Why I have been somewhat quiet?

[actinanass]

First of all, I look at the fact that I got banned for defending myself as ironic as best. I understand the rules, do not get me wrong, but I kinda lost my temper when a supposedly black man question my "racial loyalty". I look at it like if I got banned for being honest then it's a banned I can eat up. Plus, it kind of proved my point...

Secondly, Obama is dealing with a few things that I've predicted in the past. The fact that he went to the left way too fast for this country likings, and the fact that he has hit the political brick wall with health care. The American public isn't dumb. I understand some on here think that's the case, but one thing everyone must remember is that the American public wants one thing out of their existence. They want success. The liberal philosophy believes in limiting success to the elite few. That's why it make sense to them to overtax private businesses to balance the budget. Instead of limiting spending on pet projects, and cutting taxes. This is why Obama has to use language that's contrary to his beliefs. If Obama, and the rest of the far left democrats had their way, no one would get a tax cut. However, he/democrats know that saying "we're giving you a tax cut" sounds popular, the American public will jump on it. However, private corporations aren't dumb, and you will see the product of this philosophy in coming months.

Thirdly, I still believe that Obama can come out as a good president in the end. As much as he is trying to look like he is fighting, he knows that the republicans will more than likely get the senate. Right now, behind close doors, Obama is talking about how to deal with the republicans when they either take both houses, or one house. His best bet is to pull a President Clinton. However, the consequence of this action might change how black people look at him. BTW, the author of Game Change *can't remember his name right now* has commented on some of the stuff he left out of the book. If any of that is connected to Obama, then look for any sudden scandals because Obama went towards the center. Hell, if it can happen to Clinton, don't be so sure it won't happen to Obama.

Finally, I'll say this before, and I'll say this again. WATCH OUT FOR HILLARY. I hear the blades are sharpening.

 

[Dallas Bueller 2010]

good post my man. BTW, what thread did yu get banned in?

 

[Greed]

I just don't get what people are trying to accomplish by criticizing Obama on a black board. 95% of voting black people voted for him. Did you really think you would find a sympathetic ear here? Are you really shocked you were banned? It was inevitable.

 

[The Black HHH]

I just don't get what people are trying to accomplish by criticizing Obama on a black board. 95% of voting black people voted for him. Did you really think you would find a sympathetic ear here? Are you really shocked you were banned? It was inevitable.

People are waking up.

 

[actinanass]

I just don't get what people are trying to accomplish by criticizing Obama on a black board. 95% of voting black people voted for him. Did you really think you would find a sympathetic ear here? Are you really shocked you were banned? It was inevitable.

I know.

I guess I believe in my individuality. Plus, this is a political board last time I checked. Politics is based off different beliefs, and criticizing certain actions our government makes.

To answer the "why I got banned?", I posted the Chris Matthews "I forgot Obama was black" vid. That shit right there had me pissed off already because I'm told that its a good thing that Chris Matthews said that. Some of the comments pissed me off. I just can't understand why the left gets a pass when they say openly racist comments, but if a person on the right even remotely say anything about race OH THEY ARE RACISTS.

In fact, I think, and still believe that anyone who engage in such actions is more of a uncle tom than I would ever be. On top of that, I think I called someone a pussy......

 

[Lamarr]

AAA, speak your mind

 

[Upgrade Dave]

First of all, I look at the fact that I got banned for defending myself as ironic as best. I understand the rules, do not get me wrong, but I kinda lost my temper when a supposedly black man question my "racial loyalty". I look at it like if I got banned for being honest then it's a banned I can eat up. Plus, it kind of proved my point...

Secondly, Obama is dealing with a few things that I've predicted in the past. The fact that he went to the left way too fast for this country likings, and the fact that he has hit the political brick wall with health care. The American public isn't dumb. I understand some on here think that's the case, but one thing everyone must remember is that the American public wants one thing out of their existence. They want success. The liberal philosophy believes in limiting success to the elite few. That's why it make sense to them to overtax private businesses to balance the budget. Instead of limiting spending on pet projects, and cutting taxes. This is why Obama has to use language that's contrary to his beliefs. If Obama, and the rest of the far left democrats had their way, no one would get a tax cut. However, he/democrats know that saying "we're giving you a tax cut" sounds popular, the American public will jump on it. However, private corporations aren't dumb, and you will see the product of this philosophy in coming months.

Thirdly, I still believe that Obama can come out as a good president in the end. As much as he is trying to look like he is fighting, he knows that the republicans will more than likely get the senate. Right now, behind close doors, Obama is talking about how to deal with the republicans when they either take both houses, or one house. His best bet is to pull a President Clinton. However, the consequence of this action might change how black people look at him. BTW, the author of Game Change *can't remember his name right now* has commented on some of the stuff he left out of the book. If any of that is connected to Obama, then look for any sudden scandals because Obama went towards the center. Hell, if it can happen to Clinton, don't be so sure it won't happen to Obama.

Finally, I'll say this before, and I'll say this again. WATCH OUT FOR HILLARY. I hear the blades are sharpening.

I never understand the logic behind people saying that. I know it sounds good to some ears but how did he "move to the left too fast" when he's done or tried to do what he campaigned on. Factually, he's moved more to the right of his original campaign stances, hence the dissatisfaction is coming from his more liberal supporters, not the 45% that didn't vote for him or the 24-30% that were dissatisfied with him on Inauguration Day.

 

[actinanass]

I never understand the logic behind people saying that. I know it sounds good to some ears but how did he "move to the left too fast" when he's done or tried to do what he campaigned on. Factually, he's moved more to the right of his original campaign stances, hence the dissatisfaction is coming from his more liberal supporters, not the 45% that didn't vote for him or the 24-30% that were dissatisfied with him on Inauguration Day.

the takeover of the automobile industry.

Cap and trade during the Michael Jackson tragedy.

The original health care debate.

 

[TheDynasty]

Obama has spent his political capital WAY TOO FAST. I feel that he is being advised to focus on the wrong things and I believe his actions in the long term will affect us as a people.

For example, the Tea Party Movement is now being brought into the mainstream as an avenue for frustrated white people to vent about the policies of a black president and the continued rise of minorities in the United States under the auspices of them being tired of a "reckless" Government. Where were these fucks when Bush was in office?

 

[nittie]

Obama's Approval Ratings On The Rise After SOTU
Evan McMorris-Santoro | February 1, 2010, 3:51PM
The Rasmussen daily presidential tracking poll is registering its highest level of strong support for President Obama in months. At the same time, the number of poll respondents saying they "strongly disapprove" of the job Obama is doing has dropped to it's lowest level since Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts Jan. 19. According to the pollster, the shift came after Obama's State of the Union address last week.

The latest numbers from Rasmussen's rolling poll of 1500 likely voters shows 35% "strongly approve" of the job Obama is doing as president. The last time the number was that high was in June. The day before Obama's State of the Union, it was 27%. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% strongly disapprove of Obama's performance in the latest results. That's down from 42% before Obama's address to the nation.

Obama's overall approval is on the rise in Rasmussen's poll as well. For the last three days, Obama's approval rating has hovered around 50%. It had fallen to 44% after Brown was elected. Today's approval/disapproval split was 50/49.

Obama is trending in the right direction. As the economy improves so will his numbers. He isn't seen as the problem, Pelosi, Reid and the Democratics in Congress are holding him back. The Democrats have proven once again that they will fuck up a wet dream if given the opportunity. Even though their platform is better for America they just don't come across as leaders instead they seem like a bunch of well meaning incompetents.

 

[TheDynasty]

Obama is trending in the right direction. As the economy improves so will his numbers. He isn't seen as the problem, Pelosi, Reid and the Democratics in Congress are holding him back. The Democrats have proven once again that they will fuck up a wet dream if given the opportunity. Even though their platform is better for America they just don't come across as leaders instead they seem like a bunch of well meaning incompetents.

The fundamentals don't support any type of economic recovery this year. Matter of fact, if your look closely at the BLS report..you will see that the unemployment rate dropped due to nearly 1 million people falling off the "rolls" of them receiving unemployment benefits or they just stopped looking for work...Nevermind the people who are underemployed.. The optimism is not warranted and a let down (when it happens) can possibly establish civil unrest.

 

[nittie]

The fundamentals don't support any type of economic recovery this year. Matter of fact, if your look closely at the BLS report..you will see that the unemployment rate dropped due to nearly 1 million people falling off the "rolls" of them receiving unemployment benefits or they just stopped looking for work...Nevermind the people who are underemployed.. The optimism is not warranted and a let down (when it happens) can possibly establish civil unrest.

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT: FOURTH QUARTER 2009 (ADVANCE ESTIMATE)


Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009,
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 2.2 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page
4). The "second" estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on
February 26, 2010.

The economy will do ok in 2010. Obama will be able to say things are moving in the right direction and that should be enough to get him reelected especially if he can dump reid and pelosi in the process.

 

[TheDynasty]

The economy will do ok in 2010. Obama will be able to say things are moving in the right direction and that should be enough to get him reelected especially if he can dump reid and pelosi in the process.

Reid is toast. Pelosi is probably DOA in November.

Unfortunately, I don't share the same enthusiasm like the rest even though I have been blessed to retain my employment. If Obama keeps pouring more and more money into the economy and the results bear very little fruit (as it has so far), they he may responsible for the crucifixion of the entire Democratic Party come November.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

the takeover of the automobile industry.

Cap and trade during the Michael Jackson tragedy.

The original health care debate.

While it's been depicted as a negative, the best thing he could do was takeover GM (it was NOT a takeover of the automobile industry: the industry is much bigger than GM. He didn't take over Toyota did he? Ford?)

Cap and trade has supporters and detractors. If he can show how it will work for the masses, he'll be fine. Don't see the MJ connection.

He lost support in the health care debate for not being liberal enough. He won the election saying he was in favor of a public option, so who's playing shocked now?
You used a talking point popular with Republican talking heads that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Reid is toast. Pelosi is probably DOA in November.

Unfortunately, I don't share the same enthusiasm like the rest even though I have been blessed to retain my employment. If Obama keeps pouring more and more money into the economy and the results bear very little fruit (as it has so far), they he may responsible for the crucifixion of the entire Democratic Party come November.

Reid might be done but Pelosi is safe. People keep seeming to think that national polls relate at all to Congressional seats. They don't. As long as the people in her district like her, she'll be there. And she most likely will still be House Speaker in 2011, that's how large the Democratic majority is in that House.

The Democrats will kill themselves. Obama is still popular personally and his rating is about where Presidents' ratings are at this time of their terms. Reagan and Clinton had similar, if not lower, ratings at this time in their first terms.

 

[thoughtone]

First of all, I look at the fact that I got banned for defending myself...

You got banned for breaking the rules. I think it is hysterical that so called conservatives always love to be Holier-Than-Thou by lecturing anyone by saying take responsibility for your own actions, yet when it comes to themselves, excuses abound. I have bitten my tongue several times when responding to you and have, on one occasion been warn. I accept that and have checked myself. No one wants to censor you and you are not being persecuted for your opinions. This is an excuse so called conservatives hang on themselves when they cannot logically argue their points of view. Please continue to defend you 'yourself' as you put it. Just remember when you get painted in to an intellectual corner, and can’t respond with logic and facts, don't attack and claim you are being persecuted.

 

[thoughtone]

I just don't get what people are trying to accomplish by criticizing Obama on a black board. 95% of voting black people voted for him. Did you really think you would find a sympathetic ear here? Are you really shocked you were banned? It was inevitable.

Case in point why so called conservatives are the most racist. Clearance Thomas is Black, he surely gets criticized on this 'black' board. Condoleezza Rice is Black, she has been criticized here, and Michael Steele has been criticized here. The majority of the regular posters, at least, have liberal or democratic leanings. Right or wrong, so that slant will be reflected in the opinions. I think racial pride is a secondary reason why Obama has support here, although since when is it a bad thing for ‘Black’ people not to be proud of the first "Black" president, especially when he is light years more qualified than the last president. If you want to see bias, try criticizing Ron Reagan on a ‘White’ board!

 

[thoughtone]

I know.

I guess I believe in my individuality. Plus, this is a political board last time I checked. Politics is based off different beliefs, and criticizing certain actions our government makes.

To answer the "why I got banned?", I posted the Chris Matthews "I forgot Obama was black" vid. That shit right there had me pissed off already because I'm told that its a good thing that Chris Matthews said that. Some of the comments pissed me off. I just can't understand why the left gets a pass when they say openly racist comments, but if a person on the right even remotely say anything about race OH THEY ARE RACISTS.

In fact, I think, and still believe that anyone who engage in such actions is more of a uncle tom than I would ever be. On top of that, I think I called someone a pussy......

This the reason you got banned.

im just going to ignore this comment because you obviously do not know me.

I just finding it funny that the same ones to question my racial identity is the same ones that will overlook this shit. Yet, I'm suppose to be the coon?

Pussy ass niggas....

YEA QUE I SAID IT!!!

Yeah, you said it; but you won't say it again for the next 48 hours. You know the word and all its forms are prohibited on THIS board. It might be one thing if it had slipped, but it didn't -- it was deliberate.

QueEx

 

[actinanass]

You got banned for breaking the rules. I think it is hysterical that so called conservatives always love to be Holier-Than-Thou by lecturing anyone by saying take responsibility for your own actions, yet when it comes to themselves, excuses abound. I have bitten my tongue several times when responding to you and have, on one occasion been warn. I accept that and have checked myself. No one wants to censor you and you are not being persecuted for your opinions. This is an excuse so called conservatives hang on themselves when they cannot logically argue their points of view. Please continue to defend you 'yourself' as you put it. Just remember when you get painted in to an intellectual corner, and can’t respond with logic and facts, don't attack and claim you are being persecuted.

1. I've never claimed that I've been persecuted, however, you did challenge my race based off my political beliefs. Thus, me calling you what I called you.

2. How am I making excuses? I've owned up for me calling you a pussy, and I took my banning like a man.

3. Painted into a intellectual corner? Really? Have 80% of what I've predicted came to past? Did I not say Obama will hit a political brick wall?

Please que, thought, hell even vegas tell me where I got my predictions wrong. Either they have happened, or the possibility of it happening is very likely.

BTW, excuses would be me denying that I said you're a pussy for basically defending Chris Matthews Obama comment. That's something I'm not going to deny. I still, and will probably forever think that. You disappointed me with that statement...

 

[thoughtone]

Obama has spent his political capital WAY TOO FAST. I feel that he is being advised to focus on the wrong things and I believe his actions in the long term will affect us as a people.

For example, the Tea Party Movement is now being brought into the mainstream as an avenue for frustrated white people to vent about the policies of a black president and the continued rise of minorities in the United States under the auspices of them being tired of a "reckless" Government. Where were these fucks when Bush was in office?

Where were these fucks when Bush was in office?

That is what I'm saying. I posted a thread way back in 2006 or 2007 or so quoting Cheney saying Reagan said deficits don't matter. The only right winger that made a comment in that thread was Lamarr, to his credit saying Cheney was wrong. That thread is like Kryptonite to actinanass, Greed and other so called conservatives, not posting a damn thing in it. I guess when the perception of a sound economy, at least to the lemming republicans was in full swing under the GW reign, they would not criticize their leader of his record setting debt and running the nation and world in to the ground. Now they feel justified, whether by orders of the GOP leadership or their hatred of the so called left or liberals, the see political blood in attacking Obama without offering any realistic solutions for the problems they caused. They offer no solutions, they caused the problems, now they think the populous want to return to trickled down conservatism.

 

[actinanass]

That is what I'm saying. I posted a thread way back in 2006 or 2007 or so quoting Cheney saying Reagan said deficits don't matter. The only right winger that made a comment in that thread was Lamarr, to his credit saying Cheney was wrong. That thread is like Kryptonite to actinanass, Greed and other so called conservatives, not posting a damn thing in it. I guess when the perception of a sound economy, at least to the lemming republicans was in full swing under the GW reign, they would not criticize their leader of his record setting debt and running the nation and world in to the ground. Now they feel justified, whether by orders of the GOP leadership or their hatred of the so called left or liberals, the see political blood in attacking Obama without offering any realistic solutions for the problems they caused. They offer no solutions, they caused the problems, now they think the populous want to return to trickled down conservatism.

1. Actually it was around early 08, and I stated that deficits do not matter if what you are spending on is something worth while. In reality, most voters do not really care about the deficit if they are a) working b) living a sustainable life c) being left the fuck alone. Deficits only matter when the government is trying to dictate their livelihood, and if the programs you are promoting aren't doing anything positive towards their life.

2. If you read THIS post, you would notice that I'm one of the few people that thinks Obama will get out of this mess in time for 2012. To be honest, if the congress wasn't the way it was *as I thought it would be like* I probably would of voted for him. Pelosi, and Reid deter me from voting for Obama. Now, it seems like a wise move.

3. *sigh* Last time I checked, the big corporations that get those tax cuts tend to make JOBS. Funny that Obama is doing a version of a trickled down economy with the small businesses. Now, thought, is it still a bad idea? Oh right, you will avoid this statement like a Chaney hunting invitation.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

1. Actually it was around early 08, and I stated that deficits do not matter if what you are spending on is something worth while. In reality, most voters do not really care about the deficit if they are a) working b) living a sustainable life c) being left the fuck alone. Deficits only matter when the government is trying to dictate their livelihood, and if the programs you are promoting aren't doing anything positive towards their life.

2. If you read THIS post, you would notice that I'm one of the few people that thinks Obama will get out of this mess in time for 2012. To be honest, if the congress wasn't the way it was *as I thought it would be like* I probably would of voted for him. Pelosi, and Reid deter me from voting for Obama. Now, it seems like a wise move.

3. *sigh* Last time I checked, the big corporations that get those tax cuts tend to make JOBS. Funny that Obama is doing a version of a trickled down economy with the small businesses. Now, thought, is it still a bad idea? Oh right, you will avoid this statement like a Chaney hunting invitation.

No one's going to avoid this because it's not true. Most jobs are created by the small businesses that the Obama Administration is aiming tax cuts. Targeted tax cuts such as those have a better success rate of stimulation than the "across the board" cuts Republicans say they want.

 

[actinanass]

No one's going to avoid this because it's not true. Most jobs are created by the small businesses that the Obama Administration is aiming tax cuts. Targeted tax cuts such as those have a better success rate of stimulation than the "across the board" cuts Republicans say they want.

So, why is it good for small business, but bad for big corporations?

You mean to tell me that small business do not gain when big corporations have tax cuts?

This goes back to my comment about how liberals like to pick, and choose who is successful. Across the board effects MORE people. Meaning, more jobs will be created. Sounds like Obama wants to control the growth more than create the growth.

To control growth is to not grow at all.

 

[thoughtone]

So, why is it good for small business, but bad for big corporations?

You mean to tell me that small business do not gain when big corporations have tax cuts?

This goes back to my comment about how liberals like to pick, and choose who is successful. Across the board effects MORE people. Meaning, more jobs will be created. Sounds like Obama wants to control the growth more than create the growth.

To control growth is to not grow at all.

Because small business return most if not all of their revenue and profits to the local community, whereas large businesses send them to say, Bensenville, Arkansas in the case of Wall Mart or Atlanta in the case of Home Depot to name just two. A local super market or hardware store will support local banks, accountants and others. This multiplier effect stimulates local tax bases to a much greater degree than giving trickle down tax cuts to the wealthy. There is no guarantee that those that receive tax cuts at the top will pass them down the economic chain or just pocket the extra profits. Why do you think mega businesses like Wall Mart can earn so much money while the US economy in real dollars is shrinking? I get sick and tired of trying to explain the obvious to you! This is not ideology, this is Economics 101.

 

[thoughtone]

1. Actually it was around early 08, and I stated that deficits do not matter if what you are spending on is something worth while. In reality, most voters do not really care about the deficit if they are a) working b) living a sustainable life c) being left the fuck alone. Deficits only matter when the government is trying to dictate their livelihood, and if the programs you are promoting aren't doing anything positive towards their life.

So you were totally happy with Clinton then. He presided over the lowest unemployment rate since the early 1970s, the federal budget was balance and the federal debt was being paid down. And yes, people don't care about the deficit unless it hits them personally. That is just the problem and I find this mentality ramped particularly with republicans. Notice I said republicans and not conservatives, because true conservatives are always concerned about defects and there are few true conservatives around.

2. If you read THIS post, you would notice that I'm one of the few people that thinks Obama will get out of this mess in time for 2012. To be honest, if the congress wasn't the way it was *as I thought it would be like* I probably would of voted for him. Pelosi, and Reid deter me from voting for Obama. Now, it seems like a wise move.

The main problem is the republicans and about 5 or 6 so called moderate/conservative democrat senators that are stonewalling everything. I’m sure Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would like to go along with some of Obama’s programs, but due to the fascist control of the republican leadership, they dare not step out of line and vote their conscience. Nancy Pelosi is doing a bang up job. You don’t have the log jam in the congress. Harry Ried’s problem is he refuses to put his foot down and by pass those obstructionist republicans. For example, Shelby of Alabama has put a hold on 70 of Obama’s appointments because he wants the military to build an Air Force tanker facility in Alabama. Reid can override this obstruction, but out of fear of republican threats, he waffles. I don’t agree with much GW and Bill Frist did, but they did get much of GW’s agenda passed and they never had the majorities that the democrats enjoy now. Even with Brown wining the democrats have a greater majority than what the republicans had under GW.

3. *sigh* Last time I checked, the big corporations that get those tax cuts tend to make JOBS. Funny that Obama is doing a version of a trickled down economy with the small businesses. Now, thought, is it still a bad idea? Oh right, you will avoid this statement like a Chaney hunting invitation.

Because small business return most if not all of their revenue and profits to the local community, whereas large businesses send them to say, Bensenville, Arkansas in the case of Wall Mart or Atlanta in the case of Home Depot to name just two. A local super market or hardware store will support local banks, accountants and others. This multiplier effect stimulates local tax bases to a much greater degree than giving trickle down tax cuts to the wealthy. There is no guarantee that those that receive tax cuts at the top will pass them down the economic chain or just pocket the extra profits. Why do you think mega businesses like Wall Mart can earn so much money while the US economy in real dollars is shrinking? I get sick and tired of trying to explain the obvious to you! This is not ideology, this is Economics 101.

 

[actinanass]

So you were totally happy with Clinton then. He presided over the lowest unemployment rate since the early 1970s, the federal budget was balance and the federal debt was being paid down. And yes, people don't care about the deficit unless it hits them personally. That is just the problem and I find this mentality ramped particularly with republicans. Notice I said republicans and not conservatives, because true conservatives are always concerned about defects and there are few true conservatives around.



The main problem is the republicans and about 5 or 6 so called moderate/conservative democrat senators that are stonewalling everything. I’m sure Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe would like to go along with some of Obama’s programs, but due to the fascist control of the republican leadership, they dare not step out of line and vote their conscience. Nancy Pelosi is doing a bang up job. You don’t have the log jam in the congress. Harry Ried’s problem is he refuses to put his foot down and by pass those obstructionist republicans. For example, Shelby of Alabama has put a hold on 70 of Obama’s appointments because he wants the military to build an Air Force tanker facility in Alabama. Reid can override this obstruction, but out of fear of republican threats, he waffles. I don’t agree with much GW and Bill Frist did, but they did get much of GW’s agenda passed and they never had the majorities that the democrats enjoy now. Even with Brown wining the democrats have a greater majority than what the republicans had under GW.



Because small business return most if not all of their revenue and profits to the local community, whereas large businesses send them to say, Bensenville, Arkansas in the case of Wall Mart or Atlanta in the case of Home Depot to name just two. A local super market or hardware store will support local banks, accountants and others. This multiplier effect stimulates local tax bases to a much greater degree than giving trickle down tax cuts to the wealthy. There is no guarantee that those that receive tax cuts at the top will pass them down the economic chain or just pocket the extra profits. Why do you think mega businesses like Wall Mart can earn so much money while the US economy in real dollars is shrinking? I get sick and tired of trying to explain the obvious to you! This is not ideology, this is Economics 101.

1. Umemployment shrink when the republicans regain control of both houses. Clinton knew how to work the republicans. Something I do respect Clinton for.

2. Here we go with the name calling. Has it ever occur to you that maybe JUST maybe Snowe, and Collins actually see the problem with Obama's policies? You're going on the preconceived notion that everything Obama wants to do will work because you agree with his ideas. Perhaps Collins, and Snowe actually see Obama for what he is. BTW, Bush understood how to use his political capital, in a way, that would force moderate democrats to follow suit. You know how he did that? HIS POLICIES MADE SENSE.....*before 2007*

3. I understand you quite well. What you're not understanding is if MORE PEOPLE ARE WORKING, less money goes into government programs. If more people are working, that means MORE tax payers. Cutting spending, and Taxes across the board allows both SMALL business, and big corporations a chance to CREATE JOBS. Limiting growth means having no growth. You cannot have it both ways. Obama will find out this lesson soon enough.

*edit* have it occur to you that Wal-mart is predicting a large tax hike? Therefore, they will more than likely NOT invest more into jobs.

With that last statement you made, you basically believe in limiting any type of growth to any business you deem "too large". My question to you, and to BGOL is what makes you the authority to define what's too large or not?

Would that be consider "hating"?

I'm just saying when health care came up, people were mad at the insurance companies. When the economy comes up, people are mad at wal-mart, and wall street. When a rapper makes it too big, people start talking about how fake he is. Is this what our community/nation as became? Do we not want to see our fellow citizens achieve success?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

So, why is it good for small business, but bad for big corporations?

You mean to tell me that small business do not gain when big corporations have tax cuts?

This goes back to my comment about how liberals like to pick, and choose who is successful. Across the board effects MORE people. Meaning, more jobs will be created. Sounds like Obama wants to control the growth more than create the growth.

To control growth is to not grow at all.

Large corporations already have a score of tax loopholes they use to reduce their burden so why give them another? Targeted tax cuts toward small businesses and the middle class affect more people quicker and big businesses reap the benefit of more people having more money.
Growth should be controlled. We had uncontrolled growth for the last decade and we ended up in a deep recession. Why repeat the pattern if we already know how it ends?

Conservatives like to pick and choose as well, they just tend to pick big business interests.

 

[thoughtone]

Large corporations already have a score of tax loopholes they use to reduce their burden so why give them another? Targeted tax cuts toward small businesses and the middle class affect more people quicker and big businesses reap the benefit of more people having more money.
Growth should be controlled. We had uncontrolled growth for the last decade and we ended up in a deep recession. Why repeat the pattern if we already know how it ends?

Conservatives like to pick and choose as well, they just tend to pick big business interests.

Conservatives like to pick and choose as well, they just tend to pick big business interests.

​

 

[Lamarr]

Spending Cuts Y'all, We need Spending Cuts: Why?

As govt expenses outpace its revenues, Geithner & the Fed Res. are forced to "print the difference", therefore diminishing the dollars' purchasing power.

Sorry Neocons: the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work! All the while you thought you were gaining wealth, the fundamentals deterioted. All that is left over is the debt accumulated from this bubble. Add to that, all the corps that had access to EZ $$$ & credit offshored their operations!

And whats so sad, the same monetary policy used during the Bush admin. is being accellerated

US Treasury Report coming out tomorrow 1 p.m. EST

 

[nittie]

George Wallace (1919-1998) ran for U.S. president in 1968 on the third party American Independent Party ticket. Asked in 1968 about the Democrats and Republicans, Wallace answered: “There’s not one dime’s worth of difference in the two parties. If you put all of the Republican leaders in a good cotton-picking sack with the Democrats, shake ‘em up and let the first one drop out, you’d stick ‘im right back in ‘cause there’s no difference.” Wallace had used the “not a dime’s worth of difference” line as early as May 1967.

Until the citizens of America get it thru their heads that Dem and Reps are different sides of the same coin we will not see any real change. Washington politics and politics in general are a soap opera, politicians are just actors, look at their personal lives if you need proof. The question is do we still need them, have they out-lived their usefulness. Is it time to revamp this system so one class of fuckups doesn't govern the majority anymore.

Main Entry: gov·ern
Pronunciation: \ˈgə-vərn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French governer, from Latin gubernare to steer, govern, from Greek kybernan
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 a : to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy
2 a archaic : manipulate b : to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means
3 a : to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of b : to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over <income must govern expenditure> c : to hold in check : restrain
4 : to require (a word) to be in a certain case
5 : to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for <customs that govern human decisions>
intransitive verb
1 : to prevail or have decisive influence : control
2 : to exercise authority

— gov·ern·able \-vər-nə-bəl\ adjective

 

[actinanass]

Until the citizens of America get it thru their heads that Dem and Reps are different sides of the same coin we will not see any real change. Washington politics and politics in general are a soap opera, politicians are just actors, look at their personal lives if you need proof. The question is do we still need them, have they out-lived their usefulness. Is it time to revamp this system so one class of fuckups doesn't govern the majority anymore.

Nittie, the reason we have a government is to fight out our differences in a civil way. Our republic is still the best system without a doubt. Do we need some reforms? Yes. We do not need to get rid of government, we need to get rid of people corrupting the process. Republicans, and Democrats alike.

 

[actinanass]

Spending Cuts Y'all, We need Spending Cuts: Why?

As govt expenses outpace its revenues, Geithner & the Fed Res. are forced to "print the difference", therefore diminishing the dollars' purchasing power.

Sorry Neocons: the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work! All the while you thought you were gaining wealth, the fundamentals deterioted. All that is left over is the debt accumulated from this bubble. Add to that, all the corps that had access to EZ $$$ & credit offshored their operations!

And whats so sad, the same monetary policy used during the Bush admin. is being accellerated

US Treasury Report coming out tomorrow 1 p.m. EST

The bush tax cuts didn't work because some republicans actually spend like they were democrats. Tax cuts need spending cuts to actually work.

Lets get one thing straight, I'm not naive to the fact that republicans have some blame in this situation too. Like Ice Cube said "I think this whole thing need a douche". The problem is congress. For this, I'm giving Obama somewhat of a pass on most of the issues. Also, I believe most of the people should give a pass towards Bush in his later years. *something that's not going to happen*

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Nittie, the reason we have a government is to fight out our differences in a civil way. Our republic is still the best system without a doubt. Do we need some reforms? Yes. We do not need to get rid of government, we need to get rid of people corrupting the process. Republicans, and Democrats alike.

If we never agree on another thing (we will but I'm saying) we agree on this.

The bush tax cuts didn't work because some republicans actually spend like they were democrats. Tax cuts need spending cuts to actually work.

Lets get one thing straight, I'm not naive to the fact that republicans have some blame in this situation too. Like Ice Cube said "I think this whole thing need a douche". The problem is congress. For this, I'm giving Obama somewhat of a pass on most of the issues. Also, I believe most of the people should give a pass towards Bush in his later years. *something that's not going to happen*

I'll give a half-pass to Bush because I think circumstances were way out of his grasp and he was horribly over his head (more than normal). He only gets half because he set many of the wheels in motion with either his policies or his doing nothing on poor policies left from the previous administration.

 

[QueEx]

I believe most of the people should give a pass towards Bush in his later years. *something that's not going to happen*

I have one MAJOR gripe with that imp: he allowed himself to be led into the invasion of Iraq. Assuming that I could give him a pass for a lot of other things (and I could), IRAQ over shadows the pass. IRAQ is directly responsible for our present economic and foreign policy woes. DIRECTLY !!!

Your turn.

QueEx

 

[nittie]

Nittie, the reason we have a government is to fight out our differences in a civil way. Our republic is still the best system without a doubt. Do we need some reforms? Yes. We do not need to get rid of government, we need to get rid of people corrupting the process. Republicans, and Democrats alike.

We need to get rid of government its like breast feeding a grown man. I'm not making this up others throughout history have felt the same.

Caius Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 A.D.)
Roman Historian

“The more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws.”

“For in [the Romans] is an arrogance which no submission or good behavior can escape. Pillagers of the world, they have exhausted the land by their indiscriminate plunder, and now they ransack the sea. A rich enemy excites their cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power. East and West alike have failed to satisfy them. They are the only people on earth to whose covetousness both riches and poverty are equally tempting. To robbery, butchery, and rapine, they give the lying name of ‘government’; they create a desolation and call it peace.”

John Taylor of Carolina (1770-1832)
U.S. Senator, U.S. Congressman

“The whole world proves that there is no fellowship between overflowing treasuries and the happiness of the people; and that there is an invariable concurrency between such treasuries and their oppression. They are the strongest evidence in a civilized nation of a tyrannical government. But need we travel abroad in search of this evidence? Have we not at home a proof that national distress grows so inevitably with the growth of treasuries, as to render even peace and plenty unable to withstand their blighting effects?”

Last but not least

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
Philosopher and Author

“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have

It's time to growup. Stop waiting for a class of people who have nothing in common with the masses to do right by them. Politics are for debate and discussion not for solving problems.

 

[actinanass]

We need to get rid of government its like breast feeding a grown man. I'm not making this up others throughout history have felt the same.








Last but not least




It's time to growup. Stop waiting for a class of people who have nothing in common with the masses to do right by them. Politics are for debate and discussion not for solving problems.

I'm not going to agree with your premise only because I know that there's a lot of progress that civilization has achieved because of well thought out forms of government. The founding principles of this government will, and always be strong.