a bag of idiots on all of us!

Him and his commie friends


Van Jones, 'Green Jobs Czar', a self-described 'communist'

Van Jones is President Barack Obama's newly appointed "Green Jobs Czar"

Jones' official title is Special Advisor on Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/van_jones.gif


"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th [1992], and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. (Rodney King)
By August, I was a communist. (...)

I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.

Like a character out of The Big Chill, Van Jones seems to have evolved from radical activist to Establishment insider. Perhaps only a left-wing administration incapable of recognizing irony would put a self-described communist in charge of creating jobs.

Luckily for Van Jones, and Obama's many other "Czars" with dubious credentials and troubling backgrounds, his new job was not dependent upon making it through Congressional hearings.

http://www.examiner.com/x-722-Conservative-Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Van-Jones-Green-Jobs-Czar-a-selfdescribed-communist-arrested-during-Rodney-King-riots

revefsreleets
07-17-2009, 02:23 PM
That's gonna be an AWFUL tough one to spin. Expect ZERO retort from the left on this particular appointment.

Makes sense though...an advocate of a failed and dead political philosophy in charge of creating jobs in an industry that will ultimately probably lose 2.5 REAL jobs to make way for each heavily government subsidized "green" job.

Fire Haley
07-20-2009, 11:52 AM
ha ha!

Steele: Obama's Plan Represents "Socialism"

Asked if Barack Obama's health care plan represents socialism, RNC Chairman Michael Steele simply said "yes."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/20/steele_obamas_plan_represents_socialism.html