I see Emporer Obama is at it again with his latest dictate - this one on immigration. How do all you recent grads feel about competing with even more young people - now "legalized" of sorts - by Obama? With our emporer in charge, who needs Congress. Silly me. I thought our legislative body was supposed to debate and create law. Welcome to the new world I guess - Obamaworld. Ick.

Well, at least someone in Washington is willing to work and move the country forward. Congress worked 9 days total last month and accomplished nothing.

Exactly. Obama has given up on making the Republicans happy. He tried and they didn't move an inch to compromise on anything. Now he's just throwing in the towel and doing whatever it takes to move things forward. He doesn't have much to lose. Those folks aren't going to vote for him anyway.

As I understand it, they will receive 2-year work permits and all their personal information will be entered into a database so they (and their parents) can be rounded up at the end of the two years.

I have nothing against patriotic people who are productive and love this country. When I was at 7-11 once I saw an older arab woman who worked there give some piece of no skilled latino crap for not speaking english. She said this was America where people spoke english. I had a shit eating grin for days. It made me proud to be an American, and what our country offers people who are passionate about becoming (legal) citizens.

Obozo, simply is on his way out. He's pretty much cemented a legacy that made Cater's look good and being a one term President. Not sure what Romney has in store, but the general consensus that he is not anti-business might help things. People are bracing for these damned Obamacare costs no wonder the market is so weak. At this point all he can do is pander with false promises and play the race card. Too bad, the only thing that was interesting about him is he wasn't 'another old white guy' as prez. I am a Ron Paul guy, but I sure as hell plan to vote for who ever is running against Obozo.

I know this area is diverse, and some people might have an issue with that, but tell me where the hell else you have so many freakin awesome restaurants?!?

They are probably betting that after this election the issue will be resolved so that they don't have to use any database to "round them up". The political power of the Hispanics is getting to be such that any president or Congress will not be able to ignore them soon. They will have to give some kind of amnesty. It's coming one way or another (especially for people who are educated here and/or were brought here as minors by their parents). It just makes sense.

Romney will be a one term president also. Bill Clinton seems to be counting on that already. The vote is just about general unhappiness about the way the economy is going. Romney won't be able to do any better with the economy. The problem is way bigger than who the president is. There will be instability for a while based on problems beyond the president's control (like Europe). Romney will make sure the rich don't suffer though.

That born on American soil was meant for blacks way back post civil war. I understand it hasn't been changed, fine. Some kind of resolution does need to be put into place. Serving in the armed forces, etc. I am cool with. I just want some kind of law in place. I am tired of seeing sketchy presidential directives to justice dept. enforcement and other outside the bounds of normal law enacting taking place. Another example is the justice dept. demonizing Arizona for mirroring and have the audacity to enforce federal laws defined and the state level.

This administration has been nothing but a pathetic joke with every campaign promise made in 2007/8. This joke of a president needs to go.

I cannot speculate on 2016...but I do know if Hillary is gearing to run...and speaking as a conservative/libertarian type...she isn't the dope obama has proven to be. I will certainly disagree with some of her policies, but I feel she has her shit together if something bad happens.

And another thing to happen. Hillary running against someone like Rubio, Rand Paul (longshot just hoping there), or Christy would be 1,000 times more interesting than the 08 or 12 elections.

giving up on compromise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Obama has given up on making the
> Republicans happy. He tried and they didn't move
> an inch to compromise on anything. Now he's just
> throwing in the towel and doing whatever it takes
> to move things forward. He doesn't have much to
> lose. Those folks aren't going to vote for him
> anyway.


Bwwwaahahahaha. When was it that he tried? The first two years when they railroaded everything through that they could and basically said screw you to the minority? Or last year when he started his campaign (like he'd ever stopped) and began running against Congress and the Republicans and putting out bogus crap like the "American Jobs Act" that he knows won't even pass his own Senate? This year? lol

Get F'ing real. The Dems in the Senate have done nothing other than to try to avoid anything controversial from coming to the floor so they're not on the line going into this election.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> giving up on compromise Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Exactly. Obama has given up on making the
> > Republicans happy. He tried and they didn't
> move
> > an inch to compromise on anything. Now he's
> just
> > throwing in the towel and doing whatever it
> takes
> > to move things forward. He doesn't have much
> to
> > lose. Those folks aren't going to vote for him
> > anyway.
>
>
> Bwwwaahahahaha. When was it that he tried? The
> first two years when they railroaded everything
> through that they could and basically said screw
> you to the minority? Or last year when he started
> his campaign (like he'd ever stopped) and began
> running against Congress and the Republicans and
> putting out bogus crap like the "American Jobs
> Act" that he knows won't even pass his own Senate?
> This year? lol
>
> Get F'ing real. The Dems in the Senate have done
> nothing other than to try to avoid anything
> controversial from coming to the floor so they're
> not on the line going into this election.


Now that's disingenuous as Obama moved away from Single payer healthcare, which is what Dems wanted, to this hybrid thing that Republicans helped write and then voted against.

Or how about the whole debt ceiling fiasco that ended up costing the United States it's AAA Credit Rating? Republicans, as has been true at every vote, have cared more about their party then the USA.

I could point out again and again where Republicans acted like obstructionists again and again. Put Politics and Party nonsense above the welfare of the American people and the Middle class.

giving up on compromise Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Exactly. Obama has given up on making the
> Republicans happy. He tried and they didn't move
> an inch to compromise on anything. Now he's just
> throwing in the towel and doing whatever it takes
> to move things forward. He doesn't have much to
> lose. Those folks aren't going to vote for him
> anyway.

Yea they were the ones who wouldnt compromise........

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Now that's disingenuous as Obama moved away from
> Single payer healthcare, which is what Dems
> wanted, to this hybrid thing that Republicans
> helped write and then voted against.
>
> Or how about the whole debt ceiling fiasco that
> ended up costing the United States it's AAA Credit
> Rating? Republicans, as has been true at every
> vote, have cared more about their party then the
> USA.
>
> I could point out again and again where
> Republicans acted like obstructionists again and
> again. Put Politics and Party nonsense above the
> welfare of the American people and the Middle
> class.


Boy, you're just lapping up that KoolAid huh? lol

They didn't move away from anything as far as the AHCA. They rammed it though. Go back and look at the votes. They didn't have to compromise, they controlled both houses. That was what all of the bitching was about when they did it. The only reason they moved away from single payer/universal health care is that even they understood that it was unrealistic and that they couldn't do it at a practical level or in a way that even with BS accounting would look like it wasn't going to break the bank.

The debt ceiling fiasco was a manufactured crisis. There was never any threat of the US not paying accruing debt and the government has shut down any number of times without the world ending. And, specifically, the credit rating wasn't lowered as a result of the Republican resistance, it was lowered because the deal cut didn't go far enough to address debt. From the August 5, 2011 S&P rating memorandum regarding the downgrade:

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

That is, not because the Republicans didn't want to increase the debt; rather, that there was no progress toward getting our house in order. Furthermore, prior to the Republicans making it an issue and taking the House in the 2010, Obama hadn't even recognized the debt as an issue. The Administration was merrily creating its budget with no regard to cost or the debt.

So can the talking points and get real.

The fact that Obama is a total failure and dictator-wannabe has exactly what to do with Fairfax?

FYI - if you are going to start anti-Obama thread #176 on FFXU, could you learn to spell emperor right?

Josephine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see Emporer Obama is at it again with his latest
> dictate - this one on immigration. How do all you
> recent grads feel about competing with even more
> young people - now "legalized" of sorts - by
> Obama? With our emporer in charge, who needs
> Congress. Silly me. I thought our legislative
> body was supposed to debate and create law.
> Welcome to the new world I guess - Obamaworld.
> Ick.

I find it interesting that Obama's ephipany on this and other issues have all come within 6 months of the election.

Gay marriage ok
illegal amnesty ok

He's really showing his true liberal colors. Just wait and see what he does when he's not worried about being re-elected.

Liberal Vote - Check
Moderate Vote- Check
Independents with a Brain Vote - Check
People Who Understand Economics Vote - Check
People with Double Digit IQ's - Check
Seniors Vote - Check
Labor/Union Vote - Check
Cops Vote - Check
Firemen Vote - Check
Teachers Vote - Check
LGBT Vote - Check
Hispanic Vote - Check
Muslim Vote - Check
African American Vote - Check
People Who Can Spell Vote - Check
Folks Who Can't Stand Boehner Crying Vote - Check

GOP on Bath Salts Supporting a Transvaginal Pipeline Across America Vote - Who F'n cares!

When are the decade old Bush era tax cuts going to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help America - is it 5 years after the global economy crashes or 10 or 20?

Obama hates straight white men. Always has, always will.

King Who Rulz Over Viscount Monkeyfart D'Assface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Vote - Check
> Moderate Vote- Check
> Independents with a Brain Vote - Check
> People Who Understand Economics Vote - Check
> People with Double Digit IQ's - Check
> Seniors Vote - Check
> Labor/Union Vote - Check
> Cops Vote - Check
> Firemen Vote - Check
> Teachers Vote - Check
> LGBT Vote - Check
> Hispanic Vote - Check
> Muslim Vote - Check
> African American Vote - Check
> People Who Can Spell Vote - Check
> Folks Who Can't Stand Boehner Crying Vote - Check
>
> GOP on Bath Salts Supporting a Transvaginal
> Pipeline Across America Vote - Who F'n cares!
>
> When are the decade old Bush era tax cuts going to
> stimulate the economy, create jobs, and help
> America - is it 5 years after the global economy
> crashes or 10 or 20?
Attachments:

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, at least someone in Washington is willing to
> work and move the country forward. Congress worked
> 9 days total last month and accomplished nothing.

which is why I deserve your vote this November so I can keep up the good work I am doing.
Attachments:

I could try to argue with the Republican contingent in this thread but it won't do any good. They have already resorted to name calling, which in itself is a sign that their arguments are so weak they put no faith in them.

No, the answer is to simply drag the frightened and paranoid Republicans into the future, kicking and screaming, and prove to them that the future isn't as scary as they think.

Am I being condescending? I suppose it could be seen that way; but having an argument with a Conservative on the Internet is like trying to teach science to a cow.

Oh wait, that's a bad example as Republicans don't believe in science since God created the earth 5000 years ago. Guess I forgot that part.

In any case, once President Obama wins his reelection, we (Democrats) will show you that there is nothing to fear in progress.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 02:04PM by Ogien.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could try to argue with the Republican
> contingent in this thread but it won't do any
> good. They have already resorted to name calling,
> which in itself is a sign that their arguments are
> so weak they put no faith in them.
>
> No, the answer is to simply drag the frightened
> and paranoid Republicans into the future, kicking
> and screaming, and prove to them that the future
> isn't as scary as they think.
>
> Am I being condescending? I suppose it could be
> seen that way; but having an argument with a
> Conservative on the Internet is like trying to
> teach science to a cow.
>
> Oh wait, that's a bad example as Republicans don't
> believe in science since God created the earth
> 5000 years ago. Guess I forgot that part.
>
> In any case, once President Obama wins his
> reelection, we (Democrats) will show you that
> there is nothing to fear in progress.

Bullshit.

Gerry'sTruthSquad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Bullshit.


Let me guess. You're some sort of think-tank superstar. Right? I mean your argument is so well thought out and eloquent. LMAO

Edit: Thank you so much for proving my point for me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 02:18PM by Ogien.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry'sTruthSquad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
>
> Let me guess. You're some sort of think-tank
> superstar. Right? I mean your argument is so well
> thought out and eloquent. LMAO
>
> Edit: Thank you so much for proving my point for
> me.

Bullshit hit the nail right on the head in your case.
Now go and play on the Beltway. You're mommy's calling.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could try to argue with the Republican
> contingent in this thread but it won't do any
> good. They have already resorted to name calling,
> which in itself is a sign that their arguments are
> so weak they put no faith in them.
>
> No, the answer is to simply drag the frightened
> and paranoid Republicans into the future, kicking
> and screaming, and prove to them that the future
> isn't as scary as they think.
>
> Am I being condescending? I suppose it could be
> seen that way; but having an argument with a
> Conservative on the Internet is like trying to
> teach science to a cow.
>
> Oh wait, that's a bad example as Republicans don't
> believe in science since God created the earth
> 5000 years ago. Guess I forgot that part.
>

So in other words you can't argue against the actual facts versus talking points that Rachel and Ed told you to believe so now you have to fall back to trying to characterize conservatives all as bible thumping mouth breathers. That's about as accurate as portraying libs as all pot smoking burnouts. But keep thinking that... You'll wake up one morning in November as surprised as I was when Reagan crushed Carter who, as bad as they were, had better numbers at this point.


> In any case, once President Obama wins his
> reelection, we (Democrats) will show you that
> there is nothing to fear in progress.

Yeah, cause it's worked so well to date. lmao Is that from Mao or something the Khmer Rouge said? We know how much you guys like that kind of stuff. After the Great Purge will Most Blessed Leader Obama's reprogramming kamps be nice komrade? lol

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I could try to argue with the Republican
> > contingent in this thread but it won't do any
> > good. They have already resorted to name
> calling,
> > which in itself is a sign that their arguments
> are
> > so weak they put no faith in them.
> >
> > No, the answer is to simply drag the frightened
> > and paranoid Republicans into the future,
> kicking
> > and screaming, and prove to them that the
> future
> > isn't as scary as they think.
> >
> > Am I being condescending? I suppose it could be
> > seen that way; but having an argument with a
> > Conservative on the Internet is like trying to
> > teach science to a cow.
> >
> > Oh wait, that's a bad example as Republicans
> don't
> > believe in science since God created the earth
> > 5000 years ago. Guess I forgot that part.
> >
>
> So in other words you can't argue against the
> actual facts versus talking points that Rachel and
> Ed told you to believe so now you have to fall
> back to trying to characterize conservatives all
> as bible thumping mouth breathers. That's about
> as accurate as portraying libs as all pot smoking
> burnouts. But keep thinking that... You'll wake
> up one morning in November as surprised as I was
> when Reagan crushed Carter who, as bad as they
> were, had better numbers at this point.
>
>
> > In any case, once President Obama wins his
> > reelection, we (Democrats) will show you that
> > there is nothing to fear in progress.
>
> Yeah, cause it's worked so well to date. lmao Is
> that from Mao or something the Khmer Rouge said?
> We know how much you guys like that kind of stuff.
> After the Great Purge will Most Blessed Leader
> Obama's reprogramming kamps be nice komrade? lol


Wow, the lack of gray matter is astounding. In any case I don't know who Rachel or Ed are.

As for Communists? My dad was suffered getting shot when he fought the Commies in Budapest student uprising. So don't talk to me about Communists since you don't even know what a Communist actually is. To you it's just a Buzz-word that 50 years of American propaganda reinforced by talking point from Fox News, were drilled into your brain.

So take your Comrade bullshit and shove it up your mothers cunt. My family spilled blood fighting them, did yours? I didn't think so.

Mao was before my time but if he wasn't before yours then I feel sorry for you. There is nothing worse than an old fool who never learned anything in his extended stay on this planet. Just another mouth breather who checks his facts in his Bible.

I don't have to characterize Republicans as Bible thumpers and lunatics, they do that all by themselves.

Now, go get your shine-box.

King Who Rulz Over Viscount Monkeyfart D'Assface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> African American Vote - Check


You seem to take this one for granted. Almost 50% unemployment rate for young black males an he gives millions of jobs to illegals?

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for Communists? My dad was suffered getting
> shot when he fought the Commies in Budapest
> student uprising. So don't talk to me about
> Communists since you don't even know what a
> Communist actually is.

Maybe he doesn't know what Communists are, but I do.

I was at the border in Germany and saw the remains of a family that tried to escape Communism and didn't make it.

I was in the Navy before Fox News and understood that the Soviet Union truly believed that they could and would beat us militarily and economically.

I experienced the long deployments as we built toward Reagan's 600-ship Navy, which terrified the Communists and eventually brought them down without firing a shot.

So go ahead, tell us the story on how your father got himself shot. But don't think for one second that your young ass "knows" Communism.

Veteran Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > As for Communists? My dad was suffered getting
> > shot when he fought the Commies in Budapest
> > student uprising. So don't talk to me about
> > Communists since you don't even know what a
> > Communist actually is.
>
> Maybe he doesn't know what Communists are, but I
> do.
>
> I was at the border in Germany and saw the remains
> of a family that tried to escape Communism and
> didn't make it.
>
> I was in the Navy before Fox News and understood
> that the Soviet Union truly believed that they
> could and would beat us militarily and
> economically.
>
> I experienced the long deployments as we built
> toward Reagan's 600-ship Navy, which terrified the
> Communists and eventually brought them down
> without firing a shot.
>
> So go ahead, tell us the story on how your father
> got himself shot. But don't think for one second
> that your young ass "knows" Communism.

Spot on. I was in the Army (Intelligence) from 66-70 and
I too know the score. Saw it first hand in Nam. Later, I
did some coursework in college on the basics of Marxism so
I'd have an even better understanding. What gets me are
these punks who think they can suck Obama's ass
to prosperity when they're only setting us up for a Gulag.
Dumb. Really dumb.

"How do all you recent grads feel about competing with even more young people - now "legalized" of sorts - by Obama?"

I feel completely unaffected because those people, the "spics," to use a word more to your liking, don't have college degrees, at least not competitive degrees. I didn't get a degree to work menial labor, which is what a good majority of them will do.

Besides, illegal immigrants are coming to America less and less. Furthermore, if they want to bust their ass for shit pay, let them. I respect that. Maybe if people stopped sitting at home bitching about their president and started actually doing something to change the nation for themselves, this wouldn't be an issue. If you don't want them to take a shit job with shit pay, you take the job.

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

"The horse jumped over the fucking fence." - Kurt Vonnegut



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2012 03:42PM by Blurp.

Ogien Wrote:

> Wow, the lack of gray matter is astounding. In any
> case I don't know who Rachel or Ed are.


Yeah, I believe that as much as the rest of your BS, especially given your typical 'Fox News" comment below. You idiots give yourselves away too easily. lol

>
> As for Communists? My dad was suffered getting
> shot when he fought the Commies in Budapest
> student uprising. So don't talk to me about
> Communists since you don't even know what a
> Communist actually is. To you it's just a
> Buzz-word that 50 years of American propaganda
> reinforced by talking point from Fox News, were
> drilled into your brain.
>
> So take your Comrade bullshit and shove it up your
> mothers cunt. My family spilled blood fighting
> them, did yours? I didn't think so.
>
> Mao was before my time but if he wasn't before
> yours then I feel sorry for you. There is nothing
> worse than an old fool who never learned anything
> in his extended stay on this planet. Just another
> mouth breather who checks his facts in his Bible.
>
> I don't have to characterize Republicans as Bible
> thumpers and lunatics, they do that all by
> themselves.
>
> Now, go get your shine-box.

So, again, in other words, you have no substantive response to the facts raised above to refute your BS talking points. And this is the guy who, even though nobody had resorted to name=calling at that point, was saying:

> "They have already resorted to name calling,
> which in itself is a sign that their arguments are
> so weak they put no faith in them.
>

lmao!

Beyond that, you know nothing about me or my background yet, like a good lib who knows it all and fashions themselves so much smarter than everyone else, you proceed with complete confidence that you do. LOL! If you only knew. But in any case, save your typical feigned outrage as a way to avoid addressing substance for somebody else.

Having lost pretty much EVERYTHING to the Communists. Having to live among them for a number of years I think I know more about Communism than anything Mr. Navy Intelligence knows.

Were either of you "Communist Schollars" there when people were dragged out of their appartments, loaded up and taken away. Never to be heard from again? Oh, I forgot, you two learned everything about Communism in a book. That's just precious.

Fucking bullshitters who think they know everything.

If you truly knew anything you'd know that Obama is anything but a Communist. Quick, zip yourself up, your intelligence is showing and it ain't anything to be proud of.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the election, this has to do with you idiots calling ME a communist. I've lost too much in my life to allow someone who "read about it in a book" calling me a Communist.

You know NOTHING about Communism or US foreign policies of the time! You know what was taught to you. I know from experience.

Before you start your "bravery of being out of range" bravado, why don't you tell me why Voice of America was encouraging the Budapest uprising, why the American consulate was supporting the uprising (promising that the US will soon offer support). In the end the US did what it always does, it turned it's back on some very brave people who ended up massacred.

Oh, and just for your Information, I was thrilled that Reagan won. I supported Reagan and the Republican party until it was hijacked by backwoods lunatics.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could try to argue with the Republican
> contingent in this thread but it won't do any
> good. They have already resorted to name calling,
> which in itself is a sign that their arguments are
> so weak they put no faith in them.
>
> No, the answer is to simply drag the frightened
> and paranoid Republicans into the future, kicking
> and screaming, and prove to them that the future
> isn't as scary as they think.
>
> Am I being condescending? I suppose it could be
> seen that way; but having an argument with a
> Conservative on the Internet is like trying to
> teach science to a cow.
>
> Oh wait, that's a bad example as Republicans don't
> believe in science since God created the earth
> 5000 years ago. Guess I forgot that part.
>
> In any case, once President Obama wins his
> reelection, we (Democrats) will show you that
> there is nothing to fear in progress.

Radiophile/Weasel which ever one you are just shut the fuck up already. No one cares what you think. Youve never once demonstrated the smallest amount of intelligence. You dont use facts, you dont live in reality, you just spit out talking points then when you get challenged go off on tangents about how you cant educate someone. You prove time and time again you have no arguments and are just saying what youre supposed to say.

ENOUGH. If you cant defend anything or do any better than this stop spamming with your crap all the time. Go spend time with your kids

Vince alert!

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In any case, this has nothing to do with the
> election, this has to do with you idiots calling
> ME a communist. I've lost too much in my life to
> allow someone who "read about it in a book"
> calling me a Communist.
>

Uhhh dumbazz. Don't look now but nobody called you a communist. But tangent rant on bro!


> ...you just spit out talking points then when you
> get challenged go off on tangents about how you
> cant educate someone.

Exactly. You've seen this show before too huh?

Che G. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > In any case, this has nothing to do with the
> > election, this has to do with you idiots
> calling
> > ME a communist. I've lost too much in my life
> to
> > allow someone who "read about it in a book"
> > calling me a Communist.
> >
>
> Uhhh dumbazz. Don't look now but nobody called
> you a communist. But tangent rant on bro!
>
>
> > ...you just spit out talking points then when
> you
> > get challenged go off on tangents about how you
>
> > cant educate someone.
>
> Exactly. You've seen this show before too huh?

Read above, I was most definitely called "Komrade" which is slang for Communist.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read above, I was most definitely called "Komrade"
> which is slang for Communist.


Once again demonstrating that you're not as smart as you think you are:

"Comrade means "friend", "colleague", or "ally". The word comes from French camarade and this French word has it roots in the Italian term camera respectively camerata. The term is frequently used by left-wing organizations around the globe. "Comrade" has often become a stock phrase and form of address. This word has its regional equivalents available in many languages.

The political usage of the term was inspired by the French Revolution. Upon abolishing the titles of nobility, and the terms monsieur and madame (literally, "my lord" and "my lady"), the revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men and citoyenne for women (both meaning "citizen") to refer to each other. The deposed King Louis XVI, for instance, was referred to as Citoyen Louis Capet to emphasize his loss of privilege.

When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-19th century, socialists began to look for an egalitarian alternative to terms like "Mister", "Miss", or "Missus". They chose "comrade" as their preferred term of address. In German, this practice was started in 1875, with the establishment of the Socialist Workers' Party of Germany.[1][2] In English, the first known use of the word with this meaning was in 1884 in the socialist magazine Justice."


Now quit acting all butt hurt tangent boi and argue whatever substantive points that you might have. If you have any.

The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive
> Order.

Thats right and we've had nothing but trouble every since.

I'm pretty sure that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the slaves in the states that had seceded from the Union. Therefore, there would not have been much protest against it--it only affected states that were no longer a part of the union. Not quite the same thing.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Having lost pretty much EVERYTHING to the
> Communists.

I get it, you are a VICTIM.

>
> Were either of you "Communist Schollars" there
> when people were dragged out of their appartments,
> loaded up and taken away. Never to be heard from
> again?

They are also VICTIMS, just like you. Exactly the same.


>
> I've lost too much in my life to
> allow someone who "read about it in a book"
> calling me a Communist.
>

OK already. You are a VICTIM. I get it.

> In the end the US did what it always does, it
> turned it's back on some very brave people who
> ended up massacred.

And as a CERTIFIED VICTIM, you have the SELF-GIVEN RIGHT to blame the United States of America for your VICTIMNESS.

Bringing it back to the topic at hand, because ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are also VICTIMS, just like you, President Obama also has a SELF-GIVEN RIGHT to wipe away our LAWS, just as the COMMUNISTS did to your DADDY. (I am looking forward to hearing your story though).

>
> Oh, and just for your Information, I was thrilled
> that Reagan won.

What often goes unsaid about the Reagan era is that we didn't really know for sure whether we were winning until the other side collapsed. His constant reminders of AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM are what kept us motivated.

AFG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive
> > Order.
>
> Thats right and we've had nothing but trouble
> every since.

Imagine what would have happened if the government in 1870 offered to repatriate all the slaves back to their country of national origin. The 1960s would have been very different.

Maybe it's not too late. We can appoint Jesse and Rev Al as generals and have them lead an army to repopulate their homelands.

>
> I've lost too much in my life to
> allow someone who "read about it in a book"
> calling me a Communist.
>

Sounds to me like you gained quite a bit by getting away
so just what is it that you "lost"?

My Homeland Forever Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Imagine what would have happened if the government
> in 1870 offered to repatriate all the slaves back
> to their country of national origin. The 1960s
> would have been very different.
>


Imagine if they taught history in American classrooms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonization_Society#Fundraising



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

YMMA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I've lost too much in my life to
> > allow someone who "read about it in a book"
> > calling me a Communist.
> >
>
> Sounds to me like you gained quite a bit by
> getting away
> so just what is it that you "lost"?

Most of my family. Both immediate and extended family. I don't really want to elaborate on how I lost them cause it's a very sore spot for me to talk about.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogien Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Read above, I was most definitely called
> "Komrade"
> > which is slang for Communist.
>
>
> Once again demonstrating that you're not as smart
> as you think you are:
>
> "Comrade means "friend", "colleague", or "ally".
> The word comes from French camarade and this
> French word has it roots in the Italian term
> camera respectively camerata. The term is
> frequently used by left-wing organizations around
> the globe. "Comrade" has often become a stock
> phrase and form of address. This word has its
> regional equivalents available in many languages.
>
> The political usage of the term was inspired by
> the French Revolution. Upon abolishing the titles
> of nobility, and the terms monsieur and madame
> (literally, "my lord" and "my lady"), the
> revolutionaries employed the term citoyen for men
> and citoyenne for women (both meaning "citizen")
> to refer to each other. The deposed King Louis
> XVI, for instance, was referred to as Citoyen
> Louis Capet to emphasize his loss of privilege.
>
> When the socialist movement gained momentum in the
> mid-19th century, socialists began to look for an
> egalitarian alternative to terms like "Mister",
> "Miss", or "Missus". They chose "comrade" as their
> preferred term of address. In German, this
> practice was started in 1875, with the
> establishment of the Socialist Workers' Party of
> Germany.[1][2] In English, the first known use of
> the word with this meaning was in 1884 in the
> socialist magazine Justice."
>
>
> Now quit acting all butt hurt tangent boi and
> argue whatever substantive points that you might
> have. If you have any.


I'm certainly not on a tangent nor am I a victim. I was trying to help you by prevent you from exposing just how clueless you are.

If Comrade just means friend, then "Boy" just means a young male. Go to South East D.C. and call the first LARGER black man "Boy" and then explain to him that you're factually correct. Let's see how far that gets you.

Tell me, do you have athletes foot of the tongue yet after being stupid for so many years? Don't you think it's time to, you know, learn something about the world?

I work cheap and I'll be glad to tutor you.

Ogien Wrote:
>
> I'm certainly not on a tangent nor am I a victim.
> I was trying to help you by prevent you from
> exposing just how clueless you are.
>
> If Comrade just means friend, then "Boy" just
> means a young male. Go to South East D.C. and call
> the first LARGER black man "Boy" and then explain
> to him that you're factually correct. Let's see
> how far that gets you.
>
> Tell me, do you have athletes foot of the tongue
> yet after being stupid for so many years? Don't
> you think it's time to, you know, learn something
> about the world?
>
> I work cheap and I'll be glad to tutor you.


Yeah, everyone can see that you're not off on another tangent. lmao

Had read more than the first line and really want to get specific about it, then it would be, as I posted, more along the lines of Socialist versus Communist, but now I'm just encouraging you to go off on a new tangent so I'll let it go.

More name-calling as you accused others of (even though they hadn't)? Tsk, tsk. Mr. Victim. What was it that you said?

> "They have already resorted to name calling,
> which in itself is a sign that their arguments are
> so weak they put no faith in them.


So let's summarize for those playing along at home... You have nothing to offer other than parroting Dem talking points and off-point crap when called on your BS.

It's too bad you didn't take any advantage of all that money Obama has made available for education.

Josephine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see Emporer Obama is at it again with his latest
> dictate - this one on immigration. How do all you
> recent grads feel about competing with even more
> young people - now "legalized" of sorts - by
> Obama? With our emporer in charge, who needs
> Congress. Silly me. I thought our legislative
> body was supposed to debate and create law.
> Welcome to the new world I guess - Obamaworld.
> Ick.

common sense dictates that Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am tired of seeing sketchy > presidential directives
> to justice dept. enforcement and other outside the bounds
> of normal> law enacting taking place.

It's the Executive Branch that does rule-making, dumb-ass.

Emancipation Proclamation? I don't listen to hip hop.

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

"The horse jumped over the fucking fence." - Kurt Vonnegut

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogien Wrote:
> So, again, in other words, you have no substantive
> response to the facts raised above to refute your
> BS talking points.

Do you mean this load of complete crapola???

"They didn't move away from anything as far as the AHCA. They rammed it though. Go back and look at the votes."

You of course mean that they used the reconciliation process, just as the lame-brain Bush did to pass his disastrous Tax Cuts for the Rich.

"They didn't have to compromise, they controlled both houses. That was what all of the bitching was about when they did it."

No, the bitching was about ridiculous notions such as death panels, rationing, and government take-overs. The right-wing LOSES every time actual facts are on the table, so they do made-up nonsense instead.

"The only reason they moved away from single payer/universal health care is that even they understood that it was unrealistic and that they couldn't do it at a practical level or in a way that even with BS accounting would look like it wasn't going to break the bank."

God, you're dumb. Single-payer is far cheaper than the stupid for-profit, fee-for-service system we have now. This is why so many other develooped countries have a system based on single-payer, and why they have better overall health care than we do at a much lower price.

"The debt ceiling fiasco was a manufactured crisis. There was never any threat of the US not paying accruing debt and the government has shut down any number of times without the world ending."

You're jumbling up two different events, although each of them was engineered by hostage-taking terrorists known as Republicans.

"And, specifically, the credit rating wasn't lowered as a result of the Republican resistance, it was lowered because the deal cut didn't go far enough to address debt. From the August 5, 2011 S&P rating memorandum regarding the downgrade..."

Obviously, you are quite unfamiliar with the language. The debt-downgrade was quite specifically intended as a loud slap in the face to intransigent Tea Party Republicans for their head-in-the-sand obstinacy in refusing to include tax increases in the debt deal. These asswipes pledge more allegiance to Grover Norquist than to the flag or state of their nation. These are not Americans worthy of the word.

My Homeland Forever Wrote:> Imagine what would have happened if the government
> in 1870 offered to repatriate all the slaves back > to their country of
> national origin.

Their country of national origin was the United States, dumbo.

Romney's view on this is interesting. Especially because he is an immigrant from Mexico.

This is just another calculated way to make Romney look bad.

The act doesn't give citizenship. It simply says those that have studied in the US and used US resources can stay so the US can benefit from them.

Even Gingrich supports the idea.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So let's summarize for those playing along at
> home... You have nothing to offer other than
> parroting Dem talking points and off-point crap
> when called on your BS.

Yeah, "Dem talking points". Famously just right-wing feeble-speak for facts they have no answer for. Ultra-lameness is all you bring to the table here...

You remember Romney...
Attachments:

SmarterThanNobody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You of course mean that they used the
> reconciliation process, just as the lame-brain
> Bush did to pass his disastrous Tax Cuts for the
> Rich.
>
> "They didn't have to compromise, they controlled
> both houses. That was what all of the bitching was
> about when they did it."
>
> No, the bitching was about ridiculous notions such
> as death panels, rationing, and government
> take-overs. The right-wing LOSES every time
> actual facts are on the table, so they do made-up
> nonsense instead.
>

First, learn how to quote if you're going to comment in-context so your bullshit is at least readable.

Second, there was no compromise as was stated. There was no serious attempt to compromise. The only compromise offered was do what we want or we'll do it without you. The AHCA was passed on a completely partisan basis by a Dem-controlled House and Senate.

Third, again, like the other knucklehead as typical, you talk about facts and then offer none, just the usual talking points. aka the standard libtard approach.


> God, you're dumb. Single-payer is far cheaper
> than the stupid for-profit, fee-for-service system
> we have now. This is why so many other develooped
> countries have a system based on single-payer, and
> why they have better overall health care than we
> do at a much lower price.
>

So why didn't they pass it? They had complete control of both houses and the President. Didn't need anybody else. Because, as I said, they couldn't make it work at a practical level. You see there's this thing called "reality" that people have to deal with in the real world versus the fantasy land where you libtards live.

> You're jumbling up two different events, although
> each of them was engineered by hostage-taking
> terrorists known as Republicans.
>
> Obviously, you are quite unfamiliar with the
> language. The debt-downgrade was quite
> specifically intended as a loud slap in the face
> to intransigent Tea Party Republicans for their
> head-in-the-sand obstinacy in refusing to include
> tax increases in the debt deal. These asswipes
> pledge more allegiance to Grover Norquist than to
> the flag or state of their nation. These are not
> Americans worthy of the word.

No, actually I'm not. You're just clueless about what actually happened. The debt ceiling was raised on 8/2/2012 the basis of the agreement to form the bi-partisan "super committee" to work out the details.

From the "Economist" (a good independent source, you should read it instead of MSNBC sometime) dated 8/6/2011:

http://www.economist.com/node/21525446

"THE deficit-reduction deal that finally raised America’s debt ceiling and staved off the threat of default seemed to make no one happy. “A sugar-coated Satan sandwich,” one Democratic congressman called it. Republican candidates for president lined up to denounce it.

But even less popular than the deal itself was the process that led up to it: months of partisan wrangling, broken deals and brinkmanship, with the threat of default hanging over an economy struggling to grow. “Our economy didn’t need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse,” Barack Obama noted as he signed the deal into law on August 2nd—the day the Treasury had warned that it would run out of cash to meet its obligations.

The deal, hammered out just days before that deadline, promises $917 billion in spending cuts over the next decade in return for a two-stage increase in the debt ceiling of $900 billion. After that, a 12-member congressional committee, equally composed of Republicans and Democrats, is to find $1.5 trillion in further deficit reductions that Congress must approve by December 23rd, in return for a similar-sized increase in the debt ceiling. If the committee fails to reach agreement or its proposal is rejected, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will be triggered, drawn equally from domestic spending and defense."


That didn't go far enough and resulted in the S&P downgrade on 8/5/2011. I posted the summary from the S&P rating memorandum above. I will again just to rub reality in your face:

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon."

The rest of your post is the typical idiotic partisan ranting which merits no response.

Tipsy that new poster is the same as the one above. Weasel is notorious for name switches after being made to look like an idiot. Radiophile does the same thing but usually with registered names.

What are you talking about? What is the AHCA? Are you referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka "ObamaCare"? Have Rush and Hannity neglected to give you the correct acronym?

The amazing thing about the Right-wing in this country is how it will collectively act against its own best interest and even its own ideology. The PPACA requires individuals not otherwise insured to purchase and maintain a health care policy from...A PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY. As onerous at that may be, consider the ramifications of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), inconveniently passed and signed into law in 1986, when I believe a certain icon of the Republican party with the initials RR was president. The essence of the EMTALA was that treatment would be provided to anyone who came to an American hospital emergency room, regardless of his or her ability to pay. Fair enough, but hospitals don't just shrug their shoulders and say "oh well". They pass that cost on to you and me and everyone else who receives employer-based health insurance. PPACA is in part an attempt to shift that burden back to those who require health services without the means (or willingness) to pay for them.

Odd how the local equivalent of PPACA was the signature act of one Mr. Romney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, yet today is government "over-reach" by a "socialist" president. (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I wish you people would learn the actual meanings of these words: communism, "the means of production are owned by the people"; socialism, "the means of production are owned by the government"; fascism, "the means of production are privately held, but the government controls production"; capitalism, "the means of production are held by private individuals". Now where in this spectrum does the current government fall? Be specific.)

+1 NOVA_Native

Sadly what you wrote above is one of the best summations of what went on during the whole year of the health care debate.

Recently I saw some videos of Romney defending his version of Obamacare in Mass. His arguments for his law sound remarkably like the same.

NOVA_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are you talking about? What is the AHCA?
> Are you referring to the Patient Protection and
> Affordable Care Act (PPACA), aka "ObamaCare"?
> Have Rush and Hannity neglected to give you the
> correct acronym?
>
> The amazing thing about the Right-wing in this
> country is how it will collectively act against
> its own best interest and even its own ideology.
> The PPACA requires individuals not otherwise
> blah blah blah blah more blah...

None of which has anything to do with Obama "moving away from single-payer" and this big compromise that he supposedly made which was the point of discussion. If you guys are going to go off on tangents at least try to stick to the current tangent.


> Odd how the local equivalent of PPACA was the
> signature act of one Mr. Romney in the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts, yet today is
> government "over-reach" by a "socialist"
> president. (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I wish you
> blah blah blah endless blah more blah

What is it about the differences between Federal and State roles that you guys don't understand? No prob, the SC will explain it to you soon enough. Damn those pesky limted powers always get in the way of Progress! lol

TSki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> +1 NOVA_Native
>
> Sadly what you wrote above is one of the best
> summations of what went on during the whole year
> of the health care debate.
>
> Recently I saw some videos of Romney defending his
> version of Obamacare in Mass. His arguments for
> his law sound remarkably like the same.

Again, State /= Federal. And in this case, beyond other deficiencies, there's no other deep-pocket Federal government to help subsidize it as in the case of MA's program.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is it about the differences between Federal
> and State roles that you guys don't understand?
> No prob, the SC will explain it to you soon
> enough. Damn those pesky limted powers always get
> in the way of Progress! lol

The problem is that the Republican's and Romney's remedy to the law would involve allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines (like credit card companies do). Its a crap shoot what the SC will decide on all of this. Its like the Oracle at Delphi really... You can argue effectively that this is a state's responsibility but in interest of creating larger insurance pools, the industry would love to bundle even larger groups of patients.

The real problem with all of this legislation is that it pits the insurance companies against drug companies, hospitals and those who eventually have to pay. Pointing a finger at Obama is being responsible for all of this is an over-simplification that plays into the the mouth-breathing, illiterates who get all of their information from AM radio and television.

I'm irritated that Obama wasted a year on this. I'm sure what he eventually got out of it wasn't anything remotely like what he wanted. The end result wasn't a government take over or "communism" -- it was, like all legislation in recent years, a hand out to corporate donors. In this case, the insurance industry.

NOVA_Native Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> PPACA is in part
> an attempt to shift that burden back to those who
> require health services without the means (or
> willingness) to pay for them.

Right by shifting the burden to tax payers with all the government provided health care plans that will come out of it. Or by making your insurance more expensive since now preexisting conditions are excluded so theres no reason to have anything but the cheapest possible plan and then switch if something happens. Theres some good things in the bill, but far more crap that more than outweighs the good. But we would know that is Pelosi or anyone else bothered to read the thing. No one actually knows whats in atrocity of a bill

> Odd how the local equivalent of PPACA was the
> signature act of one Mr. Romney in the
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts, yet today is
> government "over-reach" by a "socialist"
> president.

Odd how you dont understand state and federal rights. Odd how you dont understand that something that is good for or one state wants isnt something that should be forced on the rest of the country who dont want it. Odd how things that 5th graders in civic class are beyond your comprehension

Pick a name and stick with it

The real problem in this election is that both parties are bought and paid for by the very same industries these days. The corporate backers of the Republicans are siding with Romney because he has promised them a sloppy-tongued blowjob, while Obama only offers them a reach-around.

TSki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pointing a finger at Obama is being
> responsible for all of this is an
> over-simplification that plays into the the
> mouth-breathing, illiterates who get all of their
> information from AM radio and television.

Either youve switched names yet again or all liberals just get their info from the same talking points sheet. Pick one.

Funny how its conservatives that cant think for themselves yet in this thread we either have 1 liberal with 10 different sns or liberals from all over spitting out the same crap the DNC wants them to say over and over and over again

Look, what I am saying is that the end result of all the wrangling was that the insurance industry ended up writing the legislation. Even the idiots who voted for it said they didn't know what it contained.

If the Republicans were in power the would be defending it just as vociferously as they are attacking it. The problem was they weren't the whores who got paid the money to pass it so they're pissed off. They desperately want to get back in power so they're the ones on the take.

The end result would have been the same.

Real liberals are upset with Obama because he DIDN'T nationalize health care!

TSki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look, what I am saying is that the end result of
> all the wrangling was that the insurance industry
> ended up writing the legislation. Even the idiots
> who voted for it said they didn't know what it
> contained.

Thats the thing though the only wrangling was within the dem party itself to get the last 4 or 5 votes they needed to pass it and they ended up getting kick back bills passed for their votes. It really was jammed through in the worst possible way. Obama couldnt care less what the republicans had to say since he knew he didnt have to. If it didnt end up how he intended it its the fault of the senate Dems.

This is not an issue that should have had the attitude of well anything is better then nothing once they knew they didnt even have the votes in their own party. Passing something without reading it is just beyond belief. A good number of the Dems in Congress and even the Senate hated the bill. The biggest problem with the Dems is that the moderates like Liberman get kicked out and the party has been high jacked by the extremists like Pelosi. They would be and the country would be much better off if they took back their party and had a leadership change.

> If the Republicans were in power the would be
> defending it just as vociferously as they are
> attacking it. The problem was they weren't the
> whores who got paid the money to pass it so
> they're pissed off. They desperately want to get
> back in power so they're the ones on the take.

If they had passed this bill yes they would defend it. But they never would have passed this bill. They offered alternatives that got as much attention as the class clown does when he raises his hand during a serious discussion.

> The end result would have been the same.

I disagree, the idea of healthcare for everyone is a GOP idea, but not like this. We would have seen a much different version of the bill.

> Real liberals are upset with Obama because he
> DIDN'T nationalize health care!

That is very true. Obama has actually managed to disappoint everyone but the real liberals would never vote for anything that doesnt have a D next to it.

TSki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The problem is that the Republican's and Romney's
> remedy to the law would involve allowing insurance
> companies to sell insurance across state lines
> (like credit card companies do). Its a crap shoot
> what the SC will decide on all of this. Its like
> the Oracle at Delphi really... You can argue
> effectively that this is a state's responsibility
> but in interest of creating larger insurance
> pools, the industry would love to bundle even
> larger groups of patients.
>
> The real problem with all of this legislation is
> that it pits the insurance companies against drug
> companies, hospitals and those who eventually have
> to pay. Pointing a finger at Obama is being
> responsible for all of this is an
> over-simplification that plays into the the
> mouth-breathing, illiterates who get all of their
> information from AM radio and television.
>
> I'm irritated that Obama wasted a year on this.
> I'm sure what he eventually got out of it wasn't
> anything remotely like what he wanted. The end
> result wasn't a government take over or
> "communism" -- it was, like all legislation in
> recent years, a hand out to corporate donors. In
> this case, the insurance industry.


What the industry wants doesn't supersede the Constitution. Of course the industry wants larger pools. They're getting a +100 million guaranteed paying and government-subsidized customers and still operate on a cost-plus basis. That's why you've not heard much complaining from them in this whole debate.

The "finger pointing" at Obama largely was a result of the approach taken and the force feeding. Had it been handled in a better way, then we'd likely have a better law and less resistance. Even proponents concede that the law is a mess and needs to be redone. But the Dems had to make a play to move toward the long-sought liberal promised land of universal health care come hell or high water while they had a majority.

Personally, as a self-employed guy who has no medical issues, no regular doctor, and who gets royally screwed as far as individual insurance costs, I'd be fine with single-payer. But that would require wholesale changes to the entire health care industry that are unlikely to happen short of crisis. That is where we'll end up as far as most people go. The costs are going to force it.

That's the main problem with the current law - it does little to address the rapidly rising rate of increase in health care costs. Even the guy who was the primary architect for Romney's program who also helped with Obama's plan admits that's the root of the issue and that, unfortunately, nobody really has any real good ideas how to deal with that.

Yep. The problem with the whole medical system is that there is a disconnect between those who need/seek medical care and those who eventually have to pay for it in the majority of cases.

For those on medicare or who have insurance paid for by their employer, they look at the services they receive as an entitlement -- whatever it takes to feel better. Its not like you could really "shop around" for a better price anyway.

People come in with vague symptoms of feeling awful, the doctors order tests or suggest a prescription. The insurance company pays and then jacks up the insurance premiums on the employer. The employer has to pay more for insurance so it has less for raises and other benefits. Round and round we go.

At least the insurance company has profit in mind to keep costs down. The government has deep pockets and bureaucrats who couldn't give a shit, so not only are costs ignored, but outright fraud and abuse contributes to the bloat.

The new law is shit and I'm looking forward to the backlash when they start fining individuals who can't afford to buy insurance... That just seems crazy.

I can remember when it was finally passed however, it was a relief that they had passed something so they could move on to something else. Between Obama's mismanagement of the whole process and the deliberate obstructionist bullshit from both sides, it was depressing. There were (and are) so many other things that need fixing in the economy this was the equivalent to fiddling while Rome burned.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will spare us more drama on the issue. If it doesn't repeal it or at least strike down enough of the law that really sucks and this becomes an issue in the election in the fall, we'll be back into this crap all over again.

This law was bad, but the next round will probably even be worse that this.

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether Obama put his pen to the law, or the Dems shut the Repubs out of the debate. We, the consumer and we the taxpayer and we the employee or employer would be screwed any way you look at it. Whoever has the deepest pockets and is benefiting from the current situation is going to pay to keep it that way. The two parties will have their talking points to fight over, but in the end we'll get the shaft.

Republicans and GOP stick the thread. This thread is about "illegal" aliens. Let's just cover that issue.

So Fairfax county taxpayers pay for the education of this "illegal aliens" and after some many year of free education we ship them back to Mexico with a top education. Fuck no, we educate them then they need to stay here!

When are the 2002/2003 Bush tax cuts going to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and spawn economic growth?

America has patiently waited ten years and through the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

A decade!

WTF?!

Can just one of you GOP supporting losers answer this one basic question?

Yup, it's Bush's fault.

UNBELIEVABLE!

I agree with you Kung Fu - it is Bush's fault and those temporary tax cuts are UNBELIEVABLE!

We saw how effective those temporary Bush tax cuts were when the economy crashed and the DOW tanked to around 8,000. We found the missing WMD. Mission Accomplished.

Funny how a few years after that Kenyan, Muslim fella moved into the White House the DOW is up over 12,000, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.

No wonder Boehner cries all the time!

King Who Rulz Over Viscount Monkeyfart D'Assface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with you Kung Fu - it is Bush's fault and
> those temporary tax cuts are UNBELIEVABLE!
>
> We saw how effective those temporary Bush tax cuts
> were when the economy crashed and the DOW tanked
> to around 8,000. We found the missing WMD. Mission
> Accomplished.
>
> Funny how a few years after that Kenyan, Muslim
> fella moved into the White House the DOW is up
> over 12,000, and Osama Bin Laden is dead.
>
> No wonder Boehner cries all the time!


You wankers realize that most of the benefits (and also the net cost to the government of) the "Bush" tax cuts went to middle-class taxpayers right?

Also, while the percentage didn't change that much, sliding the brackets had a big effect for lower-income payers resulting in them paying less or nothing.

For all of the class warfare talk, while the highest-income payers did benefit, there's just not that many of them and increasing the rate at the high end only won't result in significant amounts of tax revenue relative to our spending. You can tax them at whatever rate you want but it's still not going to even make a dent in the cost of a single program like Medicaid.

Hate to break it to you but when Obama talks about taxing the "rich" the "billionaires" suddenly become those making $250K in tax proposals. Which will end up being those making $100K and with less deductions. And the rest below also will be paying more, like it or not, regardless of what any politician on either side says.

I think most of the Bush Tax cut benefits went into people's pockets.
I'm just wondering when they are going to kick start the economy, create jobs, and all that as promised. This decade or the next?

King Who Rulz Over Viscount Monkeyfart D'Assface Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No wonder Boehner cries all the time!

And he keeps being reelected by overwhelming majorities in his District. :)

FAUX NEWS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think most of the Bush Tax cut benefits went
> into people's pockets.
> I'm just wondering when they are going to kick
> start the economy, create jobs, and all that as
> promised. This decade or the next?


Maybe it's like the jobs "saved or created" by the stimuli. lol

Go look at the increase in the employment rate following the tax cuts. Worked great up until the crash.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The rest of your post is the typical idiotic
> partisan ranting which merits no response.

LOL! We can always count on Fairfax Underground to bring out the wimpiest among the goobers, hicks, and hayseeds of the right-wing. Fall off the back of a turnip truck and think they arrived in some DEEluxe limousine. The only thing you are doing a fine job of here is upholding the stereotype of GDE trailer-trash America. Nice going. But you are quite right that you offered no response. Just the usual tired tripe that one expects from the completely bamboozled.

> Second, there was no compromise as was stated.
> There was no serious attempt to compromise. The
> only compromise offered was do what we want or
> we'll do it without you. The AHCA was passed on a
> completely partisan basis by a Dem-controlled
> House and Senate.

What's AHCA, Goob? And if you'd been paying any attention at all, you'd have realized that there was all sorts of bipartisan work on health care (look up the so-called Gang of Six) until Republicans were ordered to quit cooperating in late July of 2009 so that the phoney blitz on Town Hall meetings could be run in August. One of the great many things that wind-up bots such as yourself fail to realize meanwhile is that health care affects everyone. so in order to pass and succeed, it has to involve everyone and reflect the interests of everyone. Yes, even those who wouldn't have voted for it no matter what it said out of simple fear that Obama and the Democrats might end up getting credit for it. And make no mistake about it -- that IS the principal problem that Republicans have with PPACA. They are afraid for their political lives that it will end up tilting elections toward Democrats for decades, just as passage of Social Security and Medicare did. But regardless of how ignorant you are or how much you want to lie about it, the final form of PPACA drew upon the diverse inputs of dozens of different stakeholders with starkly differing views.

Meanwhile, the House and Senate were under majority Democratic control because Republicans so thoroughly proved themselves to be completely incapable of even marginally competent governance. And of course, majority control as you seem not at all to understand, does not constitute a power to ram things through. In an unprecedented show of naked partisan obstructionism, self-serving Republicans have used every trick in the book to block all significant legislation since January 2007. It takes 60 votes to end debate, and the Dems had that only between late September of 2009 and mid-January 2010. And during that brief interval, they in fact ecschewed calls to do some ramming and steamrollering. Obama from the start has been the voice of temperance and restraint in that regard, many might say unreasonably so.

> Third, again, like the other knucklehead as
> typical, you talk about facts and then offer none,
> just the usual talking points. aka the standard
> libtard approach.
>

Yeah, "libtard". What a sophisticated piece of trash YOU are!

> So why didn't they pass it? They had complete
> control of both houses and the President. Didn't
> need anybody else. Because, as I said, they
> couldn't make it work at a practical level.

Come on, Big Boy. Where is ANY evidence of this single-payer impracticality you keep claiming? There ISN'T any...which is why you haven't offered any and won't. And as anyone who had been paying attention at the time would have known, a single-payer public option was included in various debates for quite a while. It was dropped once, but then resurected by Harry Reid heading into the home stretch. But there were conservative views to placate in order to maintain a shot at 60 votes, so it went by the wayside in the end. Did you miss all that in addition to everything else?

> No, actually I'm not. You're just clueless about
> what actually happened.

No, slowpoke, the government shutdown and debt default hostage-taking situations were separate matters.

> The debt ceiling was raised on 8/2/2012 the basis of the
> agreement to form the bi-partisan "super committee" to work
> out the details.

Yes, that was the agreement that Republicans had to go dicker with Harry Reid over after Cantor walked out of the Biden Senate negotiations and Bonehead Boehner walked out of his one-on-one's with Obama. Both of them had to leave to-die-for deals on the table because they included tax increases and neither one of these bozos had the sense, guts, or skills needed to take one penny's worth of tax increases to these lunatic Tea Party backbenchers. That's how disfunctional the Republicans had become. The spending cuts settled on in August had all been on the table since May. The August deal was simply a concession by Republicans that they themselves held no sway or influenece at all over the intransigent ideologues in their own party. THAT was the situation that S&P reacted to.

> From the "Economist" (a good independent source,
> you should read it instead of MSNBC sometime)
> dated 8/6/2011:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011."

Who do you think they are talking about? They had already fired a warning shot across the Republican bow over stupid shutdown intransigence. It was their collapse and utter failure in long-term debt discussion that eaned the debt downgrade. What has been needed in the troubling times that Republican policies created to begin with has been some willingness to come up with solutions that work no matter who gets credit for them. "I Hope He Fails" Republicans have gone in exactly the opposite direction, selling gullible clods like you a bill of goods over it along the way.

Tipsy O'Neil Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is it about the differences between Federal
> and State roles that you guys don't understand?
> No prob, the SC will explain it to you soon
> enough. Damn those pesky limted powers always get
> in the way of Progress! lol

Oh, great! Mr. Wizard does constitutional law. Here's a tip, Shorty. The Constitution provides no powers at all to the states. They must make do with those few that are not established within the federal government instead, that federal government having been deliberately created as a strong actor meant to replace the weak and ineffectual version of the Articles of Confederation that had fallen apart in less than a decade. These new federal powers of course include broad authority to promote the common defense and general welare and include the regulation of interstate commerce. The scope of interstate commerce has of course expanded tremendously since the late 18th century, And the federal role in regulating it has of course expanded also, All but the absolute dimmest of bulbs readily recognize this, with the exceptions typically to be found in remote right-wing backwaters where an astonishing absence of understanding of their own history is often to be found.

TSki Wrote:
> I'm irritated that Obama wasted a year on this.
> I'm sure what he eventually got out of it wasn't
> anything remotely like what he wanted. The end
> result wasn't a government take over or
> "communism" -- it was, like all legislation in
> recent years, a hand out to corporate donors. In
> this case, the insurance industry.

Wasted? Where others had failed for a century, Obama succeeded in passing a critically needed health care reform bill. And the work on it was essentially April to December and involved stakeholders from all over the map. Clinton failed because he wrote the bill himself and said, here, pass this. Obama succeeded because he laid out a framework of a few basic objectives, then let the interested parties in Congress and the industry play tug of war over it to the point where a bill that could pass was produced. The goal was not to come up with just what Obama or anyone else wanted -- it was to come up with a broad-based bill about which almost everyone would say, you know, there's alot that I don't like in this bill, but there are enough good things that I'll vote for it anyway. Anyone who believes that a different sort of bill could have passed is living well beyond the edge of naive.

TSkii Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For those on medicare or who have insurance paid
> for by their employer, they look at the services
> they receive as an entitlement -- whatever it
> takes to feel better. Its not like you could
> really "shop around" for a better price anyway.

They look at these services as a necessity. People don't undergo expensive medical procedures for fun and adventure. You stub your toe, you take some advil and live with it. Until it comes to the point where gangrene appears to be setting in. Then you force yourself to go in and have the tests and procedures necessary to an attempt to save your toe and the ability to walk around that is needed for the job you still have to have because the freaking Republicans blew up what used to be your retirement nest egg and now want to savage Medicare on top of it all.

And do you yourself actually choose doctors and treatments based on price???

Crazy Al's Coronary Bypass Blowout!!! Route-1, Union, New Jersey!!! We will not be undersold!!!

That your kind of guy?

> At least the insurance company has profit in mind
> to keep costs down.

LOL. More likely by denying claims that people have actually purchased coverage for, Or so they thought. Fee-for-service means revenue = price times quantity. Do the math.

> The new law is shit and I'm looking forward to the
> backlash when they start fining individuals who
> can't afford to buy insurance... That just seems
> crazy.

You've never read the law and don't what's in it. Do we meanwhile fine people who refuse to pay their income taxes? How about turnstyle-jumpers or tollbooth runners?

> I can remember when it was finally passed however,
> it was a relief that they had passed something so
> they could move on to something else.

Pathetic. Though hardly by choice, the first order of business in January 2009 was the economy, and that's what drew 95% of the attention. Once the incisions from emergency surgery there were all sewn up, health care came to the fore as well as energy. Remember that? Prior to the onset of the credit crisis and resulting Great Bush Recession, those two issues were the consensus top two items on the national agenda with a normalization of immigration running a distant third. You seem to view these things as some sort of diversion from the "real issues". What would those have been?

SmarterThanYou Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You seem to view these things as some sort
> of diversion from the "real issues". What would
> those have been?

How about prosecutions of the people who caused the financial crash? How about making it so that we don't have banks that are "too big to fail"? How about closing Guantanamo Bay?

He wasted a year and the majority in both houses and got a shit bill.

Oh and yes... People do go to the doctor for shit reasons all the time. Look at any doctor's office and you will see it filled with bored old people on Medicare. They go to the doctor every day because they have nothing else to do and its free.

Ogien Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, at least someone in Washington is willing to
> work and move the country forward.

By forward you mean progressive, by progressive you mean more towards the direction of European utopian socialism.

FUCK YOU

Obama can relate to the common man. Doesnt everyone go to Harvard, have dinner with Hollywood stars and play golf everyday.

TSki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The real problem in this election is that both
> parties are bought and paid for by the very same
> industries these days. The corporate backers of
> the Republicans are siding with Romney because he
> has promised them a sloppy-tongued blowjob, while
> Obama only offers them a reach-around.

Vulgar and ignorant at the same time. No matter who is running it, one of the principal goals of government is to provide an environment that is conducive to the conduct of business. The difference comes in whether one also provides an environment hostile to the sort of deceit and exploitation of taxpayers and consumers that many businesses are apt to engage in if left to their own devices. That's the part that Republicans don't like. Over there, it's "Profits Über Alles"...

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush..
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3, 2007... the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

enough already weasel/radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how its conservatives that cant think for
> themselves yet in this thread we either have 1
> liberal with 10 different sns or liberals from all
> over spitting out the same crap the DNC wants them
> to say over and over and over again

Collapsing right-wingers keep waving this canard as if it were some sort of Magic Wand. Nothing to back any of it up, but it's the only weapon they've got. What a hoot!

This government will implode before it gets any better. Might be sooner then later depending on this upcoming election.

This government is way too involved in out daily life the way it is. The Fed Government is ruining this Country. We need less Federal Government, way less.

SmarterTahnYou Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TSki Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > The real problem in this election is that both
> > parties are bought and paid for by the very
> same industries these days. The corporate backers of
> > the Republicans are siding with Romney because
> he has promised them a sloppy-tongued blowjob,while
> > Obama only offers them a reach-around.

> Vulgar and ignorant at the same time.

How is what I wrote "ignorant"? Ignorance means that I do not know something. What from my statement do you imply that I do not know?

I say that both parties are beholden to the same big corporate donors. Their kind of money talks man. The Democrats really have you sold on their bullshit don't they? You're just as bad as the mouth-breathers who worship Fox News on the other side.

Don't you get it? None of these little partisan fights matter -- the deals have already been made. Its just who gets to handle the transaction that they're fighting about.

You might not like my off-color metaphor but this is an internet discussion, not NBC's Meet The Press.

If anything I'm probably off the mark here. Romney is probably promising anal sex because he doesn't look like the type who would swallow.

MSNBC Lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You wankers realize that most of the benefits (and
> also the net cost to the government of) the "Bush"
> tax cuts went to middle-class taxpayers right?

Actually, no they didn't. The individual middle-class taxpayer got peanuts. The individual wealthy taxpayer got wheelbarrows full of cash that he didn't actually need. He was already wealthy, after all. Only the fact that there are so many more middle-class taxpayers made it seem as if the middle class was given anything close to a fair shake. And what about over time? By 2010, more than 50% of the benefits still accruing from the Bush tax cuts were going to the top 1%. id you realize that, or were you too busy calling other people wankers to have had time to find out?

> Also, while the percentage didn't change that
> much, sliding the brackets had a big effect for
> lower-income payers resulting in them paying less
> or nothing.

That's quite true as far as it goes. The roughly 23% of 1040 filers who owed no tax when Bush took office rather famously became 51% by 2009. This was partly because of his economic collapse and partly because of his tax cuts that ended the annual burden of a few hundred dollars for lower income workers. Right-wingers hate those "no-skin-in-the-game" people today, but they love the wealthy who have been siphoning off tens, hundreds, and thousands of thousands of dollars apiece.

> For all of the class warfare talk, while the
> highest-income payers did benefit, there's just
> not that many of them and increasing the rate at
> the high end only won't result in significant
> amounts of tax revenue relative to our spending.
> You can tax them at whatever rate you want but
> it's still not going to even make a dent in the
> cost of a single program like Medicaid.

Do some research. Medicaid -- a program that provides medical care to indigent people -- accounts for about $260 billion per year. Those making $250,000 or more in 2010 had a combined AGI of more than $1.8 trillion.

> Hate to break it to you but when Obama talks about
> taxing the "rich" the "billionaires" suddenly
> become those making $250K in tax proposals. Which
> will end up being those making $100K and with less
> deductions. And the rest below also will be
> paying more, like it or not, regardless of what
> any politician on either side says.

Want to try and explain THAT? It isn't even comprehensible. The income floor for the top 1% is a little above $350K. By $250K, you've got about the top 2%. One out of every fifty means that this is NOT your average Joe we are talking about here.

So you are saying those that make the big bucks should be taxed at a higher percentage? Where is the fairness in that statement? Taxes should be used to fund the govenment, not as a means of punishment to success.

People are getting fed up with Obamas class warfare. It solves nothing but only makes great divides in this country. It only works on the stupid, jealous or lazy who see someone else with something they want.

If the Democrats and Obama are so much better, why didn't THEY repeal the Bush tax cuts? They had BOTH houses AND the presidency...

Stop drinking the koolaid and stop spreading the propaganda.

There is no choice in November. You just get to pick red or blue.

MSNBC Lies Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe it's like the jobs "saved or created" by the
> stimuli. lol

Yeah, there's another thing that just sails right over the ehad of the typical right-winger. LOL, indeed!

> Go look at the increase in the employment rate
> following the tax cuts. Worked great up until the
> crash.

The actual history shows that we were on federal emergency unemployment benefits from March 2002 through the end of 2003. The Tax Cuts for the Rich were passed in June 2001. Th unemployment rate in January 2001 was 4.5%. It has never been lower since. Thanks, George.

TSkii Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How about prosecutions of the people who caused
> the financial crash? How about making it so that
> we don't have banks that are "too big to fail"?
> How about closing Guantanamo Bay?

If you think these "issues" are more important than health care, energy, and immigration reform, you are deep in the dark indeed! So, who do you want prosecute re the credit crisis and for what? Or do you just want "someone" to pay and -- in the true spirit of America -- you just don't care who it is?

Have you read Dodd-Frank? I know...silly question. Some phony talking head has already told you that's a bunch of crap as well, so there's no need to read it. Meanwhile, we are quite good at unwinding small and medium-sized banks that fall into trouble. There is no known means of unwinding a bank that itself has lost track of what it is doing and where. Since you plainly don't know, Dodd-Frank requires large banks to create and maintain that necessary documentation.

Guantanamo, as you ought to remember, was ordered closed within one year on January 21, 2009. As a transparent partisan ploy, Republicans have ever since been about the business of denying any funds to carry out the closure, even resorting to such absurd scare tactiocs as that, even though no one else ever has, Gitmo prisoners transfered to one of our super-max facilities would easily escape and proceed to terrorize the countryside. How laughably ignorant does one have to be to fall for slop like that?

> He wasted a year and the majority in both houses
> and got a shit bill.

Unlike any of its predecessors, the bill passed. And just like Dodd-Frank, you have no actual idea of what's in it.

> Oh and yes... People do go to the doctor for shit
> reasons all the time. Look at any doctor's office
> and you will see it filled with bored old people
> on Medicare. They go to the doctor every day
> because they have nothing else to do and its free.

The extent of your disconnection from any form of reality at all is truly impressive.

Wow weseal is out in full force today. Dont you have a husband to spend fathers day with or are you a single mom on welfare?

Pelosi's Congress Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie &
> Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was
> financially risky for the US economy.

No, he didn't. You've simply been suckered, no doubt in part by some absurd Naked Emperor YouTube videos. The duped are actually pretty easy to spot. Bush had one and only one interest in the GSE's and that was to chop them up and send as much of their profitable business as possible off to his pals and buddies on Wall Street. Privatize the mission and its profits, that was his objective. Just as it was with tort reform, bankruptcy reform, and his thankfully failed efforts at Social Security reform. Sometimes, Bush proposed to put the GSE's under a White House "czar" who could cut them off at the knees and run them out of market share. Sometimes he proposed unrealistic ceilings on their portfolios as a way of keeping them from doing "too much" business. At no time at all was there any concern within the administartion over actual safety-and-soundness issues at the GSE's, even though there was broad consensus that mounting changes within financial and real estate markets meant change was called for. Bipartisan bills in Congress to address those needs were repeatedly torpedoed by the Bush amdinistration because they did not sufficiently restrict the GSE's in conducting business. That's the simple history of it. You missed out on all of it.

The rest of your insipid post is similarly full of crap. You'll hear about some of that later.

SmarterThanYou Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Unlike any of its predecessors, the bill passed.
> And just like Dodd-Frank, you have no actual idea
> of what's in it.
>

Wow you think you do know it all don't you? Why do you think I have no actual idea what is in it. Its not like the law isn't there to read. If YOU had read the law, you would see that it DOES NOT end TOO BIG TO FAIL. All it does is provide more oversight of bank practices and provides for more consumer protections and possible remedies for the government.

The big banks have gotten bigger and more powerful since the crash and they are still playing with the house's money.

I've got news for you, your buddy Obama is bought and paid for by these big banks just like the rest of them.

From OpenSecrets:

University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

TSkii Wrote:

> Wow you think you do know it all don't you?

Youll learn quickly if this is your first encounter with weseal she does think she knows it all when in fact she knows nothing. Notice how in her 30 posts yet she to provide a single fact or hard evidence and just keeps hounding that your repeating spoon fed information?

I've seen the type before. Its hard to argue with the "converted" from either party. When you can't agree that "your side" has warts too, then you've lost the ability to communicate and play well with others.

Its one of the reasons why its hard to watch most of U.S. media these days because each channel has become an echo chamber for either one of the parties.