The Watering Hole

charger — Aug 04, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/25#44 date=1280887828]And so, you'd rather take care of Americans that are sick rather than Iraq people being killed everyday by Hussein? Are some people more important than others?

How many sides of this issue are you going to be on?  

You started this entire thread because you didn't want 7.5 billion dollars to go to Pakistan (a country of 1.7 billion people) over the next 7 years.  But you're okay with 737 billion being spent on Iraq, a country of 30 million people, over the last 8 years.  

And you seem to hate the idea of spending ANY money on Americans.  

Are you actually able to reconcile all of this?  Do you need a special calculator to do it?

What the fuck is your point?


My respense concerning Iraq was directed to Fender. I said no where in my post that I support the Iraq war. I ain't taking the bait.

Never said anything of the sorts about hating to spend money on Americans. My point has been made countless times. The debt is out of control. The government is way to large and becoming way to involved in aspects of life and business. Obama seems to not care about this and continues to spend like a kid with his Moms credit car with her approval. Running a continuous debt and increasing it everyday is not good, very very bad, in fact. that's pretty much what he campaigned against Bush about. Ahhhh, fuck it, he's been elected now, right.

Our country can't sustain this increasing debt and spending. It can't go on forever. there has been no attempt to curb spending, quit spending, slow down spending, etc. And I'm not aware of any plan to address this. And it wasn't addressed much durring the election, which should have been a clue as to what either candidate planned to do, spend, not cut. I choose to vote against reckless spending and hold the President responsible for his lack of action to address this.

that, in short is my point. And when you respond, please........Bush isn't President. And....he isn't spending my money right now.  

Ahhhh, ask MSMBC. I think bathtub boy and the caped gay girl drink a good bit. Probably some form of alcohol.

charger — Aug 04, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/25#47 date=1280889607]For Charger and Fender

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30698248/

Totally irrelevant.
Thanks for posting though!
Do you take your tea with lemon or milk?


"The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes."

The funds have been spent, is irrevelent? Your killing me. ;D ;D Blind as hell. But funny. ;D ;D

charger — Aug 04, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/25#45 date=1280888149][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/25#43 date=1280886962]Nice talking point regurgitation!!!

Thank you. Suppose you tell me what you think the cost of this healthcare thing will be, yearly. You think it will be run amazingly better than medicare and social security? Smoke before you answer that.

95 billion a year over ten years.  And it's actually projected to reduce the deficit (your new favorite thing) by $100 billion in that time.  Mostly because, though you seem not to know this, we ALREADY PAY FOR ALL THE SICK PEOPLE.  We just pay a lot more for them because they get their care too late, when it's already a critical emergency.

And yes, I do think it will be run better than medicare and social security.  Because it's not actually a government healthcare program, which you would know if you got your news somewhere other than Fox or out of a tea cup.  It's an entire system of cost reductions that hinges on about five separate things happening, that in the end will have a lot more of us covered through PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, while at the same time reducing the overall system cost.  It's actually, kind of, a line-by-line rewrite (gasp!) of the health insurance system in America.


I hope we're still around in ten or so years when this thing starts biting you in the ass. I'd love to here the answer to what happened?

Waddaya think about oil company subsidies?

Hookbender — Aug 04, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/25#49 date=1280889843][quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/25#47 date=1280889607]For Charger and Fender

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30698248/

Totally irrelevant.
Thanks for posting though!
Do you take your tea with lemon or milk?


"The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes."

The funds have been spent, is irrevelent? Your killing me. ;D ;D Blind as hell. But funny. ;D ;D

But it's got nothing to do with healthcare, which I assume is why you actually posted that.  Everyone knows that social security and medicare are unfunded liabilities.  They have been that way for 25 years.  But it's not the same as the healthcare bill.  Hey, remember the healthcare bill? That you supported?  That has no "public option" in it?  And thus, no government-sponsored healthcare system?

As for "line by line" that is a figure of speech.  Reagan asked for a line-item veto and was rebuffed.  It's not going to happen anytime soon.  It would be handy.  Instead, what we have is the system we have, where senators require their pet projects to be added to everything in order to vote for legislation.  And if you think this is a Democrat problem, think again.  Because of our ridiculous filibuster rules, to get anything passed, a single Republican vote has to be appeased.  So--they get the candy.  

You can blame Obama for the fucked system, but he's just the president.  Alone, he can do nothing but send people off to undeclared war or throw around a few executive orders.  I blame Congress, and particularly that portion of Congress which craves inaction and wants nothing to pass, so they can get more votes every couple of years.

The point of the post was mainly to show incompetence on the governments part. they simply can't be trusted.

And look, you say I supported the healthcare thing, and...I guess I did. But, I had no say in the healthcare bill. I had no vote, no nothing. And I've always maintained the concern for the cost and the timing. I wouldn't really say I supported "it", the bill itself, I more so supported helping others who couldn't otherwise obtain health insurance. But still, the timing is just not right. But since we were discussing it, and I still feel this way pretty much, I guess its kinda worth helping the 30 million plus people. Whatever the number is. We had the discussion as if we were gonna go vote on the bill.

charger — Aug 04, 2010As for "line by line" that is a figure of speech.  Reagan asked for a line-item veto and was rebuffed.  It's not going to happen anytime soon.  It would be handy.  Instead, what we have is the system we have, where senators require their pet projects to be added to everything in order to vote for legislation.  And if you think this is a Democrat problem, think again.  Because of our ridiculous filibuster rules, to get anything passed, a single Republican vote has to be appeased.  So--they get the candy.  

You can blame Obama for the fucked system, but he's just the president.  Alone, he can do nothing but send people off to undeclared war or throw around a few executive orders.  I blame Congress, and particularly that portion of Congress which craves inaction and wants nothing to pass, so they can get more votes every couple of years.

I don't blame Obama for our fucked up system. I blame Obama for his fucked up system.

I agree with you 100% that it's not just a Democrat problem or just a Republican problem....its a system problem. i think one thing that could help it is to get rid of the old timers and put a limit time wise to their service. I'd also like to see a 2 or 3 year term for Presidents at most with unlimited years of service. If we had Presidential elections every 2 years, we could be better as voters at holding these people accountable our only way, by voting. A President can fuck to many things up in 4 years. And if the President is doing a damn good job, he can keep the job. It may give us a little more stability here and around the world. Seems like a good idea to me, but I'm sure there's a bad side to that too.

I pretty much agree with your post though. Damn, we agree on something. ;D

BINGEWOOD — Aug 04, 2010Waddaya think about oil company subsidies?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html

Well... ;D ;D....the thing that scares me is what will happen to gas prices? I'm sure the oil companies would simply get it at the pump.

But I agree with the general idea. Just worried about the results.

Sheesh, that's the talking point as well.  You don't mind tax money being given to highly profitable corps because you're scared of them raising the price of their product...so the corps get what they want either way.  That's like when FOX say's that taxes can't be raised on the wealthy but that the wealthy have expensive accountants so they don't pay anyway but they also pay most of the total taxes.  Doublespeak rules!!  These 'casters speak from firsthand experience re: accountants btw.

Don't hate the people who exploit all loopholes or just outright fuck you up the ass, hate the gov dopes and regulators who didn't stop the greed.  This is classic propaganda and it works time and time again.

Instead of blaming others for your opinion, ie. "I can't believe I let people and what I read convince me to vote for this idiot.", look to all sources and draw an opinion of your own...or mebee listen to the candidates themselves as it doesn't seem like you listened to BamBam at all during the campaign.  I think, like most, you listened to McAnus and his dopey sidekick with the worst campaign I've ever seen.

Stop being scared and look at the shit you're being fed...try another trough and realize it's mostly bullshit as well.  


If yer gunna listen to the corpo tools, at least check out the opposite if only just to get a laugh:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499#

I laugh at all of them btw!

Also, Charge is right on the duties of the president.  Check out the Constitution sometime, it's a quick read.

BINGEWOOD — Aug 05, 2010Also, Charge is right on the duties of the president.  Check out the Constitution sometime, it's a quick read.

I agreed with him. You check it out.

Been there, done that.

BINGEWOOD — Aug 05, 2010Sheesh, that's the talking point as well.  You don't mind tax money being given to highly profitable corps because you're scared of them raising the price of their product...so the corps get what they want either way.  That's like when FOX say's that taxes can't be raised on the wealthy but that the wealthy have expensive accountants so they don't pay anyway but they also pay most of the total taxes.  Doublespeak rules!!  These 'casters speak from firsthand experience re: accountants btw.

Don't hate the people who exploit all loopholes or just outright fuck you up the ass, hate the gov dopes and regulators who didn't stop the greed.  This is classic propaganda and it works time and time again.

Instead of blaming others for your opinion, ie. "I can't believe I let people and what I read convince me to vote for this idiot.", look to all sources and draw an opinion of your own...or mebee listen to the candidates themselves as it doesn't seem like you listened to BamBam at all during the campaign.  I think, like most, you listened to McAnus and his dopey sidekick with the worst campaign I've ever seen.

Stop being scared and look at the shit you're being fed...try another trough and realize it's mostly bullshit as well.  


If yer gunna listen to the corpo tools, at least check out the opposite if only just to get a laugh:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499#

I laugh at all of them btw!

What the fuck are you talking about? I posted an article and said I agree with the general idea of eliminating subsidies for oil companies. ::)

And I have looked at this crap from every angle I can read about and think about from the time of the campaign and even before that when I changed from a full blown republican to whatever the fuck I am now. ;D

I don't understand what the hell your talking about or where your coming from in your post. Sorry.

If you have some info you think I need to read, post the link. I'll read it. As long as it's not bullshit. :)

Agreement is not critical thinking.

As for providing you sources, that's your job, build your own opinions and don't blame those who do point things out for your actions.

BINGEWOOD — Aug 05, 2010Agreement is not critical thinking.

As for providing you sources, that's your job, build your own opinions and don't blame those who do point things out for your actions.

Agreement isn't critical thinking? I answered your question based on my thoughts and posted what Obama is proposing.

I am forming my own opinions. Point out 1 person who has the same thoughts as me on politics. ;D

Your post suggest I'm missing some information and I need to read and search for information I apparently don't have. Can you share that with me? I told you I've done searched every avenue I can think of to see all sides and you seem to think I'm still missing some information. So, show me that missing data sir, if you will. ;D

And I still don't know what the fuck your talking about and your adding to the confusion with shit like this....

"don't blame those who do point things out for your actions."

What the hell does that mean?  ;D ;D ;D

I think you need to critically think about how to structure your sentences so people can understand what the fuck your talking about. ;D ;D ;D ;D

"I can't believe I let people and what I read convince me to vote for this idiot."

BINGEWOOD — Aug 05, 2010"I can't believe I let people and what I read convince me to vote for this idiot."

that is suppose to explain what your talking about? Damn man, help me out here. ;D

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't read all the information I could before I made the decision to vote for this guy? Just pick one maybe? And if I'm to think critically, isn't gathering information from both sides part of that process? As I did?

I got a lot of good information from Charger and Tripper, who knew more than me about the guy. More importantly, they both probably analyze information and know better where to get information than I do. Believe me, I got a very tough lesson from Tripper about thinking when I first got here. ;D

I give up, your in your own world I guess or I don't get it.

Lets just say I don't get it and move the fuck on. How's that? ;D ;D ;D

Just for the record, I really don't think Obama is an idiot. I just don't agree with his actions. Policies.

Although it isn't real smart to continue to run up the debt, I think he's getting some bad advice from the guys who stand behind him. ;D His crew. ;D

Hookbender — Aug 05, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/50#54 date=1280900286]Waddaya think about oil company subsidies?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html

Well... ;D ;D....the thing that scares me is what will happen to gas prices? I'm sure the oil companies would simply get it at the pump.



But that's where they should be getting the money from - the consumer
not the tax payer

Hookbender — Aug 05, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/50#56 date=1280910381]As for "line by line" that is a figure of speech.  Reagan asked for a line-item veto and was rebuffed.  It's not going to happen anytime soon.  It would be handy.  Instead, what we have is the system we have, where senators require their pet projects to be added to everything in order to vote for legislation.  And if you think this is a Democrat problem, think again.  Because of our ridiculous filibuster rules, to get anything passed, a single Republican vote has to be appeased.  So--they get the candy.  

You can blame Obama for the fucked system, but he's just the president.  Alone, he can do nothing but send people off to undeclared war or throw around a few executive orders.  I blame Congress, and particularly that portion of Congress which craves inaction and wants nothing to pass, so they can get more votes every couple of years.

I don't blame Obama for our fucked up system. I blame Obama for his fucked up system.

I agree with you 100% that it's not just a Democrat problem or just a Republican problem....its a system problem. i think one thing that could help it is to get rid of the old timers and put a limit time wise to their service. I'd also like to see a 2 or 3 year term for Presidents at most with unlimited years of service. If we had Presidential elections every 2 years, we could be better as voters at holding these people accountable our only way, by voting. A President can fuck to many things up in 4 years. And if the President is doing a damn good job, he can keep the job. It may give us a little more stability here and around the world. Seems like a good idea to me, but I'm sure there's a bad side to that too.

I pretty much agree with your post though. Damn, we agree on something. ;D
I have two problems with that.  If we had presidential elections every two years, the pres would be in constant campaign mode--like House members--and nothing would ever get done.

Also, looking back through history, our most popular presidents (Clinton, Reagan, and I'm sure there are others) were at their lowest level of popularity two years into their terms.  It's conceivable that both of those guys would have been single-term, 2-year presidents if we were in that type of cycle.  I think people need time to mature into the job, to get a feel for it, and to make some policy happen.

Both very good points.

But would the President have time to fuck around giving speeches, bull shitting Americans, etc if he knew his ass was on the line 2 years from now? Or, would the campaign mode end as soon as his ass sat in the chair at the big house? I mean, if you don't get busy and do what you said you were gonna do, or attempt to do, your ass is gone in 2 years. Urgency. Accountability. A few less flights around the world. What happened to the days when the President was seen on T.V. at very important times only and on every channel with something damn important to say? We don't need the speeches on every subject on T.V. The Presidents today, have gone hollywood. I'm not talking about only Obama, all of them. Bush Clinton etc.

And think about this. Bush was around 22% when he left office.....8 years into the job. Would he have been able to fuck up a quarter as much as he did if he were held accountable every 2 years?

Just a thought.

fingers — Aug 05, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/50#59 date=1280967313][quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1280462265/50#54 date=1280900286]Waddaya think about oil company subsidies?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html

Well... ;D ;D....the thing that scares me is what will happen to gas prices? I'm sure the oil companies would simply get it at the pump.



But that's where they should be getting the money from - the consumer
not the tax payer

What's the difference, I guess. ;D ;D ;D

Pretty damn good point Fingers.

But shouldn't taxes be fair for everyone and every business, no matter how big or small?

Something to chew on:

Indeed, the Heritage Foundation says that spending growth contributed more to the deficits than tax cuts did. Using CBO figures, it calculates that the 2001 and 2003 tax acts were responsible for just (!) $1.7 trillion of the $11.7 trillion swing from projected surpluses to huge deficits from fiscal 2002 through 2011. The other reasons: poorer-than-expected economic growth and stock market performance, $3.8 trillion; higher-than-expected defense spending, discretionary domestic spending, the Medicare drug benefit, financial bailouts, and other spending, $3.7 trillion; interest costs, $1.4 trillion; the 2009 stimulus, $700 billion; other tax cuts such as the 2008 rebates, $400 billion.

Those highlighted factors are Obama's.  By my math, Bush's tax cuts alone cost more than all the money Obama has spent.  And there were other MASSIVE factors that put the deficit where it is now. Tell me if you add this up differently.  Interesting article, by the way.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_33/b4191056654282.htm

Yeah, it is.

Reducing taxes without a reduction in government spending, equals deficit. But a reduction in taxes along with a reduction in government spending equals the answer. Bush's tax cuts were not the problem, his excess spending was, as Obama inherited. But instead of reducing government spending he's increasing government spending and now is faced with the decision of whether or not to increase taxes. But the decision is already made, right? He's not slowing or reducing spending and now, really has no choice but to raise taxes. Bush spent to much and you dislike it, Obama spends to much and you ignore it or excuse it. It's the same problem that will have the same effect.

And you need to realize that the deficit is Obama's now. Doesn't matter who created it. Is he reducing it, or making it larger? Larger would be the correct answer. He's continuing in Bush's shoes. He's spending out the ass.

A little off subject but....what about the housing mkt? What is he doing to help this? He may not be able to snap his fingers and create jobs, but he could have a effect on the housing market by at least some incentives to buy. It's ecpected to get worse than it is now. Why is there no talk of helping out this industry? Is GM more important than people owning their own home?

Why not group homes together by city, at the city or state level, and sell the homes in the $50 or $60k range for $600 per month with 30 or 40 year loans? That's probably only 1 or $200 bucks higher than their paying for rent.

Don't you know Hook??

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

Don't forget your man Mc Cain:
"The fundamantals of the economy are strong"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng1yXgyY8Uo&feature=related

Hook:
 

I beg for McCain and Palin

Perhaps it is all psychological? ;D

Mc Cain:

But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home.

But Palin could have covered for McCain's lack of expertise in Economics.  ;D

Sure she would! ;D

Hook...listen to her wisdom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L64PLcFTmSM

But here she is singing your song!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/04/sarah_palin_to_1.html

No wonder you beg for them. ;D

Hook:

I'd consider her if she ran agaist Obama

;D

How much lower do taxes need to go?? They are already the lowest in sixty plus years.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

And we have among the lowest tax rates in the world.

Almost half the population  pay no taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm?postversion=2009093012

from deficit hawk to bailing out the entire housing market in one post?

I can't believe I just read that.

He's not slowing or reducing spending and now, really has no choice but to raise taxes

Why? If reducing taxes are so great why don't we lower them even more? More money right?

That's a laffer. ;D

Cute post Picky boy.

Now....find where I said we need to lower taxes right now. Then, we may talk. ;D ;D That's a laffer. What the fuck is a laffer?

Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves," she said. "It is time to remind that government should be working for us, we should not have to work for the government. That's why there are more and more patriots every day standing up and speaking out."


"We believe in expanding freedom and opportunity for all, not the intrusive reach of government into our lives and businesses," she said."

I agree with this 100%. What's wrong with that?

Hookbender — Aug 09, 2010Cute post Picky boy.

Now....find where I said we need to lower taxes right now. Then, we may talk. ;D ;D That's a laffer. What the fuck is a laffer?

It's the cute part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Pretty interesting.

Now find where I said we need to lower taxes now.

And whats wrong with what Palin said?

pickmaster60 — Aug 08, 2010He's not slowing or reducing spending and now, really has no choice but to raise taxes

Why? If reducing taxes are so great why don't we lower them even more? More money right?

That's a laffer. ;D


Where did I say that reducing taxes was "so great"?

Americans now spend 100 days out of the year working for government before we even start working for ourselves," she said. "It is time to remind that government should be working for us, we should not have to work for the government. That's why there are more and more patriots every day standing up and speaking out."

If we have the lowest of taxes and almost half pay none...who is doing the complaining?
It's not half of the people who pay none...The 100 days is not true for most people who pay taxes.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/16/sarah-palin/palin-says-americans-spend-100-days-paying-their-t/

Hell...over half of the teabaggers themselves think the taxes they pay are fair. :-?

Is she talking about all the red state people that take in more Fed money than they give? ;D

So if one agrees with her then one is a patriot?
Is she being a mavericky? ;D


Oh wait...she's talking to right wing Repubs who live in the sticks(Joe Sixpack) who have been disenfranchised by the Liberal, communist, socialist, freaks.
Those who think Obama is a Muslim,non american terrorist.

Hookbender — Aug 09, 2010
I agree with this 100%. What's wrong with that?

Great you teabagger...both meanings ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

You fit the demographics:

Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Tea Party supporters tend to be "white, male, married and older than 45." In general, they are "wealthier" than the general public, and hold conservative views on a range of issues. Although most are registered Republican, they tend to be more conservative than Republicans at large.

A Tea Party protest in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 15, 2009.Tea Party supporters were 89% white and 1% black, compared to 77% and 12% of all respondents, respectively.
18% of Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters.
90% of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than age 45.
54% of Tea Party supporters have a “favorable opinion” of the Republican party compared to 38% of the general public.
6% of Tea Party supporters have a favorable opinion of the Democratic party compared to 42% of the general public.
30% think President Obama was born outside the United States compared to 20% of the general public.
More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own "income taxes this year are fair."
25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public.
7% approve of how President Obama is doing his job compared to 50% of the general public.
92% feel that President Obama's policies are moving the US towards "socialism", compared to 52% for the general public.

If you are willing to vote for Palin, you have no reason to even be in this thread.  This is about reality.

By the way, I find it immensely ironic that you have no problem endorsing a Sarah Palin quote.  Sarah Palin is not one quote.  She is a whole body of ignorance.  Palin is one of those number that believe that if we just reduce spending, cut social programs, close the borders, and deregulate business, we'll be kicking ass in no time.  As if we haven't been there and done that.  Oh, and don't forget "drill, baby, drill."  

Did she pose yet in a bikini on a Louisiana beach amongst the tarballs, and talk about how smart a combination of more drilling and more deregulation would be?  That would be perfect.

He really shouldn't want to considering:

Hook:

And McCain kinda showed America this with his choice for Vice President. She is a ignorant, ignorant, person.

.............But after seeing or hearing some of the crap the repubs come up with now, and in the past, I don't see how I could ever vote republican again.  


......I really hope President Obama is damn successful at his every attempt to solve some of the problems he's faced with. And I hope he does it his way, the smart way, the thoughtful way.  

..............I really must have been out of my fucking mind not to see this until now. I'm ashamed of my ignorance especially as I voted for Bush not once, but twice.

...............If Prersident Obama doesn't get it done, I think I can truely say he tried his best to fix the problems the republican dumbasses caused and they were so huge he just couldn't do it in 4 or 8 years. he can't really fail. Not really.

On the other hand:

About Palin

Maybe it will take a tough Bitch with little sense to deal with the senete and congress.

Palin could easily win. I may take that bet, if you'd like..............

pickmaster60 — Aug 09, 2010He really shouldn't want to considering:

Hook:

...............If Prersident Obama doesn't get it done, I think I can truely say he tried his best to fix the problems the republican dumbasses caused and they were so huge he just couldn't do it in 4 or 8 years. he can't really fail. Not really.

He really said that, huh?  Hook has a very short memory I guess.

Yeah...but it was a year and a half ago.

http://www.chargermusic.com/wh/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1239157933

He's all over the board on politics......no telling who or what he may be for or against next month.

There never seems to be any resolve or satisfaction. ;D

Poor guy ;D Must be hard living in that head of his. ;D

pickmaster60 — Aug 09, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1280462265/75#83 date=1281317081]
I agree with this 100%. What's wrong with that?

Great you teabagger...both meanings ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

You fit the demographics:

Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 18 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Tea Party supporters tend to be "white, male, married and older than 45." In general, they are "wealthier" than the general public, and hold conservative views on a range of issues. Although most are registered Republican, they tend to be more conservative than Republicans at large.

A Tea Party protest in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 15, 2009.Tea Party supporters were 89% white and 1% black, compared to 77% and 12% of all respondents, respectively.
18% of Americans consider themselves Tea Party supporters.
90% of Tea Party supporters think the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than age 45.
54% of Tea Party supporters have a “favorable opinion” of the Republican party compared to 38% of the general public.
6% of Tea Party supporters have a favorable opinion of the Democratic party compared to 42% of the general public.
30% think President Obama was born outside the United States compared to 20% of the general public.
More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own "income taxes this year are fair."
25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public.
7% approve of how President Obama is doing his job compared to 50% of the general public.
92% feel that President Obama's policies are moving the US towards "socialism", compared to 52% for the general public.



I'll go down the line.

I don't support the tea party. I agree with some things they are for. I'm not a registered dem or repub.

I don't know if I'm 89% white or not.

I don't think that America is heading in the wrong direction. I think we're heading in the right direction in the wrong manner.

I don't have a favorable opinion of any party.

I don't care where Obama was born.

My income taxes being fair...I'll have to think about that one. Probably fair though.

"25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public." That's too stupid to comment on.


I don't think Obama is doing a "good" job.

I don't think Obama is moving us towards socialism.

I don't think I fall in the tea bagger bowl.

charger — Aug 09, 2010If you are willing to vote for Palin, you have no reason to even be in this thread.  This is about reality.

By the way, I find it immensely ironic that you have no problem endorsing a Sarah Palin quote.  Sarah Palin is not one quote.  She is a whole body of ignorance.  Palin is one of those number that believe that if we just reduce spending, cut social programs, close the borders, and deregulate business, we'll be kicking ass in no time.  As if we haven't been there and done that.  Oh, and don't forget "drill, baby, drill."  

Did she pose yet in a bikini on a Louisiana beach amongst the tarballs, and talk about how smart a combination of more drilling and more deregulation would be?  That would be perfect.

Why don't I need to be in this thread? Because a potential vote for Palin is a show of opposition for the Almighty one?

I agree with that one particular quote, yes. And that one quote is very important to me at voting time. I agree we need to reduce spending, probably cut "some" social programs....but more importantly the social programs need to have checks and balances, as far as to the recipients of those benefits. I agree we need to close the boarder. I also think we need to continue to drill, but with regulation.

pickmaster60 — Aug 09, 2010He really shouldn't want to considering:

Hook:
And McCain kinda showed America this with his choice for Vice President. She is a ignorant, ignorant, person.

.............But after seeing or hearing some of the crap the repubs come up with now, and in the past, I don't see how I could ever vote republican again.  


......I really hope President Obama is damn successful at his every attempt to solve some of the problems he's faced with. And I hope he does it his way, the smart way, the thoughtful way.  

..............I really must have been out of my fucking mind not to see this until now. I'm ashamed of my ignorance especially as I voted for Bush not once, but twice.

...............If Prersident Obama doesn't get it done, I think I can truely say he tried his best to fix the problems the republican dumbasses caused and they were so huge he just couldn't do it in 4 or 8 years. he can't really fail. Not really.

On the other hand:

About Palin

Maybe it will take a tough Bitch with little sense to deal with the senete and congress.

Palin could easily win. I may take that bet, if you'd like..............

I stand by all those comments. Except I still want to hear Bush's side of the story. And I'm not ashamed to have voted for him twice. I just should have looked much farther into the facts at the time, before I voted.

charger — Aug 09, 2010[quote author=pickmaster60 link=1280462265/75#90 date=1281332074]He really shouldn't want to considering:

Hook:

...............If Prersident Obama doesn't get it done, I think I can truely say he tried his best to fix the problems the republican dumbasses caused and they were so huge he just couldn't do it in 4 or 8 years. he can't really fail. Not really.

He really said that, huh?  Hook has a very short memory I guess.

I still feel that way. I don't think Obama is trying to take America down or whatever. I just don't agree with some of his actions. I don't think Obama can fail as President simply because he didn't fix Bush's mistakes. He is responsible for his own mistakes though. Such as continued spending.

pickmaster60 — Aug 09, 2010Yeah...but it was a year and a half ago.

http://www.chargermusic.com/wh/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1239157933

He's all over the board on politics......no telling who or what he may be for or against next month.

There never seems to be any resolve or satisfaction. ;D

Poor guy ;D Must be hard living in that head of his. ;D

Yeah, what's wrong with that? Oh, you don't like that I'm not taking a label, liberal or conservative. I get it.

And hey....if in 2 years Obama's choices turn out good and prove me wrong, I may change again. And, even vote for him. Your right, no telling what I may say in the future. It will be based on results though.

Where did I say reducing taxes was so great? You've been searching, could you not find that?

Hookbender — Aug 09, 2010[quote author=charger link=1280462265/75#89 date=1281329448]If you are willing to vote for Palin, you have no reason to even be in this thread.  This is about reality.

By the way, I find it immensely ironic that you have no problem endorsing a Sarah Palin quote.  Sarah Palin is not one quote.  She is a whole body of ignorance.  Palin is one of those number that believe that if we just reduce spending, cut social programs, close the borders, and deregulate business, we'll be kicking ass in no time.  As if we haven't been there and done that.  Oh, and don't forget "drill, baby, drill."  

Did she pose yet in a bikini on a Louisiana beach amongst the tarballs, and talk about how smart a combination of more drilling and more deregulation would be?  That would be perfect.

Why don't I need to be in this thread? Because a potential vote for Palin is a show of opposition for the Almighty one?

I agree with that one particular quote, yes. And that one quote is very important to me at voting time. I agree we need to reduce spending, probably cut "some" social programs....but more importantly the social programs need to have checks and balances, as far as to the recipients of those benefits. I agree we need to close the boarder. I also think we need to continue to drill, but with regulation.

I'll just take the last one.  As someone who vociferously ripped the administration for their oil spill response, are you prepared to allow the same thing to happen again?  And are you going to blame the administration again when it can't be fixed?  Because our government is not adequately prepared to handle a deep-water drilling disaster.  Blame Obama, or tell me about the warehouse full of boom again... the fact of the matter is we do not have the technology or the expertise to stop a well leak at that depth.  If BP had walked away, or taken us to court and tied us up in litigation, we would have had no recourse at all and that well would still be pumping.  You have blamed the response in full.  Yet you are totally willing to allow the companies to continue, knowing full well that there is no way it can be 100% safe, and knowing full well that the only people who can stop it are the ones who start it, and it might take them 3 months to do it.  I think that your position on this issue is flawed.

Keep in mind that even if it is almost surely safe, it only takes one disaster to destroy the ecology of a region.  Just one.  And we've already had the biggest one in history.