• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Yea because Wars have always bankrupted the United States..

What would you Libbies do with out your scape goat ?

You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.

It doesn't explain your presidents failures.
 
pot meet kettle....

You have to be THE biggest hypocrite here and that's saying something.

You post nonsensical leftist talking points and call people blind ideologues.

You insult and then complain about ad hominum attacks.

You have yet to post anything of substance, and every one of your post has been refuted by people much brighter than yourself and much more honest.


I don't use talking points junior. I don't need them. I also don't practice hypocrisy. I expose it. And as for insults, I fully admit that I'll use them in response those that are tossed out be people like you. But I don't initiate them. If you have a thin skin you shouldn't be on a poltical forum. If you choose to use ad hominem's as your tactic, it will be responded in ways that even you can understand. I have yet to see a single post by any conservative that held any substance. When I've posted lengthy posts that fully detail a position, I'm accused of writing too much. I should apparently keep short "pithy" responses to engage in stupid moronic name calling crap. And I haven't found any bright people here yet let alone honest. At least not on the right, but that's not unusual. You just responded to this: "The problem with them is that they're conservatives but have no idea why? It has no basis to it. They just "believe" in it. You can't open the mind of a religious fanatic and you can't open the mind of an ideologue." That is a totally honest assessment of the conservative mind. If you have an issue with what I just said, then defend your position. You don't know why your a conservative. There is no basis to it. And you do use talking points. I was watching a show last night that was a direct echo of the very thing I see right here. If you think I'm being dishonest about that, then show me where I'm wrong. These aren't "talking points". They're my own views on conservatism. There is no basis for it. It's little more than a religious cult. It can't demonstrate what makes it true. It's a baseless ideology that like a religion, invests belief in its own claims as if they were true. You haven't got anybody bright enough to address that, so you reduce yourself to name calling and insult. I doubt you even know the history of conservatism and what it bases itself on.
 
Yea because Wars have always bankrupted the United States..

What would you Libbies do with out your scape goat ?

You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.

It doesn't explain your presidents failures.


No. They haven't always bankrupted the United States because we always paid for them. That's why nobody ever went to war and cut taxes. You raise taxes when you go to War. Everyone that ever took their country to war knows that. That's how you pay for it. It's not something that is expected within a budget. All of the talk by wingnuts that spending doesn't work when you're in a recession or depression love to cite the New Deal, while failing to note that the spending in WWII was far greater than anything we'd done before. Unemployment went from 14% in 1940 to 1.9% by 1943. We came out of the war the strongest economy in the world. Hardly bankrupting the country. Spending money worked. You just don't need a war to do it.

You CANT hide the cost of war by the way, wars that the Democrats voted for.

Yes you can, and the Bush Admin did exactly that. It doesn't matter who voted for it. They voted to go to war. They didn't vote for creative accounting for that war. That was the Admin that did that.

It doesn't explain your presidents failures.

That's because your idea of failure don't demonstrate failure. Failure can only be determined after something has been fully implemented and it takes years to assess whether something worked or didn't. In words that you can understand, the jury is still out. When his work is complete, then you can have your say. Most of the country disagrees with your views now. He was elected with over 50% for only the second time since Eisenhower. Apparently the majority of the electorate sees things differently. I criticized Bush heavily when he was in office and could not understand how anybody could vote for him twice. But they did. Now we can see what the results were. Total FAILURE! What you're doing is criticizing the deficit today without acknowledging the size of the deficit when Obama came in. SURPRISE!!! :shock: It's bigger than you thought, and you want to lay that all on him?? I dont' think so.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

So we make the iPhone here ? Under jurisdiction of US MW laws ?

Actually, I think such as pizza and hamburgers and stocking shelves is a bit more of an accurate product/service environment to look at. Where profit margins are typically in the 3-5% range, if that.

Come now .......... ;)

Apple is one of the few companies that you can use for an example of 100%+ mark-up. That being said, their mark-up is justified by the zombie-fan-boy following they have! You were responding to a comment that referred to pricing labor out of the market. Apple is not the best example to use in a counter-point - considering they gouge the sh*t out of their prices and haven't really updated their product since it was originally released (somewhere, an iPhone fan-boy just had a migraine because I wrote that).

Most companies mark their products up 40% or less. I work for a company that deals with welding supplies. We have suppliers that we purchase products from to resell (we mark up 30% to remain competitive). First, we have to buy the product. Then we need to keep an inventory of the products. We need people to get on the road and sell them and write invoices. We need people to pick up supplies and stock them. We need a building to keep our supplies in, we also need to pay the lease, electric, water, internet, credit-card machine, we need to pay the company that prints all of our paper-products... The list goes on-and-on. All of those "administrative" costs are paid for by the mark-up. Including salaries. Now, I have enjoyed salary increases because I remain productive and always try to do more than expected... However, what would happen if my salary was forcefully increased instead of volume dictating it? Well, now we have to mark-up prices (making us less competitive) or trim down some hours (forcing us to do more work in less time, making us less efficient, i.e. less competitive) or fire people (making us less competitive)...

History has proven only unintended consequences come from a minimum wage. When the President said "no family should live in poverty (paraphrase)", in regards to raising the minimum wage to $9/hr... what family do you know is prospering from the bread-winner earning $9/hr?

Glad to see you guys are starting to see things alittle more reasonably. And you're both correct; Apple isn't the best example to use where product mark-up pricing is concerned. However, I used them on the extreme side to illustrate a point which both of you exemplified admirably.

Production costs isn't the only thing that factors into determing employee salaries. As DannyRux makes clear, there are several components that factor into it. But as he also makes clear companies, particularly large corporations, will make the necessary adjustments. True, it would be more difficult for small companies to adjust, but adjust they will even if it means laying off an employee or two (i.e., last new hire, or under-performing worker), shaving expenditures (i.e., reducing vehicle fleet size) or freezing pay raises or not paying bonuses to name just a few.

As to the argument concerning the primary bread winner's hourly wages exceeding the $9/hr minimum wage as proposed by the President, I think we all can agree the if you're the primary bread winner in your household and you're only making $9/hr, your "household" will certainly have difficulties "keeping up with the Jones" where today's living standards are concerned. But if one is living within his/her means, $9/hr is a much better starting point than today's $7.25/hr especially considering that many who work at such a low wage level are young/unskilled laborers who are only working on avg. between 28-32 hours a week. A $1.75 pay raise would do wonders for these such folks, many of whom are trying to:

- strike out on their own and no longer live with mom and dad.
- afford their own health insurance.
- afford better living conditions (especially if they are college students).

I don't think it's asking too much to pay people a wage rate that allows them to afford a half-way decent standard of living especially if such a rate places the employee above the federal poverty level.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

I just found this article from theHill.com, "Experts debate the benefits of a proposed minimum wage hike," which piggy-backs on my post above concerning who generally hold down minimum wage jobs, "young/unskilled laborers".

"Putting it into context — those who are trying to support families are not who are making minimum wage.

...

Of all minimum wage workers, 50 percent are under age 25, many work part-time and dominate a handful of occupations including food service, ground maintenance, personal care services and sales and office occupations."

A minimum wage increase would benefit mostly low- to middle-income families with about 70 percent of them making less than the median income of about $60,000 a year or less.

Among those that would benefit, more than half (54.2 percent) of families earn less than $40,000 per year, according to Sabadish and Hall.

The increase would help struggling families "make ends meet in a difficult economic environment" and "it will also spur economic growth," they wrote.

The proposed minimum wage hike would also help workers across all races and ethnicities — 53.1 percent are white and 25.2 percent are Hispanic.

The vast majority — 84.1 percent — of those benefiting from the president's plan are at least 20 years old, so that means that less than 16 percent of the workers affected are teenagers.

The article also made it clear that some employers would have to cut back either in new hires, raises, or employee benefits in order to meet the new mimimum wage standard, if authorized by Congress. However, the overall tenor of the article seems to suggest that the nation's economy overall would benefit for an increase in the mimimum wage.

Just thought I'd share this article which speaks to both sides of the issue.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

The problem with them is that they're conservatives but have no idea why? It has no basis to it. They just "believe" in it. You can't open the mind of a religious fanatic and you can't open the mind of an ideologue.

You also can't open the mind of a person who is fanatical about an ideology. You might not be "religious", you are definitely a fanatic. Not much better.

I'm a conservative... I know why... Please, ask me anything.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

I just found this article from theHill.com, "Experts debate the benefits of a proposed minimum wage hike," which piggy-backs on my post above concerning who generally hold down minimum wage jobs, "young/unskilled laborers".



The article also made it clear that some employers would have to cut back either in new hires, raises, or employee benefits in order to meet the new mimimum wage standard, if authorized by Congress. However, the overall tenor of the article seems to suggest that the nation's economy overall would benefit for an increase in the mimimum wage.

Just thought I'd share this article which speaks to both sides of the issue.


There is no benefit to the federal minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are meant for young teenagers... not for adults. Raising the minimum wage has shifted this, leaving the youth out of jobs because now they are competing with people who think the small sum is worth something to their families.

Seriously, what has the government done right. I challenge you to come up with an example.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

There is no benefit to the federal minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are meant for young teenagers... not for adults.
[emphasis added by bubba]
let's look at this sentence, not because it is correct; it isn't. teens are not subject to minimum wage provisions for the first 90 days of their employment. but i want to contrast this statement that minimum wage, like trix, is for kids with your following statement:
Raising the minimum wage has shifted this, leaving the youth out of jobs because now they are competing with people who think the small sum is worth something to their families.
notice how you here recognize that other than teens are accepting jobs despite that those jobs pay only the minimum wage

Seriously, what has the government done right. I challenge you to come up with an example.
establishing a minimum wage for one. during good times, few would settle for minimum wage because employers could not find enough qualified workers for the jobs they needed filled. minimum wage in that environment was of nominal purpose. but notice your own argument tells us now that adults are now willing to accept minimum wage positions to feed their families. and if that minimum wage floor was not so established those employees would have no alternative but to accept lower wages
 
Re: SOTU Address:

There is no benefit to the federal minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs are meant for young teenagers... not for adults. Raising the minimum wage has shifted this, leaving the youth out of jobs because now they are competing with people who think the small sum is worth something to their families.

Seriously, what has the government done right. I challenge you to come up with an example.


For a start it(raising the minimum wage) would inject almost $10 billion of extra spending power into our economy.Oh...bytheway.Half of all minimum wage earners are over the age of 25.Just sayen.:peace
 
No. They haven't always bankrupted the United
States because we always paid for them. That's why nobody ever went to war and cut taxes. You raise taxes when you go to War. Everyone that ever took their country to war knows that. That's how you pay for it. It's not something that is expected within a budget. All of the talk by wingnuts that spending doesn't work when you're in a recession or depression love to cite the New Deal, while failing to note that the spending in WWII was far greater than anything we'd done before. Unemployment went from 14% in 1940 to 1.9% by 1943. We came out of the war the strongest economy in the world. Hardly bankrupting the country. Spending money worked. You just don't need a war to do it.



Yes you can, and the Bush Admin did exactly that. It doesn't matter who voted for it. They voted to go to war. They didn't vote for creative accounting for that war. That was the Admin that did that.



That's because your idea of failure don't demonstrate failure. Failure can only be determined after something has been fully implemented and it takes years to assess whether something worked or didn't. In words that you can understand, the jury is still out. When his work is complete, then you can have your say. Most of the country disagrees with your views now. He was elected with over 50% for only the second time since Eisenhower. Apparently the majority of the electorate sees things differently. I criticized Bush heavily when he was in office and could not understand how anybody could vote for him twice. But they did. Now we can see what the results were. Total FAILURE! What you're doing is criticizing the deficit today without acknowledging the size of the deficit when Obama came in. SURPRISE!!! :shock: It's bigger than you thought, and you want to lay that all on him?? I dont' think so.

Your saying Obama's massive unprecedented spending is the fault of Bush's Wars ? And the fact that 8 and a half million people have dropped out of the work force are due to Bush's wars...that Democrats voted for ? And the 800 billion Stimulus that was spent on public sector jobs and bankrupt green energy companies was because of the Wars ? ...that Democrats voted on ? And the fact Obama lied about "infrastructure" and "shovel ready jobs" was about Bush's two wars ?

And yes "most of the electorate are full on morons '', at least 60 million of them, for believing the likes of Obama and his useful idiots. Sorry, he's been running a trillion dollar defecits, spent over 900 billion last quarter alone and our economy shrunk. Must have been " the two wars ".

He's been in office long enough for SANE people to know this is his disaster and no one elses.

I mean I wondered what the Liberals were going to do as far as explaining his failure after he was first elected. Because I knew his ideology was going to create misery. I mean you people elected a guy because the media told you to. How embarrasing.

I never figured you would after 4 years of failure and 50 million new food stamp recipients, an exploding debt and deficits, no net new jobs, record amounts of people applying for SS disabillity benefits, States still slipping further into the red because there are no jobs...blame BUSH.

I thought as morally and ethically bankrupt as you liberals are, that your willing to sell your integrity for a vote in a heart beat, that you would still possess some measure of pride. But no, it appears youv'e compromised that too.

What did you get for it ? A lottery ticket ? Bet you lost.

Look its not my fault or Bush's you were born to limited to handle the basic cognitive principle of arithmetic...I bet you can "cipher" though...LOL ! Jethro Clampet

You say it takes years to assess Obama's "implemented" policies ? LOL !!! What a pathetic attempt at mitigation. It's been years, theyv'e failed and miserably.

I mean what a desperate , arbitrary thing to say. How many years ? 30 ?

Because I wish Captain Dip**** had let us in on that important bit of information. "It will take years for my policies to pan out until they can be called failures or successes ".

People need jobs YESTERDAY Jethro. Actually I think the effect of his policies have pretty much panned out.

Hi unemployment, desperate American families struggling for the foreseeable future, the Country on the verge of bankruptcy, the Fed monetizing our debt ( I know over your head ) Europe struggling and Countries like Germany reporting shrinking economies too. Desperate Democrats wasting bandwidth trying to salvage any measure of self respect they can, by blaming Bush...lol

As it turns out I could have told you Feb 1st 2008 this is what was going to happen.

I can hardly wait to hear your next set of excuses. They get more. and more comical and make less and less sense.
 
Jennings pointed to how the omission of war costs from the annual budget has distorted thinking on the federal deficit in past years.
Obama To Put Cost of War on the Books, for the First Time in Eight Years
Posted by ralphon February 27, 2009

Christi Parsons and Maura Reynolds, LA Times:

After eight years of budget practices that often camouflaged federal spending, President Obama is planning a new strategy of putting on the books as many costs as possible to demonstrate the extent of the nation’s economic troubles, senior White House officials say.

Obama’s first budget, scheduled to be released in broad outline Thursday, will include at the outset money for the Iraq war, the military buildup in Afghanistan and other expenditures. The approach is in contrast to that of the previous administration, which often tucked such costly commitments into separate spending requests that would go to Congress later.

When you examine the deficit, it might be a good idea to look at the money that was spent on the wars as a huge part of it. Just taking it off the books may make you feel better, but it's still there.

Youre new here, so you may not know this.

If you use a source, you need to cite it.
 
For a start it(raising the minimum wage) would inject almost $10 billion of
extra spending power into our economy.Oh...bytheway.Half of all minimum wage earners are over the age of 25.Just sayen.:peace

For a start ? And then what, as already taxed and burdrned small bussiness struggle to try and make up for the mandated raises ? Or are you saying it would benefit them as well ?

They can pay higher prices on office supplies, higher unemployment insurance, pay a higher rate of withholding on every employee who recieves the raise.

I mean it sounds capricious abd counter productive.

How did you quantify the "10 billion dollar injection " ?
 
Last edited:
Re: SOTU Address:

For a start it(raising the minimum wage) would inject almost $10 billion of extra spending power into our economy.Oh...bytheway.Half of all minimum wage earners are over the age of 25.Just sayen.:peace

That's nonsense, I suppose if min wage wasn't raised the employers would take that money and hide it under their mattress. You're taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another pocket and claiming to have more money. And keep in mind the GEs & Microsofts of the world don't employ min wage employees, it's the little guys that get to deal with the aftermath. I have no doubt that a year after min wage is raised we'll be listening to the left complain about how there are fewer jobs for low skilled workers. A min wage increase will increase the employers labor costs, maybe if we put some new taxes and costly regulations on them as well we might see more hiring.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

For a start it(raising the minimum wage) would inject almost $10 billion of extra spending power into our economy.Oh...bytheway.Half of all minimum wage earners are over the age of 25.Just sayen.:peace

Why wait for this $1.75/hr 'raise' to flush through the economy? Why not just pay the 3.5m minimum wage earners a $2500 government check? It would be much quicker and have little effect on cost of goods...Heck we just spent 9X that on hurricane Sandy...WAY cheaper 'stimulus' than last time.
 
Youre new here, so you may not know this.


If you use a source, you need to cite it.

There are no sources legitimate or otherwise for hyperbolic left wing rhetoric and Democrat talking points...with the exception of MSNBC
 
There are no sources legitimate or otherwise for hyperbolic left wing rhetoric and Democrat talking points...with the exception of MSNBC

Dont care, I just want the original source material so I can judge its content for myself, as well as the author.
 
Re: SOTU Address:

You also can't open the mind of a person who is fanatical about an ideology. You might not be "religious", you are definitely a fanatic. Not much better.

I'm a conservative... I know why... Please, ask me anything.

I'm neither fanatical nor an ideologue. I'm sure to you I appear that way, being a conservative, but thats because I don't hold to an ideology. I accept change. Ideologies don't change. They're doctrinaire. The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. Can you say as much? I doubt it, since you're committed to the ideology of conservatism. I know that I'm fallible and I could be wrong about a host of things. I also know that a fallible human cannot create an infallible ideology. You sayh you're a conservative? Are you fallible? Could you or your ideology be wrong about anything? Fine. You're a conservative. What do you base your conservatism on?
 
Re: SOTU Address:

[emphasis added by bubba]
let's look at this sentence, not because it is correct; it isn't. teens are not subject to minimum wage provisions for the first 90 days of their employment. but i want to contrast this statement that minimum wage, like trix, is for kids with your following statement:

notice how you here recognize that other than teens are accepting jobs despite that those jobs pay only the minimum wage


establishing a minimum wage for one. during good times, few would settle for minimum wage because employers could not find enough qualified workers for the jobs they needed filled. minimum wage in that environment was of nominal purpose. but notice your own argument tells us now that adults are now willing to accept minimum wage positions to feed their families. and if that minimum wage floor was not so established those employees would have no alternative but to accept lower wages

Their concern for the youth is touching. Really...touching. They want to cut Pell Grants that could help them afford college, they voted against reducing the interest rates on student loans, but now they're concerned over their ability to compete with adults who are now in a position themselves of having lost a job and taking anything to keep their families from losing their homes, and those jobs are paying them minimum wage. Skilled, educated workers having to take a minimum wage job just to get something to survive. WalMart alone would elevate 700,000 people out of poverty by raising the limit and those people will spend their money back into the economy which puts a greater demand on companies to hire. Consumer spending is what drives the economy.
 
QUOTE Fenton

For a start ? And then what, as already taxed and burdrned small bussiness struggle to try and make up for the mandated raises ? Or are you saying it would benefit them as well ?

They can pay higher prices on office supplies, higher unemployment insurance, pay a higher rate of withholding on every employee who recieves the raise.

Where did you get the idea, from my post that I said it wouldn't burden small business? It would more than likely be a burden for the 34% of small business that employ FEWER than 100 employees but those with more than 100 employees,who employ the remaining 66% of low-wage workers? Well. They've been skatin for the last 12 years, while those making minimum have seen living expenses such as groceries raise 13%,housing 10%,utilities 12%; not to mention gas and HEALTHCARE…if any, are headin for an emergency rooms while the rest of us are footen the bill. :peace



How did you quantify the "10 billion dollar injection " ?[/QUOTE]


http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.pdf
 
Re: SOTU Address:

That's nonsense, I suppose if min wage wasn't raised the employers would take that money and hide it under their mattress. You're taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another pocket and claiming to have more money. And keep in mind the GEs & Microsofts of the world don't employ min wage employees, it's the little guys that get to deal with the aftermath. I have no doubt that a year after min wage is raised we'll be listening to the left complain about how there are fewer jobs for low skilled workers. A min wage increase will increase the employers labor costs, maybe if we put some new taxes and costly regulations on them as well we might see more hiring.


Speaken of nonsense. Do you proofread your post before you hit the send button?
"I suppose if min wage wasn't raised the employers would take that money and hide it under their mattress. "
Explain where this pile of straw comes from what i posted.
 
Your saying Obama's massive unprecedented spending is the fault of Bush's Wars ?And the fact that 8 and a half million people have dropped out of the work force are due to Bush's wars...that Democrats voted for ? And the 800 billion Stimulus that was spent on public sector jobs and bankrupt green energy companies was because of the Wars ? ...that Democrats voted on ? And the fact Obama lied about "infrastructure" and "shovel ready jobs" was about Bush's two wars ?

And yes "most of the electorate are full on morons '', at least 60 million of them, for believing the likes of Obama and his useful idiots. Sorry, he's been running a trillion dollar defecits, spent over 900 billion last quarter alone and our economy shrunk. Must have been " the two wars ".

He's been in office long enough for SANE people to know this is his disaster and no one elses.

I mean I wondered what the Liberals were going to do as far as explaining his failure after he was first elected. Because I knew his ideology was going to create misery. I mean you people elected a guy because the media told you to. How embarrasing.

I never figured you would after 4 years of failure and 50 million new food stamp recipients, an exploding debt and deficits, no net new jobs, record amounts of people applying for SS disabillity benefits, States still slipping further into the red because there are no jobs...blame BUSH.

I thought as morally and ethically bankrupt as you liberals are, that your willing to sell your integrity for a vote in a heart beat, that you would still possess some measure of pride. But no, it appears youv'e compromised that too.

What did you get for it ? A lottery ticket ? Bet you lost.

Look its not my fault or Bush's you were born to limited to handle the basic cognitive principle of arithmetic...I bet you can "cipher" though...LOL ! Jethro Clampet

You say it takes years to assess Obama's "implemented" policies ? LOL !!! What a pathetic attempt at mitigation. It's been years, theyv'e failed and miserably.

I mean what a desperate , arbitrary thing to say. How many years ? 30 ?

Because I wish Captain Dip**** had let us in on that important bit of information. "It will take years for my policies to pan out until they can be called failures or successes ".

People need jobs YESTERDAY Jethro. Actually I think the effect of his policies have pretty much panned out.

Hi unemployment, desperate American families struggling for the foreseeable future, the Country on the verge of bankruptcy, the Fed monetizing our debt ( I know over your head ) Europe struggling and Countries like Germany reporting shrinking economies too. Desperate Democrats wasting bandwidth trying to salvage any measure of self respect they can, by blaming Bush...lol

As it turns out I could have told you Feb 1st 2008 this is what was going to happen.

I can hardly wait to hear your next set of excuses. They get more. and more comical and make less and less sense.


Your saying Obama's massive unprecedented spending is the fault of Bush's Wars ?

No. I'm saying that the deficit that you are outraged over ignores the fact that the wars were kept off the books. It was by design, done to show a smaller deficit than actually existed. And Obama has slowed spending more than any recent president. You were willing to vote for Romney who proposed $5 Trillion in massive unfunded tax cuts, and another $2 Trillion in Defense. That's $7 Trillion added to the deficit, you know, the deficit that you hate>:eek:

And the fact that 8 and a half million people have dropped out of the work force are due to Bush's wars...that Democrats voted for ?

Two things. 1.The Democrats voted on the intelligence that the White House was providing which turned out to be a lie. Once they realized it they all renounced their own votes. 2. The voted for the war, not creative accounting of it. Our economy collapsed as a result of 1.3 Trillion in tax cuts and another 1.5 two years later. And 9/11, And two unfunded wars, and Wall Street insanity. You might want to remember that we were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of Bush transitioning to Obama. That trend was turned around and the recovery began. It took 8 years to wreck the economy. Nobody should have thought it would come roaring back immediately. How many people that have dropped out of the work force have begun their own business rather than try working for somebody else. I did that very thing years ago.

And yes "most of the electorate are full on morons '', at least 60 million of them, for believing the likes of Obama and his useful idiots

As opposed to the genius's that voted for Bush??? It's so friggin easy to call the people that beat you in an election morons isn't it? Face it. The country has changed, and like the good little conservative you hate change. Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Today it's gay's, hispanics, even women. (conservatives even opposed the womens right to vote...so this is nothing new)

He's been in office long enough for SANE people to know this is his disaster and no one elses.

Nahh,.. I don't think so. And you guys are in no position to tell us about what SANE is. Just look at the clown show you put up to run. You actually had people like Trump in the lead, then Bachmann, then Perry for more humor, then the performance artist Herman Cain, Gingrich, the Ayatolla Sanitarium, and finally when all of them proved to be caricatures of the hopeless ideologue, you end up with Romney the Magnificent, whose high wire circus act of somersaults and flip flops were worthy of the Olympic gymnasitcs team. Yeah man...tell about SANE. Go ahead.:lamo

I mean I wondered what the Liberals were going to do as far as explaining his failure after he was first elected. Because I knew his ideology was going to create misery. I mean you people elected a guy because the media told you to. How embarrasing.

So you hated him even before he got elected? Interesting. Obama doesnt hold ideologies. He leaves that to conservatives. Obama is more of a pragmatist. The fact that you think I or anybody else voted for him because the media told me to is an illustration of your own ignorance. And that's pretty embarrasing. It could have easily been Hillary. The main reason she didn't get it was because of her vote on the Iraq war. If she hadn't done that, Obama probably wouldn't have run. You're a conservative and we all know you have your prejudices. Obama gave you a good target to hate.

I thought as morally and ethically bankrupt as you liberals are, that your willing to sell your integrity for a vote in a heart beat, that you would still possess some measure of pride. But no, it appears youv'e compromised that too.

You're in no position to tell anybody about morals and ethics. We've seen it in action. It sucks. Conservatives are nothing more than hypocritical justficationists. We passed boredom with you a long time ago. Secessionists. Transvaginal ultrasounds, women can't get pregnant from a rape, and of course God wants that. Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell. You bore us all with your crap.

Look its not my fault or Bush's you were born to limited to handle the basic cognitive principle of arithmetic...I bet you can "cipher" though...LOL ! Jethro Clampet

Yeah..,.I loved seeing the examples of Karl Roves math, and Dick Morris math. Nailed it! Had it all figured out didn't ya??:doh The problem with you guys is you never understood logic. You still don't. You're still playing checkers, and we're playing chess. The "community organizer that you loved to mock, organized the entire country. While you were mocking him, he built something you've never seen before. And now the country has changed right under your collective noses. Since your ideology doesn't permit change...you've got little to look forward to.

You say it takes years to assess Obama's "implemented" policies ? LOL !!! What a pathetic attempt at mitigation. It's been years, theyv'e failed and miserably.

Nope. He hasn't. In fact he did so well, he got a second term. He won by 5 Million votes. You lost! Suck it up. Come up with ideas that work and a candidate that isn't a joke and you might get somewhere. I won't hold my breath.

People need jobs YESTERDAY Jethro. Actually I think the effect of his policies have pretty much panned out.

Nobody cares what you think Junior. You lost. Get over it, and start figuring out why? And you should start by not blaming everyone else for being stupid. Maybe it's you. Ever think of that??

As it turns out I could have told you Feb 1st 2008 this is what was going to happen.

Bet you couldn't have predicted that getting bin Laden would be such a high priority. Or ending the war in Iraq. Or getting health care reform passed, or saving the auto industry. And I bet you couldn't have predicted that he'd beat your ass in a second election, despite all your crap designed to destroy him.

I can hardly wait to hear your next set of excuses. They get more. and more comical and make less and less sense.

Excuses aren't necessary when people are simply making stupid claims and crying. :boohoo: I wouldn't my responses to make sense to you. That requires a rational and logical mind. You exhibit neither. You're just another rabid attack dog that's whining because he lost. The black guy won, not once but twice and no amount of money could beat him. America...what a country.:ind:
 
Re: SOTU Address:

This begs for a second opinion.

Feel free. I don't have an ideology to defend. You do. I already know I could be wrong. Can you say that? Or are you infallible? Opinions mean nothing to me. I'm interested in facts. I know that as a conservative you do have an ideology that you need to defend. I don't have one. If the Democrats prove to be less rational than Republicans, I'd vote for them. But they aren't. They cling to their ideology and there's no justifiction for it. It has no basis that is rational, and being rational person matters. At least to me. I don't want irrational jerks running my country. I've seen that and what kind of damage it can do.
 
Last edited:
No. I'm saying that the deficit that you are outraged over ignores the fact that the wars were kept off the books. It was by design, done to show a smaller deficit than actually existed. And Obama has slowed spending more than any recent president. You were willing to vote for Romney who proposed $5 Trillion in massive unfunded tax cuts, and another $2 Trillion in Defense. That's $7 Trillion added to the deficit, you know, the deficit that you hate>:eek:



Two things. 1.The Democrats voted on the intelligence that the White House was providing which turned out to be a lie. Once they realized it they all renounced their own votes. 2. The voted for the war, not creative accounting of it. Our economy collapsed as a result of 1.3 Trillion in tax cuts and another 1.5 two years later. And 9/11, And two unfunded wars, and Wall Street insanity. You might want to remember that we were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of Bush transitioning to Obama. That trend was turned around and the recovery began. It took 8 years to wreck the economy. Nobody should have thought it would come roaring back immediately. How many people that have dropped out of the work force have begun their own business rather than try working for somebody else. I did that very thing years ago.



As opposed to the genius's that voted for Bush??? It's so friggin easy to call the people that beat you in an election morons isn't it? Face it. The country has changed, and like the good little conservative you hate change. Conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict. Today it's gay's, hispanics, even women. (conservatives even opposed the womens right to vote...so this is nothing new)



Nahh,.. I don't think so. And you guys are in no position to tell us about what SANE is. Just look at the clown show you put up to run. You actually had people like Trump in the lead, then Bachmann, then Perry for more humor, then the performance artist Herman Cain, Gingrich, the Ayatolla Sanitarium, and finally when all of them proved to be caricatures of the hopeless ideologue, you end up with Romney the Magnificent, whose high wire circus act of somersaults and flip flops were worthy of the Olympic gymnasitcs team. Yeah man...tell about SANE. Go ahead.



So you hated him even before he got elected? Interesting. Obama doesnt hold ideologies. He leaves that to conservatives. Obama is more of a pragmatist. The fact that you think I or anybody else voted for him because the media told me to is an illustration of your own ignorance. And that's pretty embarrasing. It could have easily been Hillary. The main reason she didn't get it was because of her vote on the Iraq war. If she hadn't done that, Obama probably wouldn't have run. You're a conservative and we all know you have your prejudices. Obama gave you a good target to hate.



You're in no position to tell anybody about morals and ethics. We've seen it in action. It sucks. Conservatives are nothing more than hypocritical justficationists. We passed boredom with you a long time ago. Secessionists. Transvaginal ultrasounds, women can't get pregnant from a rape, and of course God wants that. Evolution is a theory straight from the pits of Hell. You bore us all with your crap.



Yeah..,.I loved seeing the examples of Karl Roves math, and Dick Morris math. Nailed it! Had it all figured out didn't ya??:doh The problem with you guys is you never understood logic. You still don't. You're still playing checkers, and we're playing chess. The "community organizer that you loved to mock, organized the entire country. While you were mocking him, he built something you've never seen before. And now the country has changed right under your collective noses. Since your ideology doesn't permit change...you've got little to look forward to.



Nope. He hasn't. In fact he did so well, he got a second term. He won by 5 Million votes. You lost! Suck it up. Come up with ideas that work and a candidate that isn't a joke and you might get somewhere. I won't hold my breath.



Nobody cares what you think Junior. You lost. Get over it, and start figuring out why? And you should start by not blaming everyone else for being stupid. Maybe it's you. Ever think of that??



Bet you couldn't have predicted that getting bin Laden would be such a high priority. Or ending the war in Iraq. Or getting health care reform passed, or saving the auto industry. And I bet you couldn't have predicted that he'd beat your ass in a second election, despite all your crap designed to destroy him.



Excuses aren't necessary when people are simply making stupid claims and crying. :boohoo: I wouldn't my responses to make sense to you. That requires a rational and logical mind. You exhibit neither. You're just another rabid attack dog that's whining because he lost. The black guy won, not once but twice and no amount of money could beat him. America...what a country.:ind:

Dontcha just love the ole obtuse defense some on this forum throw up?:thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom