There are many prominent intellectuals whom are Jewish themselves that can inform you on Jewish invented organizations like the Neo Conservative movement. In case it's lost on you. Obviously, that seems to be the case. You don't just come in and establish a pre-emptive doctrine, invade multiple countries based on a plan and have it posted on the internet for 6 years and then pretend it never existed.

Thank God we have a Democrat in office now though. We are acting in what are the interests of the USA first and foremost. You Republicans are complete idiots that like to outsource our foreign policy and sacrifice our military to Israel.

Progressives, Nazis, Gerrymanderer2

What's the difference?

dachau Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Progressives, Nazis, Gerrymanderer2
>
> What's the difference?

There is none. They're equally deluded as the last.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

The Zionazi's are the racial religion supremacists that believe in a perpetual state of war. They're literally empty without such war. They need it taking place to exist and be happy. Death and destruction and conflict and incitement. They feed off of it and think it makes them stronger and find it to be the only solution this world is in need of although their little crusade is only a decade old and has brought nothing but hardship to all parties involved.

And yet, they call me the Nazi. Think of the audacity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2013 09:44AM by Gerrymanderer2.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Zionazi's are the racial religion supremacists
> that believe in a perpetual state of war. They're
> literally empty without such war. They need it
> taking place to exist and be happy. Death and
> destruction and conflict and incitement. They
> feed off of it and think it makes them stronger
> and find it to be the only solution this world is
> in need of although their little crusade is only a
> decade old and has brought nothing but hardship to
> all parties involved.
>
> And yet, they call me the Nazi. Think of the
> audacity.


FFXU meet Gerrymander...

Who should be Hillary's Vice President to setup for a presidency after Hillary?

I would say a young male Hispanic immigrant.

That way the democrats can continue to rally groups.

Yeah but there aren't any charismatic Hispanic's right now. You're talking some serious charisma needed to be a nice fit Manchurian candidate. Democrats have to be smart. Republicans are allowed to be absolute mumbling retards and serve two terms. The Latino will come, then we can officially establish a national recognition of the accomplishments of Hugo Chavez day, yay I can't wait.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah but there aren't any charismatic Hispanic's
> right now. You're talking some serious charisma
> needed to be a nice fit Manchurian candidate.
> Democrats have to be smart. Republicans are
> allowed to be absolute mumbling retards and serve
> two terms. The Latino will come, then we can
> officially establish a national recognition of the
> accomplishments of Hugo Chavez day, yay I can't
> wait.

Antonio Villaraigosa, Democratic mayor of Los Angeles. He was the chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Zionazi's are the racial religion
> supremacists
> > that believe in a perpetual state of war.
> They're
> > literally empty without such war. They need it
> > taking place to exist and be happy. Death and
> > destruction and conflict and incitement. They
> > feed off of it and think it makes them stronger
> > and find it to be the only solution this world
> is
> > in need of although their little crusade is only
> a
> > decade old and has brought nothing but hardship
> to
> > all parties involved.
> >
> > And yet, they call me the Nazi. Think of the
> > audacity.
>
>
> FFXU meet Gerrymander...

I bet he believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true story.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Latin roots Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado as her running mate.

He's the antithesis of all the halitotic miseries that define the choked-up discord of politics in the capital, where expectations of passing effective legislation are now so low we are all ecstatic when John McCain rescues a lame attempt to reduce the historic number of filibusters.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank God we have a Democrat in office now though.
> We are acting in what are the interests of the
> USA first and foremost. You Republicans are
> complete idiots that like to outsource our foreign
> policy and sacrifice our military to Israel.


Hey Gerry, guess whose husband still holds the record for giving the most US financial aid to Israel?

And after a slow start due to the recession, Obama's now back to Clinton levels and well on his way to taking the aggregate title.

lol

By the balls is where they have us. Just consider their so called "Iron Dome." I think we were paying 50,000 dollars per missile they were firing off against some ragtag 300 dollar rockets Hamas was shooting.

American taxpayers funded 50,000 dollars a piece for that bullshit. A full years salary just because Hamas popped off an unguided bottle rocket. They got us by the balls and retards Young Carmudgeon thinks its all hunky dory, made of money with 16 trillion in debt and furloughs for our service members.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2013 03:11PM by Gerrymanderer2.

Code Pinko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
And after a slow start due to the recession,
> Obama's now back to Clinton levels and well on his
> way to taking the aggregate title.
>
> lol

Do you mean Obama is back on track like Clinton to get this country back to a surplus?

What happened to the Clinton surplus? What did Bush do with it...

Bush spent the Clinton surplus like a drunken sailor is what happened.

50,000 dollars pays for an entire month of cell phone service for over 1000 Americans.

The price American taxpayers paid for the launching of one Israeli Iron Dome Missile. So much for Conservatives crying fiscal responsibility.

Duggars Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Code Pinko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And after a slow start due to the recession,
> > Obama's now back to Clinton levels and well on
> his
> > way to taking the aggregate title.
> >
> > lol
>
> Do you mean Obama is back on track like Clinton to
> get this country back to a surplus?
>
> What happened to the Clinton surplus? What did
> Bush do with it...
>
> Bush spent the Clinton surplus like a drunken
> sailor is what happened.

You mean the surplus that didnt exist? That surplus literally disappeared the second he left office, it was nothing more than creative book keeping. How much of the debt was paid down during Clintons term? The answer is 0.

Im not even going to address how asinine of a comment it is to say Obama is on track to get a surplus........

Duggars Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Code Pinko Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> And after a slow start due to the recession,
> > Obama's now back to Clinton levels and well on
> his
> > way to taking the aggregate title.
> >
> > lol
>
> Do you mean Obama is back on track like Clinton to
> get this country back to a surplus?
>
> What happened to the Clinton surplus? What did
> Bush do with it...
>
> Bush spent the Clinton surplus like a drunken
> sailor is what happened.


The one-year Clinton budget "surplus" was directly a result of an accounting manipulation (the transfer of debt to intra-governmental accounts) and on the revenue side mostly a result of the windfall from capital gains during the (artificial) dot.com boom after Clinton LOWERED capital gains rates. The source for which disappeared when the inflated value of the market crashed prior to Bush taking over. That's what happened to it. There was no true surplus - the deficit has continued to grow in every year going back to WWII.

The only reason that Obama has approached temporary monthly budget "surplus" numbers is that we've now hidden the true cost of growth and spending in the Fed now with it buying up most of our debt and we're artificially holding the debt numbers low by "borrowing" from off-budget funds to offset it in order to hold the debt under the ceiling until that can't be done any longer and we have to raise it (again).

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 50,000 dollars pays for an entire month of cell
> phone service for over 1000 Americans.
>
> The price American taxpayers paid for the
> launching of one Israeli Iron Dome Missile. So
> much for Conservatives crying fiscal
> responsibility.


Could have bought a LOT of phones with the $4.13 BILLION that Clinton gave Israel in one year. Not counting the ~$3+ billion that he gave them in each of the other 8 years of his term. What's that add up to Gerr? Somewhere around ~$25 BILLION?

I bet Hillary can top him. Netanyahu, Peres, and Livi all like her... a lot. Much more so than those pesky Progressives. lol

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:

> You mean the surplus that didnt exist? That
> surplus literally disappeared the second he left
> office, it was nothing more than creative book
> keeping. How much of the debt was paid down
> during Clintons term? The answer is 0.
>
> Im not even going to address how asinine of a
> comment it is to say Obama is on track to get a
> surplus........

Really? All that crap and fortunes and debt and the rest of it is all on paper and doesnt really exist. Its all creative book keeping and an illusion. To say that his comment is asinine is to bend the facts yourself. The Debt is shrinking, has been for awhile and there is nothing you can say to disprove it.

404 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
>
> > You mean the surplus that didnt exist? That
> > surplus literally disappeared the second he
> left
> > office, it was nothing more than creative book
> > keeping. How much of the debt was paid down
> > during Clintons term? The answer is 0.
> >
> > Im not even going to address how asinine of a
> > comment it is to say Obama is on track to get a
> > surplus........
>
> Really? All that crap and fortunes and debt and
> the rest of it is all on paper and doesnt really
> exist. Its all creative book keeping and an
> illusion. To say that his comment is asinine is
> to bend the facts yourself. The Debt is
> shrinking, has been for awhile and there is
> nothing you can say to disprove it.

Yes that national debt that goes up every single second is shrinking.........

Spending hasnt been cut, increases were just slowed. We havent even had the trillions of new Obamacare spending kick in yet whose debt belongs to Obama.

The only thing more asinine then him claiming Obama is going to have a surplus is you defending it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the balls is where they have us. Just consider
> their so called "Iron Dome." I think we were
> paying 50,000 dollars per missile they were firing
> off against some ragtag 300 dollar rockets Hamas
> was shooting.
>
> American taxpayers funded 50,000 dollars a piece
> for that bullshit. A full years salary just
> because Hamas popped off an unguided bottle
> rocket. They got us by the balls and retards Young
> Carmudgeon thinks its all hunky dory, made of
> money with 16 trillion in debt and furloughs for
> our service members.

You're getting scared, Gerry. Scared that the liberal Democrats are going to be supplanted by people like me- people who actually want what's best for the country, not what's best for ideological purposes.

Tell me, how much money do we give to the Palestinians? Oh wait... that won't fit your little agenda.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

404 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? All that crap and fortunes and debt and
> the rest of it is all on paper and doesnt really
> exist. Its all creative book keeping and an
> illusion. To say that his comment is asinine is
> to bend the facts yourself. The Debt is
> shrinking, has been for awhile and there is
> nothing you can say to disprove it.

It's shrinking because of the sequester, which has caused a government surplus. Regardless, it's shrunk by a grand total of... $35 billion. $35 billion with a $16 trillion debt is nothing.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Facts suck for ideologues Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> The one-year Clinton budget "surplus" was
> directly a result of an accounting manipulation
> (the transfer of debt to intra-governmental
> accounts) and on the revenue side mostly a result
> of the windfall from capital gains during the
> (artificial) dot.com boom after Clinton
> LOWERED capital gains rates. The source
> for which disappeared when the inflated value of
> the market crashed prior to Bush taking over.
> That's what happened to it. There was no true
> surplus - the deficit has continued to grow in
> every year going back to WWII.
>
> The only reason that Obama has approached
> temporary monthly budget "surplus" numbers is that
> we've now hidden the true cost of growth and
> spending in the Fed now with it buying up most of
> our debt and we're artificially holding the debt
> numbers low by "borrowing" from off-budget funds
> to offset it in order to hold the debt under the
> ceiling until that can't be done any longer and we
> have to raise it (again).

Don't tell them the truth, it's not convenient. Just believe what you're supposed to believe. Obama is a great leader and inspiring speaker, all conservatives are in the GOP, and all people who oppose gay "marriage" are bigoted morons, especially when they oppose other parts of the tolerant progressive agenda.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Young Carmudgeon, you want to know the difference between a man like me and a man like you?

A man like me was born a leader, born with principles and ideals he can espouse. A man like you was never sure of himself. Has idea's and affiliations that are not in line with the facts and integrity. A man like you has never depended on the content if his character because of a lack thereof but instead whatever facade you think can be the most effective and influential.

I experience men like you every day. On one hand I can see you as clear as day, on the other hand I am completely lost on why it is you are the way you are.

We're not politicians running for public office, but even if we were, I'd beat you there too.

So do us both a favor, when your positions don't line up with freedom, justice and the national interest, don't pretend they do. You're only fooling yourself.

Liberal Logic 26 Wrote:
-
>
> Yes that national debt that goes up every single
> second is shrinking.........
>
> Spending hasnt been cut, increases were just
> slowed. We havent even had the trillions of new
> Obamacare spending kick in yet whose debt belongs
> to Obama.
>
> The only thing more asinine then him claiming
> Obama is going to have a surplus is you defending
> it.


Yes the national debt is shrinking. Has been for a while. You can deny it but its been reported in the LA times, Business week and a myriad of other places. The only thing funnier about you attacking Obama over the Deficit is the fat that a lot of "wealth" on paper and speculative. That its all BS fabrication and so much partisan posturing. You are an idiot who believes in illusion and smoke and mirrors and leverages that fear mongering into brow beating others into what you want to do with that BS and smoke and mirrors. Your shit stinks and whats worse you are trying to smear it on others.

the non-partisan budget referee slashed its deficit forecast for the current fiscal year by $203 billion from estimates made in February to $642 billion - making it the smallest budget shortfall since 2008.

The CBO said the deficit will fall to $378 billion by 2015 with no congressional action

So much for your sequester BS line. Nice try tho.

404 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the non-partisan budget referee slashed its
> deficit forecast for the current fiscal year by
> $203 billion from estimates made in February to
> $642 billion - making it the smallest budget
> shortfall since 2008.
>
> The CBO said the deficit will fall to $378 billion
> by 2015 with no congressional action
>
> So much for your sequester BS line. Nice try tho.


Robert Farley, FACTCHECK.ORG LAST UPDATED: Thursday, August 1, 2013, 12:32 PM

In recent speeches, President Obama has repeatedly claimed that “our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.” The White House says he’s referring to the decline in the deficit as a percentage of the nation’s economy from 2009 to 2012. But that’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction in 60 years. It fell at a faster rate from 2004 to 2007.

Obama has dropped the talking point into no fewer than five speeches focused on “Jobs for the Middle Class” during the course of a week.

July 30 in Tennessee: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

July 24, in Illinois: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

July 25, in Missouri: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

July 25, in Florida: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

July 27, weekly address: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

It sounds like an impressive accomplishment to bolster the president’s case that the economy is getting better. And if the official White House transcripts are any indication, it is a reliable applause line.

To back it up, the White House press office points to historical data showing that deficits, as a percentage of gross domestic product, fell from 10.1 percent in 2009 to 7 percent in 2012. (See Table 1.2.) That’s a 3.1 percentage point drop, and the last time the U.S. saw a larger drop over an equivalent period of time was 1946 to 1949, when the deficit went from 7.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of 0.2 percent of GDP (a change of 7.4 percentage points), White House spokesman Bobby Whithorne wrote to us in an email.

To be sure, that is a marked drop in the deficit. But it’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction — which speaks to relative speed. That may sound like a mathematical technicality, but it reveals a large contextual difference.

Due to the recession, the deficit as a percentage of GDP spiked in 2009 to a level not seen since the mid-1940s. So it had further to fall than usual.

When Obama took office in 2009, he inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion. He added another $200 billion in deficit spending to that. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit in fiscal year 2009 came to 10.1 percent. That’s by far the highest percentage over the last 60 years (you have to go back to the World War II years between 1942 to 1945 to see higher figures). Over the last 60 years, deficits as a percentage of the GDP have averaged 2.4 percent. The deficit was 3.2 percent in 2008, the year before Obama took office; and it was 1.2 percent the year before that. In other words, it had a long way to drop from 2009.

“Think about it this way,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote to us in an email. “I like to compare budget numbers to diets. Bob weighs 400 pounds and loses 60 pounds in a year. Ralph is 210 pounds and loses 40 pounds in a year. Bob has lost more weight than Ralph, but Ralph is losing it faster, at a 19% rate versus a 15% rate.”

Ellis noted, correctly, that the deficit as a percentage of GDP fell 31 percent from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012. But he pointed to two other four-year periods when the deficit fell at a faster rate — in fact, more than twice as fast:

The rate of deficit reduction was 64 percent from fiscal 1993 to fiscal 1996, when the deficit fell from 3.9 percent of GDP to 1.4 percent.

Similarly, the rate dropped 66 percent from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2007, when the deficit went from 3.5 percent of GDP to 1.2 percent.

“So anyone can play with the numbers,” Ellis said. “Obviously, it’s a significant reduction. But let’s face it there was a lot to reduce. The deficit was morbidly obese.”

Indeed, the numbers can be sliced many different ways. The White House chose a four-year window for its comparison, but the deficit as a percentage of GDP has fallen more over shorter periods of time. For example, it fell 3.2 percentage points in 1969 (from a deficit of 2.9 percent in 1968 to a surplus of 0.3 percent of GDP in 1969).

This chart gives a fuller picture of deficits over the last 20 years. (Note: The years showing as negative numbers are years of budget surpluses.)



Joshua Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan, grassroots organization that seeks to educate the public about federal budget issues, told us that regardless of the wording, it’s a fact that the deficit is dropping rapidly.

In fact, although the White House didn’t cite it, the newly released mid-year projection from the White House Office of Management and Budget for the 2013 fiscal year shows that due to rising revenues, the 2013 deficit is now projected to be $759 billion — $214 billion lower than the $973 billion deficit projected in the original budget. As a percentage of GDP, the 2013 deficit is now projected to equal 4.7 percent. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects an even lower 2013 deficit of $642 billion, or 4 percent of GDP. That’s still above the level in 2008 (or any year since 1992), but it’s substantially lower than 2009. (Even if those projections pan out, however, Obama’s talking point wouldn’t be correct.)

As we noted in our latest “Obama’s Numbers” piece, budget estimates show federal spending for the current fiscal year running 6.7 percent above the levels that Obama inherited when he first took office. Obama’s spending increases have been far more modest than his predecessor’s. Federal outlays increased by 33 percent in Bush’s first term (comparing actual spending for fiscal 2005 with that for fiscal 2001, which was the last year for which Bill Clinton set spending levels). And spending rose another 34 percent in Bush’s final term, even after subtracting Obama’s $203 billion from fiscal 2009.

But Gordon warns not to give too much credit to Obama or Congress for the drop in the deficit. That’s mostly due to the growth — albeit slow — of the economy, bringing the government more revenue than expected, he said. The CBO says the increased revenue is also due to tax increases, most notably the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the higher rates enacted on upper-income taxpayers.

“That’s allowing deficits to come down,” Gordon said. “The deficit is not shrinking only, or even mostly, because of the actions of Congress or the president.”

Nor has Obama or Congress taken action to solve the long-term deficit crisis facing the nation due to an aging population that will cause the cost of programs like Social Security and Medicare to soar in coming decades.

“They are reducing the deficit in the short term, but the drivers of the long-term increases in the deficit have not been substantially altered by any action of the president or Congress,” Gordon said.

It’s also important to note that deficits are one-year figures, and should not be confused with the national debt, which is a sum of the cumulative effect of yearly deficits. As we noted recently, given current deficit projections, it’s nearly certain that the debt will more than double during the Obama presidency.

Factcheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. Based in Philadelphia, Factcheck monitors the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Its goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding. Find a list of Factcheck.org funders here.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/Factcheck_Obama_deficit_claim_not_accurate.html#I8ctUyUu1odZOoD4.99


tl/dr - Obama's full of shit. As usual.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Carmudgeon, you want to know the difference
> between a man like me and a man like you?
>
> A man like me was born a leader, born with
> principles and ideals he can espouse. A man like
> you was never sure of himself. Has idea's and
> affiliations that are not in line with the facts
> and integrity. A man like you has never depended
> on the content if his character because of a lack
> thereof but instead whatever facade you think can
> be the most effective and influential.
>
> I experience men like you every day. On one hand
> I can see you as clear as day, on the other hand I
> am completely lost on why it is you are the way
> you are.
>
> We're not politicians running for public office,
> but even if we were, I'd beat you there too.
>
> So do us both a favor, when your positions don't
> line up with freedom, justice and the national
> interest, don't pretend they do. You're only
> fooling yourself.

Bullshit. I've led my entire life, and I don't need people who clearly can't think for themselves telling me otherwise. Three-quarters of what you put out there is from the Daily Kos. You're a typical "tolerant progressive." I don't really give a shit what a loser like you thinks. Spell it correctly, by the way. It's Curmudgeon, not Carmudgeon. Carmudgeon isn't a word. I see you for exactly what you are- a liar and a cheat. You have never expressed a single independent thought on this board, regardless of what you say otherwise.You're an arrogant son of a bitch who has appointed himself a God in the past, which is beyond hubris- it's covering up other deficiencies as well.

My positions do line up with the national interest, freedom, and justice. I support the Constitution, not what someone's interpretation of the Constitution is. You deny that Obama is violating the Constitution and lying to the public. He is. You're a partisan hack and can't deal with the idea that the man you voted for twice is just like you- an arrogant liar. I voted for him twice as well. I couldn't bear the thought of Romney-Ryan or McCain-Palin. He was the least of the many evils. I'm sick of dealing with your far-left shit every day as well. I question how much you actually believe vs. how much you spew. I didn't think anybody could be as stupid as you are, but it's the truth. You think I put up a facade? Really? Now you're just proving how stupid you are.

You're telling me that my ideas and affiliations don't line up with truth and integrity? Tell me, how many times have you called out Obama for anything? A total of zero. How many times have I called out Democrats and Republicans, saying that they're both horrible for this country? Dozens. I can make up my own mind. You need people telling you what to think, which is exactly why you parrot whatever the bullshit of the day is. As for the truth, I make my decisions based on a series of liberal and conservative sources, not just what people tell me to think. Yes, I read The Blaze, but I read the Daily Kos and the Center for American Progress, not to mention the New York Times. Then, I read relatively non-partisan sources. I investigate every possible angle before I try to make a decision, something that you don't get. What most people won't tell you is that the much-maligned Obamacare is the exact same plan Republicans supported in 1995.

This is a public forum board. You are a liar, a cheat, and a scumbag. I call it as I see it. You call out Republicans for being scumbags, but you don't talk about the liar in the White House. There are many scumbags on both sides of the aisle, and to deny it is denying the truth.

So, in summary:

1. You're a piece of shit.
2. You have no capacity for independent thought.
3. If you continue this nonsense, I'm going to break out my eesh personality.
4. You're making incorrect assumptions that reveal how little you actually know about anything.

I'm done dealing with you. If you want to spew nonsense all over this board, go ahead. I will continue to smack you down at every turn.

_____________
We are all Eesh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2013 08:37PM by Young Curmudgeon.

Let me simplify it for our resident idiot.

This is what he thinks I am.

_____________
We are all Eesh.
Attachments:

This is what I really am. Intelligent people know the difference.

_____________
We are all Eesh.
Attachments:

You think Obama got a fair shake during his presidency? George W. Bush couldn't even be criticized for the first 6 years of his disastrous presidency because it was deemed unpatriotic to criticize the president, you were demonized for it. That's how much public support for no apparent reason other than he was president he enjoyed. What did he do? Used it to plunder the fucking country. These fucking Republicans have done all they fucking can do from day one to obstruct this mans presidency therefore the nations progress. How do you expect me in a climate such as that, the product of these fools, to have the opportunity to criticize a president whom has been victimized to this extent.

I didn't make this country as divided as it is, they did. Fuck them.

And to tell you the God honest truth, fuck Democrats too. I would throw out this whole God forsaken two party system if I could and have some true democratic representation with a multitude of parties and candidates.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm the anti Republican. I am good in the face of evil. Evil that threatens to destroy my country with it's incompetent, corrupt, fascist fucked up agenda.

My gripe with you is you like to swing on that fence with a better than thou attitude like you're are objective. There is nothing objective about the damage the modern Republican party has done and is on a mission to continue to do to this country. There's no equilibrium there between the parties. Its the country either goes to immediate hell or we try to prolong its existence as we know it today. There are the idiots that support that corrosive monstrosity the GOP that are nothing more than suicidal and then there's you. The morons that pretend you are "objective" and the GOP isn't in a complete state of chaotic incompetence.

Who are you talking to?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My gripe with you is you like to swing on that
> fence with a better than thou attitude like you're
> are objective. There is nothing objective about
> the damage the modern Republican party has done
> and is on a mission to continue to do to this
> country. There's no equilibrium there between the
> parties. Its the country either goes to immediate
> hell or we try to prolong its existence as we know
> it today. There are the idiots that support that
> corrosive monstrosity the GOP that are nothing
> more than suicidal and then there's you. The
> morons that pretend you are "objective" and the
> GOP isn't in a complete state of chaotic
> incompetence.

I am objective, and the GOP is incompetent. So are the Democrats. The GOP wants to do things that are horrible, and when the Democrats had control, they did nothing to address the issues. I hate both parties as well, but the two-party system is a necessary part of our Republic. It's impossible to not have a two party system as long as you have an electoral college. The Electoral College is a good system, however. Unfortunately, a fringe element wants to make it a very bad system.

By the way, the fact is that being objective is the only way to understand why each side does what it does. Formulating your own opinions is valuable to being an informed voter.

For the first time in about 5 months, the Daily Kos wrote something I agree with. Here's the link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229087/-15-things-everyone-would-know-if-there-were-a-liberal-media

By the way, if you don't think I'm disgusted by the GOP's war on organized labor, you're completely and utterly wrong.

_____________
We are all Eesh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2013 10:55PM by Young Curmudgeon.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who are you talking to?

He's talking to me in a roundabout way.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You think Obama got a fair shake during his
> presidency? George W. Bush couldn't even be
> criticized for the first 6 years of his disastrous
> presidency because it was deemed unpatriotic to
> criticize the president, you were demonized for
> it. That's how much public support for no
> apparent reason other than he was president he
> enjoyed. What did he do? Used it to plunder the
> fucking country. These fucking Republicans have
> done all they fucking can do from day one to
> obstruct this mans presidency therefore the
> nations progress. How do you expect me in a
> climate such as that, the product of these fools,
> to have the opportunity to criticize a president
> whom has been victimized to this extent.
>
> I didn't make this country as divided as it is,
> they did. Fuck them.

Obama has been softballed by the media. George W. Bush was the worst president this country has had in the last 85 years, and the only reason he isn't he worst in 100 is Warren Harding. Of course it was unpatriotic to criticize the president, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK BUSH GOT RE-ELECTED!? Fear and nothing else. Kerry was a horrible candidate, and I'm sorry that the Democrats put him up. At least Edwards would've appealed to the South, which may have won the election. The fact that he's a horrible man aside.

Obama has divided this country as well. His crowning achievement passed without a single GOP vote, even from two GOP Senators who thought that the bill was a mess. These two Senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, were basically the furthest left you could get and still be called a Republican. Obama never had the qualifications for the job, and his performance has suffered as a result. I wanted Hillary Clinton or Bill Richardson, but I didn't get either of them. Rather, I got someone who had no experience in an executive position. But he had a Harvard Law Degree, and that's all a lot of idiots cared about.

The GOP has been obstructionist for years. This is just another phase of it.

I actually don't think we're as far apart as it seems, but I choose to think about it and see it in a different way.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Finally, I want to address this graphic.

The increasing income disparity coincides with the fall of organized labor. I wonder why that is...

_____________
We are all Eesh.
Attachments:

404 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes the national debt is shrinking. Has been for a
> while. You can deny it but its been reported in
> the LA times, Business week and a myriad of other
> places. The only thing funnier about you
> attacking Obama over the Deficit is the fat that a
> lot of "wealth" on paper and speculative. That
> its all BS fabrication and so much partisan
> posturing. You are an idiot who believes in
> illusion and smoke and mirrors and leverages that
> fear mongering into brow beating others into what
> you want to do with that BS and smoke and mirrors.
> Your shit stinks and whats worse you are trying
> to smear it on others.


By your logic if you look at a 100k dollar car and then buy a 50k dollar car you just saved 50k even though you have 50k less than when you started.

Im not sure if youre delusional, on drugs, or just a complete partisan hack but the national debt has been going up every second for decades. Im not sure what fantasy land you have to live in to say the national debt is shrinking.

Your dumbass thinks that adding to the debt every year is somehow shrinking it because you didnt add as much as the year before. Thats not shrinking the debt, thats growing the debt you just arent adding to it as fast as you used too.

The debt is shrinking to the tune of 35 billion dollars. Which is nothing, all in all.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank God we have a Democrat in office now though.
> We are acting in what are the interests of the
> USA first and foremost. You Republicans are
> complete idiots that like to outsource our foreign
> policy and sacrifice our military to Israel.


Next you'll be talking about "neocons". Then "Zionists". Won't be long before you admit yourself as the obviously antisemitic Nazi wannabe asshole you are.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, I want to address this graphic.
>
> The increasing income disparity coincides with the
> fall of organized labor. I wonder why that is...

You might find this article interesting, YC. It's from the UK Spectator, which leans right (Tory). Still, it's a slightly different perspective.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2013/07/yes-pay-of-the-1-per-cent-is-unfair-but-worse-its-rational/

I'm curious what you'd propose to address inequality? Aside from gouging the rich, which aside from its own moral issues (when's enough enough?) has diminishing returns from an economic perspective, I haven't really seen alot of solid proposals (not from you but from the left in general). Of course the right doesn't like to touch the issue because (I'm guessing) we sort of feel like it's intrinsically giving in to the left to mention the disparity at all.

SuckaDick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thank God we have a Democrat in office now
> though.
> > We are acting in what are the interests of the
> > USA first and foremost. You Republicans are
> > complete idiots that like to outsource our
> foreign
> > policy and sacrifice our military to Israel.
>
>
> Next you'll be talking about "neocons". Then
> "Zionists". Won't be long before you admit
> yourself as the obviously antisemitic Nazi wannabe
> asshole you are.


Fuck you Jew, get out of my country you parasite.

I am sure they would run one about the leading republican candidate, if there were one. however, the repubs haven't finished digging through the closets to find some old white guy you never heard of.

Road Musings Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious what you'd propose to address
> inequality?

There's no real way to address economic inequality unless you examine the factors causing it. Those factors include lack of education and lack of specialized knowledge. If you want to address inequality, you have to address the inequality in education, but through legitimate means- not affirmative action. Now, that means things like renovating crumbling urban schools, as well as getting well-qualified people into inner cities. Also, that means eliminating standardized testing, which doesn't do anything positive (contrary to No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top).

We need to teach people information, not how to take a test. The fundamental idea of school vouchers is not a bad one, but the idea of charter schools is a waste of time, as well as a thinly veiled union busting measure. Studies indicate that charter schools perform no better (or even worse) than the public schools they replace. Attempting to show them as anything better is flagrantly dishonest.

To reduce inequality, you have to let the workers have some power. When you have a very weak organized labor system, then the workers are basically beholden to the company. When you let the laborers organize, they have some power over the company. Of course, this system cannot be abused, which it has been in the past (e.g. the rubber rooms of NYC public schools). Unions are (like it or not) one of the reasons that economic disparity was less prior to the change over to a service-based economy.

But the primary way to deal with inequality starts with education. We need to make a good education available to all, not just those fortunate enough to live in a district like FCPS. FCPS isn't a good system, but relative to the rest of the country, it is.

_____________
We are all Eesh.

You know this is a bad idea when even Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell call BS on their own network for doing it. lol

I think it would be acceptable if she were to star in a new sticom about her life, prefer she would then star with James Spader or Andrew McCarthy. How about remake of Three's Company where three friends move into the White House? They could hire Mick Jagger to play the landlord Mr. Furley.

Hillary will have it easy because Obama has turned the economy around and republicans haven't accomplish anything.

Econ 101 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary will have it easy because Obama has turned
> the economy around and republicans haven't
> accomplish anything.


Ironic that someone using Economic 101 would think that (1) Obama's lack of any coherent economic policy beyond reading Krugman's column and making speeches about teachers and firefighters has had much of anything to do with the typical economic recovery cycle, which remains the longest and slowest ever, (2) that sub-2% growth and +7% unemployment, record fod stamp use, etc., and (3) living off of a credit card and deferring costs to future obligations, represents accomplishments.

Who is Barry? I don't get it?

Good job Barry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the typical economic
> recovery cycle, which remains the longest and
> slowest ever

compared to, um, well....the one and only before it?

Obama has taken care of your shit again, get over it.

.

VGxYM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good job Barry Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the typical economic
> > recovery cycle, which remains the longest and
> > slowest ever
>
> compared to, um, well....the one and only before
> it?
>
> Obama has taken care of your shit again, get over
> it.

Amen! The usual cycle of republicans trashing the economy like Bush and a democrat like Obama coming in an cleaning the mess up.

Obama is no Bill Clinton, but certainly far better than Bush and previous republicans on the economy.

Ah, this is why turdblew's been gone - sucking at the Hilldebeast's cankles.

GOPGOPGOPGOP!!!!11!!!!!

Numbnutz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, this is why turdblew's been gone - sucking at
> the Hilldebeast's cankles.
>
> GOPGOPGOPGOP!!!!11!!!!!


WTF?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary Clinton will destroy the modern construct
> of the Republican Party. It will turn on itself
> and may split into two different party
> affiliations. The Republican Party is not
> sustainable and the election of another Democratic
> president will only speed up its demise. Hillary
> Clinton has the highest probability of providing
> for that continuum.
>
> She will inflict the final death blow on all that
> you have come to know the GOP as being.
>
> You are a dying breed, we're just trying to make
> the process quicker and less painful.


I love that kind of talk! I cant wait to see the look on the faces of the conservitards when she wins the election.