Page 121 of 147 FirstFirst ... 2171111119120121122123131 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 1467

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

  1. #1201
    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
    Yep, now CRA compliance has expanded and the DOJ has claimed enforcment rights as Holder continues to do what he did under Janet Reno.

    Fleece the banks
    Fleece the banks??? The Banks fleeced all of us.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  2. #1202
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Whipsnade View Post
    Fleece the banks?

    Maybe they were trying to get some taxpayer money back from the banksters.

    <So what if we told you that, by our calculations, the largest U.S. banks aren’t really profitable at all? What if the billions of dollars they allegedly earn for their shareholders were almost entirely a gift from U.S. taxpayers?>

    <Small as it might sound, 0.8 percentage point makes a big difference. Multiplied by the total liabilities of the 10 largest U.S. banks by assets, it amounts to a taxpayer subsidy of $83 billion a year. To put the figure in perspective, it’s tantamount to the government giving the banks about 3 cents of every tax dollar collected.>

    Why Should Taxpayers Give Big Banks $83 Billion a Year? - Bloomberg
    I bet thats about what CRA compliance would cost. Just sayin.

  3. #1203
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    If that makes you feel like you're somehow validated...I don't spend time with nonsense and I won't waste time rebutting your laundry list of talking points. Come back when you get over your faux outrage over your own nonsense. You draw your own conclusions and base them on garbage. You hold a baseless ideology which you can't defend because there is nothing underneath it and the public knows that. It's hot air. That's why you lost. It's why you'll continue to lose.
    blah blah blah, rhetorical egomania at large.

  4. #1204
    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
    Oh shut it. This is what you posted:


    Which is a huge sense of denial about both sides being responsible for sequestration. Which I pointed out. It is decidedly NOT personal, its a comment on how you can deny culpability for your fellow political travelers. Both sides are holding the bag on this one.

    The Democrats and Obama are willing to compromise. That's what they've been doing. As usual the Republicans refuse, because as they've always stated they won't support anything Obama wants. And we all know that. There is a $2 revenue to $3 cuts available and the Republicans would rather risk national security, cause higher unemployment, and another recession, and a whole lot of suffering on the backs of the American people over their principle. And these aren't even a raise in taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Their principles? Well Obama has his own principles and he won the election. In other words HIS principles are the principles that the American people agree with. You're free to hold your principles and if you win an election, you'll have the opportunity to apply them. That's how it works. By rejecting a $2 to $3 plan, you'll end up with a $1 to $1 sequestration. You'll opt for something much worse if you can't get your way? You'd risk national security, high unemployment, and recession because you refuse to close some tax loopholes? That's the actions of petulant childrend. And you lost the election. And the people want a balanced approach, and the people spoke in November. If it's a question over principles...the Repubs lost that vote. Obama doesn't have to govern by Republican principles. He has his own, and the people agree with them. Try to remember the FACT that you can't demonstrate principles as true. That's why you have yours, and others have theirs. If you lose an election, YOURS take a back seat to his in the final analysis. When you win, yours take the front seat. Until then...stop obstructing.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  5. #1205
    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 Whipsnade View Post
    I donít/havenít condemned the banks .but I do think that when they get big enough that there called too big to fail, itís time to chop them up into smaller morsels.
    They aren't just too big to fail. Now their too big to jail. So they can't fail, and they're above the law.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  6. #1206
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,766

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    The Democrats and Obama are willing to compromise. That's what they've been doing. As usual the Republicans refuse, because as they've always stated they won't support anything Obama wants. And we all know that. There is a $2 revenue to $3 cuts available and the Republicans would rather risk national security, cause higher unemployment, and another recession, and a whole lot of suffering on the backs of the American people over their principle. And these aren't even a raise in taxes. It's about closing loopholes. Their principles? Well Obama has his own principles and he won the election. In other words HIS principles are the principles that the American people agree with. You're free to hold your principles and if you win an election, you'll have the opportunity to apply them. That's how it works. By rejecting a $2 to $3 plan, you'll end up with a $1 to $1 sequestration. You'll opt for something much worse if you can't get your way? You'd risk national security, high unemployment, and recession because you refuse to close some tax loopholes? That's the actions of petulant childrend. And you lost the election. And the people want a balanced approach, and the people spoke in November. If it's a question over principles...the Repubs lost that vote. Obama doesn't have to govern by Republican principles. He has his own, and the people agree with them. Try to remember the FACT that you can't demonstrate principles as true. That's why you have yours, and others have theirs. If you lose an election, YOURS take a back seat to his in the final analysis. When you win, yours take the front seat. Until then...stop obstructing.
    Bolded is rhetorical horse crap, underlined is outright lies.

    Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.
    Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.

    His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.

  7. #1207
    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
    blah blah blah, rhetorical egomania at large.
    No. It's me telling somebody else I don't have time to waste on his talking points. Over the last decade the Republican Party almost destroyed the country. Now we hear the justificationist BS trying to blame ( drum roll please ) Bill Clinton. You had your chance and you blew it. You hate government because you insist that it doesn't work and steals your money. And when you get into office...you do everything possible to make that come true. You want power, but you can't govern. So get out of the way already! I have no time or interest in waiding through the meta-arguments and minutia made by a bunch of conspiracy theorists. As Occam said, the simplest answers are usually the right ones. There is never a need to add unnecessary contingincies.

    This thread is about the SOTU address. You didn't like it. We did. We won. This is where we are going. Want to come along, or get left behind?
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  8. #1208
    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
    Bolded is rhetorical horse crap, underlined is outright lies.

    Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.
    Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.

    His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.
    Democrats dont want to close loopholes they want to raise taxes.
    YOUR taxes have been cut. These are now loopholes. The top 1% had their taxes raised. I doubt if that had any effect on you since your taxes have been kept at the same rates as the Bush Cuts.

    Democrats dont want to cut spending, they want to spend more.
    Yeah. so what? When you cut spending you are taking money out of the economy. When you do that you lose jobs. We want it put into the economy. We have a disagreement on what grows the economy. And we won that argument. Get over it.

    His job is to represent ALL of the people, not just the ones that elected him.
    That's right, but he can't very well represent YOUR side of that equation and ignore the side that elected him based on what he proposed. And he's not going to, because elections do have consequences. So there will always be a divided electorate. His first responsibility is to those that elected him to do what he said he'd do. He's not going to govern based on your conservative ideas. Your conservative ideas
    There is no lie in the post. And you aren't having your taxes raised. And you are objecting to the closing of loopholes. And just bolding the text and underlining what YOU view as lies or crap doesn't in fact make it either. Opinion and Fact. Remember??

    He doesn't govern as a conservative. Did you think that he would?

    Do you even know why you're a conservative??
    Last edited by Adagio; 02-22-13 at 06:14 PM.
    Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.

  9. #1209
    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
    But talking about sea skimming nuclear tipped missiles and Russian bombers dropping nukes, even though today's bombers are used to deliver low yield nuclear cruise missiles shows you don't know what your talking about.
    Do you even know what a sea skimmer is?

    China, Russia and the United States are very unlikely to ever use nuclear weapons. That's the whole idea of having a nuclear arsenal, the threat of nuclear annihilation. It's been the nuclear arsenal that has prevented another major world war. Instead we have small proxy wars.
    *sigh*

    "We really don't have an answer to that short on relying upon China's unwillingness to use nuclear weapons first."

    Oh wait. I said that. You agree with me and then call me wrong. Doesn't that mean you just called yourself wrong?

    Capabilities wise, China can block access. Political willingness is another story as we both agree on but you decided to still call something you argued as wrong. I'll chalk that up to your tiredness for calling your own argument wrong.

    Israel is very likely use nukes for it's survival.
    More likely MAD. The use of German Built Dolphin submarines and their nuclear tipped Harpoons is far more of MAD strategy then actual usage. Iran likely knows where Israel's silos are. Its Dolphins however, are another story entirely.

    South Africa got rid of their nukes when they saw that the communist / socialist terrorist were going to gain control of their country.
    That's one take on it:

    IPS – Abandoning Nuclear Weapons

    And the ANC is hardly Communist or Socialist.

    The big threat is North Korea, Pakistan and soon Iran and their nukes and they seem not to be to worried being incinerated by our nukes if they were to use their nukes. That's the problem.
    Why do you think that North Korea and Iran are not worried about nuclear war?
    What in their histories suggests that they are willing to sacrifice their power structures?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #1210
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,310

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Adagio View Post
    If that makes you feel like you're somehow validated...I don't spend time with
    nonsense and I won't waste time rebutting your laundry list of talking points. Come back when you get over your faux outrage over your own nonsense. You draw your own conclusions and base them on garbage. You hold a baseless ideology which you can't defend because there is nothing underneath it and the public knows that. It's hot air. That's why you lost. It's why you'll continue to lose.

    Said the pot to the kettle....

    You still haven't rebutted one of those "talking points" ....it should be easy, theyr'e just "baseless hot air" right ?

    I think your chicken, scared, defeated, ....wait this one word sums all of those adjectives.

    Liberal.

Posting Permissions

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