Page 118 of 147 FirstFirst ... 1868108116117118119120128 ... LastLast
Results 1,171 to 1,180 of 1467

Thread: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

  1. #1171
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,449

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    Earlier in the thread somewhere. You can Google some results on it quicker than I can dig it up.

    Regardless, Warren was grandstanding. I can't recall the last time DoJ went full trial on anything corporate. And I don't know that the end would justify the means. If you can't put an actual entity in jail, then what's the point ? Its a civil case ! In regular life, how many civil cases settle ? Prolly over 95%. Her only valid point is that Government will make examples of the little guy, which I hate to admit, but that is the nature of every level of enforcement against the masses, cause you can't catch everybody. Government has to do that. But she was not advocating to end that. She was advocating showboating nonsense. To champion her "gotcha" is misguided
    .
    searching thread for "dodd" recovered eight entries
    turns out only post 1042 addressed your assertion
    YOUR post
    and again, there was no cite proving those democrats were the most funded politicians of the investment industry
    however, as post 1048 power rob shared with us the republicans he found to actually be the pols who most benefited from the investment industry's largess
    based on my experience to date, i will have to rely on rob's presentation instead of yours unless you can offer a cite showing your statement to be correct and rob's to be in error
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Even his own advisers and confidantes think Trump's campaign committed treason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fruityfact View Post
    He's a genius relative to his voters.

  2. #1172
    Sage

    Donc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    out yonder
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,435

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    The sky hit the ground about 4 years ago when your incompetent President ignored all reason and focused on passing a private sector killing health Care Law. He also passed a stimulus law that was supposed to go to "infrastructure" and create "shovel ready jobs" but instead he parsed it out to public sector unions and bankrupt green energy companies.

    You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for. You pushed the narrative of "tax the rich" as a way to increase revenue knowing that it was a manufactured concept to divide the class's and get reeeaally dumb people to vote for a Democrat.

    You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors. Some of you are so ethically and morally corrupt you blame that on the banks.

    The Liberals have nothing of substance to offer when their confronted with reasoned objective data other than resort to childish antics and tactics.

    You all cheered the 3.1 GDP numbers until it was pointed out to you that it was because of massive Govt spending and when the economy shrank you surpassed all expectations and blamed the lack of spending when total Fed outlays were 900 billion in the third quarter. That was an increase from the second quarter.

    You guys actually argue the debt isn't a big deal and we should be spending more when you have no concept of the damage that's being done to future economies.

    The absolute best after 4 years that your ideology can offer is to run the debt up to 16 trillion, encourage a Central Bank to falsely inflate the short term bond market with printed capital, increase the number of people dependent on the State, offer no net new jobs and STILL sink an economy as 50 million people are currently on food stamps, 1 in 6 in poverty and almost 9 million jobs have been deleted form the labor force.

    You accuse Conservatives and the GOP of racism but ignore the disproportionate high unemployment rate for blacks.

    Your States are bankrupt, your politicians are pathological and your cities are corrupted and filled with black on black violence, but for years you ignore it waiting for the 20 innocent white children to be gunned down by a lunatic to push your insipid and worthless gun control agenda.

    So try to remember this when you continue to post more drivel.

    People can smell a manure salesman a mile away. And no one want's any thing he's offering and at the core of every Liberal is the remnants of at least one great Compromise.
    First thing on the agenda is to separate the wheat (your opinions) from your outright lies.

    “You folks whined about a inherited debt of 1.3 trillion but failed to note that close to 800 billion was TARP.....that Obama voted for.’
    When Tarp was started it was authorized for $600 billion, not the $800 billion that you claim in your error filled post. It was then reduced to $475 billion, then on October of 2012 it was reduced again by the Congressional Budget Office to $431 billion.

    This, incidentally is less than the Savings and loans debacle (fraud) of the 80’s exacerbated by the Reagan administrations headlong dive into the deep part of the deregulation pool (sound familiar?)
    This amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP.

    While tarp cost was less than 1 percent of GDP. Bytheway, that has been 90% repaid as of Dec. 11, 2012, 7:27 a.m. EST

    Now to clean up your second lie…well not a full-throatd lie, but close enough to be called a lie by the likes of fox News fav source. “Some“.

    You pushed the lie that Obama after 4 years is suffering from a "Great Bush Recession " when the collapse in 2008 was caused by a Democrat mandated bubble that was caused by Clintons 1995 Executive Order that changed the way banks conformed to the CRA rules and HUD who was given regulatory power over the GSE's to force them to buy up massive amounts in junk loans on the tax payers dime and then bundle those loans with good mortgages and push them out onto investors.
    OK. itsa fact that BJ signed said “Executive Order“, a **** up of major proportions. But guess whose administration ran with the ball to the great recession’s goal line, spun the ball and did an end zone dance? If you guessed the bush administration you won.

    Ask yourself why William Donaldson(a Republican with a capitol R) was forced to quit in 2005, when he wanted stiffer regulations on mutual and hedge funds? Then of course one has to ask why the bush administration did little to curb the practices of mortgage brokers? After all, they had eight years.

    Now your here bitching about BO not cleaning up in four years, the mess left by bushes eight years of incompetence.sad.
    Last edited by Donc; 02-22-13 at 12:45 AM.
    The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say

  3. #1173
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,230

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    searching thread for "dodd" recovered eight entries
    turns out only post 1042 addressed your assertion
    YOUR post
    and again, there was no cite proving those democrats were the most funded politicians of the investment industry
    however, as post 1048 power rob shared with us the republicans he found to actually be the pols who most benefited from the investment industry's largess
    based on my experience to date, i will have to rely on rob's presentation instead of yours unless you can offer a cite showing your statement to be correct and rob's to be in error
    Bubba, you dont know how to read the dang data. They list the #1 industry donor for each pol, they dont indicate who gets top dollars from that industry.
    Btw its pretty dishonest of you not to just search for Dodd on opensecrets.org.

    This link if for Dodd from 2003-2008. Chris Dodd: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2008 | OpenSecrets
    Securities & Investment

    $4,243,346

  4. #1174
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Because there are a whole lot of Islamist who want to kill you.
    That's not a new thing. Doesn't mean we have to spend more money then the next largest (15?) countries combined.

    Also the Peoples Republic China plan to deny the U.S. Navy free transit through the South China Sea in the next ten or twenty years. In fact they are planing to challenge all navies. That's why almost every country in the Western Pacific / Eastern Asia are rearming and building up their navies while Obama is slashing our navy.
    They can do that right now. Sea skimmers armed with nuclear warheads can deny large parts of the Pacific to the US navy who is unlikely to risk carrier battle groups. We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first.

    And perhaps you think that more equals better. How did the Zulus fair against the British who were armed with machine guns despite horridly outnumbering them?

    A single Russian bomber can carry sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe out huge portions of Japan. A single Russian submarine carries enough firepower to kill at least 50 million Americans.

    Those defense cuts that Obama has already made during his first administration will have a significant negative impact upon our national security twenty, thirty years in the future. The Air Force is on record saying fifty years.
    Every defense cut will have a negative impact upon defense. That does not mean the DoD has a blank check.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #1175
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That's not a new thing. Doesn't mean we have to spend more money then the next largest (15?) countries combined.



    They can do that right now. Sea skimmers armed with nuclear warheads can deny large parts of the Pacific to the US navy who is unlikely to risk carrier battle groups. We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first.

    And perhaps you think that more equals better. How did the Zulus fair against the British who were armed with machine guns despite horridly outnumbering them?

    A single Russian bomber can carry sufficient nuclear weapons to wipe out huge portions of Japan. A single Russian submarine carries enough firepower to kill at least 50 million Americans.



    Every defense cut will have a negative impact upon defense. That does not mean the DoD has a blank check.
    You have no knowledge what you talking about.

  6. #1176
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    You have no knowledge what you talking about.
    Translation: APACHERAT is incapable of providing a rebuttal.

    FYI, say that AFTER you show someone to really not understand the topic. It's not an actual rebuttal. It's suppose to be a summary after you have demonstrated your opponent's ignorance. Not your actual argument. Seriously. Learn the basics. Kthxbye.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #1177
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Clearly, if they had you would make some sense once in a while





    And Conservative sputtering and drivel still easily rebuts your empty rhetoric.


    ...pot meet kettle..[/QUOTE]



    No awards for creativity here I'm afriad.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1178
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    LOL both sides hated it. The idea was to have something so bad both sides would reach an agreement to get around it. Your sense of denial is unbelievably strong.
    of course they did. Just the kind of comment I'd expect from a conservative. Pithy but with a dash of insult. .
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1179
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,230

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    of course they did. Just the kind of comment I'd expect from a conservative. Pithy but with a dash of insult. .
    Thats not an insult. Commenting on your sense of denial is a statement of fact.

    Let me know when you are ready to try a real conversation rather than a partisan laced tirade full of proganda, blather, and idiocy. Thats an insult---about your posting habits.

  10. #1180
    Educator Adagio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    08-10-13 @ 05:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,098
    Blog Entries
    3

    re: SOTU Address:[W: 378; 1310; 1451]

    [QUOTE=APACHERAT;1061492713]
    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post

    Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.

    The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House.

    Obama signed it in to law.

    Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn. If the Defense budget is only 20 % of the federal budget, why should the military take 50 % of the cuts if sequestration happens ?

    During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more !

    As you have pointed out before, G.W. Bush kept the funding to fight a war against terrorist and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan separate from the normal defense budget.

    When Obama became POTUS he combined the cost of fighting the wars in to the defense budget. This should have been done day one on 9-12-01.

    That's why when you look at defense spending today it seems on paper that defense spending has increased under Obama but you don't see the huge defense cuts Obama has already made.

    I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.

    Adagio, President Obama said he would veto any bill that would repeal the sequestration.
    Why not call his bluff? It would get the GOP off the hook and put it on him. They'll take the fall for this if it isn't prevented.

    The sequestration idea came from the Obama White House. Obama signed it in to law.
    The idea came from there that's true. But it is by design, meant to impose something that would be totally rejected by both parties, in order to get them to agree on something. Boehner spelled it out and pushed it through the House. He voted for it. So did the Republicans. He got 98% of what he wanted. And now he says it's a threat to National Security?? A job killer? Adds to unemployment?? Well no ****! But that begs the question....why did you vote for something that was a threat to national security, would kill jobs and add to unemployment??? You knew that's what it was when you voted for it. Even Obama thought you couldn't possibly be so stupid, uncooperative, and irresponsible to not do something to avoid this.

    Personally I think it's close to treason using our national defense as a pawn.
    There are people willing to allow this to impact the entire country, because they are committed to an ideology of non-compromise. That's not a governing style that works for a democracy.

    During Obama's first term he had already initiated $500 Billion dollars in defense cuts and he wants more !
    No. But 1.2 Trillion is being cut and Defense is getting hit, and Boehner and the Republicans agreed to this and thought it was a good idea. I don't know about you, but I remember hearing about this on the night they did it. A committee of 6 Pubs, and 6 Dems were going to come to agreement on something to avoid this thing. I thought it was insane when I heard it. Did you actually think that there would ever be an agreement with Obama on anything? You know...you can come up with an idea...a really crazy idea, that you'd expect rational and sane people to grasp as seriously damaging, and that they'd know the consequences of their inaction would effect everybody. You might even expect them to reject the idea as too crazy. And this idea came about as a way to get Republicans to agree to not default on the debt ceiling. So they would let the country default on it's credit, and damage its rating in the process. Why should we think that you could get an even number of congressmen from both parties to agree to keep the country from falling back into recession. The President won the election. The people overwhelmingly approve of a balanced approach to deficit reduction. You have $2 in revenue for every $3 in spending. It's not going to come in all spending cuts. That's not going to happen. If the Repubs had won the election they might have gotten that. But they didn't. So my advice is to get it done with. And do it now.

    When Obama became POTUS he combined the cost of fighting the wars in to the defense budget. This should have been done day one on 9-12-01.
    Why?

    That's why when you look at defense spending today it seems on paper that defense spending has increased under Obama but you don't see the huge defense cuts Obama has already made.
    That makes no sense to me Patch. But whatever...get ready for some REAL cuts. This is so stupid.

    I'm one of those conservatives who believed that there should have been a war tax that every American paid and that means every American including the 48 % who pay no individual income taxes at all.
    Well, of course there should be a war tax on every American. That's exactly how it should be done. We might be less quick on the trigger if we actually saw that we were paying for it. But the 48% you're talking about do pay taxes. They all pay payroll taxes, and social security taxes, and sales taxes. A lot of people that don't pay taxes don't have jobs. You can't very well pay for something with rocks. But unless you're living in the poverty level, we should all be subject to a war tax. I like it. This would pose a problem for some conservatives committed to never raise taxes, while at the same time generally supporting our miltary efforts. I suppose our war plans might be heavily debated since all of us would face a tax increase. I like that idea though.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •