Barack Obama, our next President

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep," Obama cautioned. Young and charismatic but with little experience on the national level, Obama smashed through racial barriers and easily defeated ... Full Story

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#818486 Dec 8, 2012
Realtime wrote:
<quoted text>McCains wife ain't broke pally and she's got it all tied up in cash and beer. My kinda gal.
If Cindy wasn't married to that azzhole, she'd be a (D), so would her daughters.
Where are you privy to that information? You have a vivid imagination....
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#818487 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.
It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.
So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.
lol! Talking to themselves is how most cons answer things.

Like families, they keep it to themselves!

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818488 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
A mentality of victimization serves no one and receives little sympathy from anyone.
Yet you revel in your victimization, don't you??

Like the non-existance of your percieved 'war on christmas'??

Or your being victimized by those who 'take' from Gov't??

Or your being victimized by the muslim mobs enacting 'sharia law' all over the USA (in your dreams, anyway)??

Fact is, the whole Teabagger thing was about being victims, wasn't it??

All those po' white folks seeing the nation becoming more diverse, less white, less racist, less willing to steal rights from others based solely on religious beliefs, not the Constitution??

You've been whining for four years now. And most of it is about your being a victim of a black President who you hated from Day One, mostly because he is black.

When nitwits like you say 'we want to take our country back', you're talking about electing a pasty faced guy like Romney because you're a victim of Obama.

What was that you were saying about victims again??

Have another cigarette and think about it.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#818489 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!
You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.
That was his personal decision.
And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.
You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!
Carol also conveniently forgets that prior to the vote President Bush PROMISED to go back to the UN for final approval to enforce UN Resolutions concerning disarming Saddam. When it came apparent that the UN Weapons inspectors were making progress, that they weren't finding any evidence that Saddam possessed WMD's and that the UN wouldn't approve of invading Iraq, Bush reneged on his promise.

She also keeps forgetting that the UN called the invasion of Iraq an illegal act....which is ironic considering Bushsaid he invaded Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions....
carol

Orlando, FL

#818490 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!
You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.
That was his personal decision.
And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.
You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!
No, Bush was not forced. Democrats gave him their full permission.

Of course, when the political winds changed, they became weasels leaving Bush to hang out to dry.

Thats what weasels do.

The Urban Dictationary defines these kinds of people this way:

Weasel - Shifty, schemeing person who will do whatever they need to to escape whatever they fear in the moment.

Not getting reelected is what they feared the most.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818491 Dec 8, 2012
dem wrote:
<quoted text>
oh so you're scared of what topix posters write.
interesting
the Barney Frank Syndrome.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818492 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>IT DOESN'T MATTER, SON!
You keep trying to spread the blame to everyone, but nowhere in any document was bushie ever FORCED to invade a sovereign country like iraq.
That was his personal decision.
And if you want to push your point about "killing," then you'll have to explain why bushie didn't go after his "Axis of Evil," son.
You keep posting only a tiny part of events because it's politically convenient. You refuse to post where the authority was assigned. And that's too bad since you want to avoid actual facts!
It's a well established fact that BushCo (W, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz et al) were having serious discussions about an Iraq invasion beginning right after the election and before W was sworn to oath. 9/11 was a convenient excuse for the invasion but we would have wound up in Iraq one way or the other.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818493 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
there are ways to bring about regime change without invading a country.....take Egypt , Tunisia and Libya for example. Eve President George H.W. Bush knew invading Iraq and ousting Saddam would be/was a big mistake
President Dumbya Bush will go down as the worst President in history who made the greatest foreign policy disaster by invading Iraq. Iran and Al Qaeda were the biggest beneficiaries of that war
Syria could likely become Obama's Iraq. Have you read the news lately? About Syria's WMDs? The same ones Saddam once had?

What goes around, comes around.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#818495 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.
It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.
So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.
Carol, maybe you should go back and study history some. You may want to start with Ken Starr and his witch hunt,...oops I meant Whitewater investigation which morphed into Foster gate, travel gate and a host of other investigations for what 5 years.....

talk about a blood sport, how about the fact that the Iranians agreed to free the hostages in Sept 1980 but that the banks/GOP held off on the final touches to ensure Carter wouldn't be re-elected and Reagan could claim on his inauguration that they were freed do you really think it was a coincidence
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818497 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was doing just fine under Reagan after Carter's recession and again under Bush after 9/11 all the way up until the housing bubble popped.
The Cold War, 9/11 and the housing market crisis weren't part of Supply-Side economics.
They were just realities that had to be dealt with.
Sure wish you guys could get that through your heads.
seeing as how Reagan raised taxes 11 times, your point just went to shyte.

and i think that's how Bush got a surplus to spend down. you know, when Bill raised taxes on the rich.

talk about not getting it.
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818498 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
It just means you and Obama are hypocrites. Nothing more.
President Obama seems a reasonable person interested in the average American over the plutocrats.
Republican moderates seem to be working with the president.
Optomism!
carol

Orlando, FL

#818499 Dec 8, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The Republicans cannot be participants in Obama's disastrous economic policy.
Selling out the country for political advantage is not a good policy.
Sometimes you just gotta be reduced to ashes before you can fly again. Like the Phoenix.

It's never going to end if the American people don't snap out of this self-induced coma and being brainwashed by The Team Obama Cheerleaders. We all might have to suffer for that to happen.

Hopefully, we will come back even stronger when we finally regain some semblence of sanity and common sense.

Or go down trying.
sonicfilter

Indianapolis, IN

#818500 Dec 8, 2012
The Bush Tax Cuts and the Republican Cult of Economic Failure

In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

In terms of promoting job growth, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

In terms of fiscal prudence, the Bush tax cuts were a complete failure.

....Bush's failure was masked by a sleazy accounting trick that Bill Clinton had tried to stop in 1999, when the government's operations approached break-even.

The Social Security surplus is supposed to be invested in Treasuries, which generate compound interest to build up a nest egg for the day when baby boomers start retiring. Of course a real Treasury instrument is a legal promise to pay. So Bush took the cash paid out by you, me and our employers into the Social Security "Trust Fund" and used it to reduce his current operating deficits. Instead of exchanging the cash for real Treasuries, the Trust Fund bought "Special Treasuries," which the government can change at will. USA Today said it best:

The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.

Scam artists like Mitch McConnell justify their talk about "reforming" Social Security by pointing to "unfunded liabilities." This nonsense about unfunded obligations is one of the biggest frauds of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Social Security was funded by you, me and our employers. Bush took the surplus funds and used them to subsidize his failed tax policies. The Trust Fund's liabilities are unfunded for one reason and one reason only: Bush, more than any other President, defunded them. Because Republican politicians can't handle the truth, they cry out, "Class warfare!" But all their screaming cannot alter the immutable rules of simple arithmetic. Now they want to double down on their past failures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/t...
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818501 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
In case the poster, Chicago, hasn't said this yet.
The Senate voted to approve The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq with the support of large bipartisan majorities on October 11, 2002, providing the Bush administration with a legal basis for the U.S. invasion under U.S. law.
It cited the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution signed by former President Clinton, that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Being bipartisan will help in the reducing taxes on 98% of Americans.
Republicans seems to be coming around.
carol

Orlando, FL

#818502 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You people are talking apples and oranges and you don't even know it.
His point was Congress declared war. And the Congressional records "prove" it. I simply asked for them.
You're still not smart enough to know the AUMF AUTHORIZED the president to use military force at HIS DISCRETION. They know who the commander in chief is... you clearly don't.
Con stupidity can be so appalling... and then I bust out laughing at how comical it is!
At least Bush asked Congress for permission.

Obama asks the UN.
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#818503 Dec 8, 2012
John Galt wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
The Republicans cannot be participants in Obama's disastrous economic policy.
Selling out the country for political advantage is not a good policy.
Republican can and seem to be moving in that direction.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818504 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it was doing just fine under Reagan after Carter's recession and again under Bush after 9/11 all the way up until the housing bubble popped.
The Cold War, 9/11 and the housing market crisis weren't part of Supply-Side economics.
They were just realities that had to be dealt with.
Sure wish you guys could get that through your heads.
Carol again displays her total lack of economic comprehension.

She again follows whatever she is told on FAUX.

----------

"Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/12...

"he Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business. Republicans understand the needs of business, we are told, and if the country would leave the economy in their hands business would boom. All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators”– more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen. Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.


The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party. We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim. The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.

A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed."

----------

It's truly funny to watch a dirt poor person like Carol defending perks for the wealthy, even as she has to buy used furniture and crappy used vehicles because she can't afford better.

But then, she's also a smoker who spent much time and effort defending smokers rights and decrying the fact that smokers are social outcasts. Then she tried to sell the idea that she's a former smoker!!

The woman will lie about anything. She's been caught in lots of lies on this thread. Willful lies, not mistakes.

Lots of weird stuff going on in her head.

That's why she's Carol and Lorac. She's got everything ass-backwards.
Realtime

Deltona, FL

#818505 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
I rooted for Nixon in 1968 in high school but then turned against him when he accelerated and then delayed ending the war until after he won his second election. I was happy Carter won in 1977 but didn't become a registered voter until 1980 when Reagan ran again (he lost the first time around) and when it became clear Democrats didn't have a clue what they were doing.
It was never the kind of blood sport with so much hatred and distrust towards fellow Americans during either Carter's or Reagan's presidencies. Neither Bush Sr.'s and even Clinton's - until he screwed the pooch in his second term, so to speak.
So, basically, Clinton's gross lack of character and democrats defending it is where it all started. Just answered my own question.
Sure it was Carol, you just paying attention.

Allen Dulles/J Edgar Hoover were a foul combo__not politicians but appointed__still devious and powerful.

Huey Long, Joe McCarthy__Carol we could fill up 10 topix pages and never scratch the surface regarding the crooked, nasty pieces of chit who have "run this nation, it's states and cities" since the ink was still wet on the Constitution.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#818506 Dec 8, 2012
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes you just gotta be reduced to ashes before you can fly again. Like the Phoenix.
It's never going to end if the American people don't snap out of this self-induced coma and being brainwashed by The Team Obama Cheerleaders. We all might have to suffer for that to happen.
Hopefully, we will come back even stronger when we finally regain some semblence of sanity and common sense.
Or go down trying.
Carol playing the victim card.

Again.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#818509 Dec 8, 2012
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! poor chica. still as idiotic without the facts as before.
Lol Poor Yeahoo, Throws all kinds of stuff against the wall, hoping nobody calls him on it? Facts, you wouldn't know facts, if someone put them in your pablem..

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 19 min AGW sheep 51,549
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 1 hr swedenforever 54,547
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Stella 185,098
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Ratloder 69,133
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr Non _cents 5,726
Word (Dec '08) 4 hr Non _cents 5,079
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 4 hr SLY WEST 7,964
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:57 pm PST

Bleacher Report 8:57PM
Weighing Pros and Cons of Bears' Top FA Targets
NBC Sports 9:46 PM
Colts agree to terms on extension for long snapper Matt Overton
Bleacher Report 3:59 AM
Weighing the Pros and Cons of Top Free-Agent Targets
Bleacher Report 5:50 AM
Report: Hasselbeck's Contract with Colts Worth $3M
Bleacher Report 7:32 PM
Moving Long to Tackle Can Solidify Bears' O-Line