OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13713 Dec 14, 2013
nac wrote:
I know that when I post things like this, it always brings the thread to a screeching halt, as everyone tries to rationalize that their party is better than the other.
But is that REALLY good enough? Right now is a good time to take a good, hard look at your party. Are they doing a good job?
No, they are not. BOTH parties are completely sh***ing the bed. Yes, even the one you happen to like.
Think about it. We landed on the moon almost 50 years ago... yet we are still drilling oil from the ground and burning it for energy. Think about that.
Look at the technology that has emerged over the last 20 or 30 years. Do you mean to tell me that we can't come up with a better way than drilling and burning oil??? Of course we could.
Why don't we? Because the oil companies & big banks make too much money to allow a switch to something cleaner and more efficient.
Why is it up to big oil & big banks? Because THEY OWN BOTH PARTIES! Let that sink in. YOUR favorite party could have done something about it at some point over the last 50 years... but did not. And they are not going to do it.
If they worked FOR YOU, they would. If they worked for big oil/big banks, they wouldn't. And they haven't.
That should tell you all you need to know about either party.
Grand conspiracy.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13714 Dec 14, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all... nice cut & paste, Polly.
http://skepticproject.com/site/help/
Would it kill you to think for yourself just once???
Secondly, I never said that I proved anything. I simply offered my take on a certain topic. I realize that this is a foreign concept to a cut & paste parrot, so I'll give you a minute to let that sink in.
(eat a cracker and mull it over)
Finally, what is a "grant conspiracy?"
Sorry "nac" I do not claim to be a expert on Conspiracy Nuts and why they believe the spider webs they weave in their minds.

Yes, I read the article and incorporated parts of it into my reply to attempt to show you what you are saying, but the majority was me trying to address you and your grand conspiracy that you maintain exists.

You like others who can see the Grand conspiracy all have a certain belief in infallibility when it comes to their theories.

They generally feel they are smarter than the rest of us and feel unique & special by seeing something that most people are blind to.

You maintain that you are setting above the politics the rest are wallowing in, because you see the whole picture that few others can.

You set on the fence and can attempt to poke either side but your real thoughts come through even if you do believe in some Grand Conspiracy that is going on.

In politics you see a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people - you simply believe it and will create any argument or scenario in your mind to help validate it. To you once you have stated it, it then becomes reality without and proof. When I doubt your theory you want me to prove you wrong. First since you maintain it to be happening you are the one who needs to prove it step by step with facts that are linked together that any rational third party would agree proves you point.

I just don't see the grant conspiracy that involves the united working of many people to achieve a single goal. Yes there is groups that work together to achieve a goal but that goal is pretty evident and pretty well known.

You remind me of the guy who proposed the "Russell's Tea Pot theory". He maintains that there is a beautiful golden China Tea Pot in orbit between the earth and the moon and then asks you to prove that he is wrong.

The proof should come the other way. He said the Tea Pot exists, then he should provide the proof just like you should provide the proof to what you say.

One cannot just set on the fence and maintain such nonsense without facts and linking proof.
Mac

Massapequa, NY

#13717 Dec 14, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry "nac" I do not claim to be a expert on Conspiracy Nuts and why they believe the spider webs they weave in their minds.
Yes, I read the article and incorporated parts of it into my reply to attempt to show you what you are saying, but the majority was me trying to address you and your grand conspiracy that you maintain exists.
You like others who can see the Grand conspiracy all have a certain belief in infallibility when it comes to their theories.
They generally feel they are smarter than the rest of us and feel unique & special by seeing something that most people are blind to.
You maintain that you are setting above the politics the rest are wallowing in, because you see the whole picture that few others can.
You set on the fence and can attempt to poke either side but your real thoughts come through even if you do believe in some Grand Conspiracy that is going on.
In politics you see a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people - you simply believe it and will create any argument or scenario in your mind to help validate it. To you once you have stated it, it then becomes reality without and proof. When I doubt your theory you want me to prove you wrong. First since you maintain it to be happening you are the one who needs to prove it step by step with facts that are linked together that any rational third party would agree proves you point.
I just don't see the grant conspiracy that involves the united working of many people to achieve a single goal. Yes there is groups that work together to achieve a goal but that goal is pretty evident and pretty well known.
You remind me of the guy who proposed the "Russell's Tea Pot theory". He maintains that there is a beautiful golden China Tea Pot in orbit between the earth and the moon and then asks you to prove that he is wrong.
The proof should come the other way. He said the Tea Pot exists, then he should provide the proof just like you should provide the proof to what you say.
One cannot just set on the fence and maintain such nonsense without facts and linking proof.
Why do you feel the need to lump me into a large group, be it "right wingers," "conspiracy nuts," etc., then cut & paste other people's generalizations, stereotypes, and fear mongering about that group?

Why must you always resort to labeling me instead of trying to refute what I say with facts and analysis of your own?
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13718 Dec 14, 2013
Mac wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you feel the need to lump me into a large group, be it "right wingers," "conspiracy nuts," etc., then cut & paste other people's generalizations, stereotypes, and fear mongering about that group?
Why must you always resort to labeling me instead of trying to refute what I say with facts and analysis of your own?
Because who can refute this grand conspiracy:

You stated without any slight bit of proof a Grand Conspriacy that would involve one heck of a lot of people. Only you can see it and say it without any proof needed.=======

"Think about it. We landed on the moon almost 50 years ago... yet we are still drilling oil from the ground and burning it for energy. Think about that.
Look at the technology that has emerged over the last 20 or 30 years. Do you mean to tell me that we can't come up with a better way than drilling and burning oil??? Of course we could.
Why don't we? Because the oil companies & big banks make too much money to allow a switch to something cleaner and more efficient.
Why is it up to big oil & big banks? Because THEY OWN BOTH PARTIES! Let that sink in. YOUR favorite party could have done something about it at some point over the last 50 years... but did not. And they are not going to do it.
If they worked FOR YOU, they would. If they worked for big oil/big banks, they wouldn't. And they haven't.
That should tell you all you need to know about either party"

If you don't believe in the Russell's Tea Pot I presented then you prove it don't exist. Thus, I cannot prove that your big oil - big banks control the world is not true. It does not become true just because you believe it and I do not.
nac

Massapequa, NY

#13719 Dec 14, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Because who can refute this grand conspiracy:
You stated without any slight bit of proof a Grand Conspriacy that would involve one heck of a lot of people. Only you can see it and say it without any proof needed.=======
"Think about it. We landed on the moon almost 50 years ago... yet we are still drilling oil from the ground and burning it for energy. Think about that.
Look at the technology that has emerged over the last 20 or 30 years. Do you mean to tell me that we can't come up with a better way than drilling and burning oil??? Of course we could.
Why don't we? Because the oil companies & big banks make too much money to allow a switch to something cleaner and more efficient.
Why is it up to big oil & big banks? Because THEY OWN BOTH PARTIES! Let that sink in. YOUR favorite party could have done something about it at some point over the last 50 years... but did not. And they are not going to do it.
If they worked FOR YOU, they would. If they worked for big oil/big banks, they wouldn't. And they haven't.
That should tell you all you need to know about either party"
If you don't believe in the Russell's Tea Pot I presented then you prove it don't exist. Thus, I cannot prove that your big oil - big banks control the world is not true. It does not become true just because you believe it and I do not.
You take this too seriously, and are thus missing the point.

No one has to "prove" anything. This is a discussion, an exchange of ideas. This isn't a court of law, it is a message board.

The example you keep bringing up was meant to get people to think.(not you, however, I know you let others do your thinking)

The main point of the post in question was to get people to take a step back and think about what the two parties are actually accomplishing, rather than what they are saying about the other side. It wasn't a post about alternative energy, it was a post about government.

If you stopped trying to make this a competition, and stopped focusing on labeling people... maybe you would have understood that.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13720 Dec 14, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
You take this too seriously, and are thus missing the point.
No one has to "prove" anything. This is a discussion, an exchange of ideas. This isn't a court of law, it is a message board.
The example you keep bringing up was meant to get people to think.(not you, however, I know you let others do your thinking)
The main point of the post in question was to get people to take a step back and think about what the two parties are actually accomplishing, rather than what they are saying about the other side. It wasn't a post about alternative energy, it was a post about government.
If you stopped trying to make this a competition, and stopped focusing on labeling people... maybe you would have understood that.
Give me a break.

You just jumped through your emergency escape hatch.

So it was all just a big discussion idea presented by you for thought by others who need to step back and think. I think you need to think before you post such delusional stuff.

Really wasn't about a big alternative energy conspiracy at all just a simple posting about government. Evidently in addition to having a problem understanding what others post you have a problem posting things that others can understand.

Zip up your pants and b/s someone else I don't really care to play pretzel reasoning games with you. Say clearly what you believe and then stand behind it. If you later change your mind -- then say so. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind on something.

I once said I would never vote for another Clinton. Never for Hillary who I would agree is smart but I still have a tough time with her. Yet unless the Republicans can get the right-wing nuts controlled and go back to being somewhat reasonable conservatives, I will have to choke, cough and consider Hillary.

I believe the Republicans are too much controlled by outside right-wing interests . All this spurred on by the extreme radio and TV commentators AND political action groups that score Republican votes.

You might note that Bo-ho House Majority Leader Boehner is getting tired of being controlled by the nuts.
nac

Massapequa, NY

#13721 Dec 14, 2013
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me a break.
You just jumped through your emergency escape hatch.
So it was all just a big discussion idea presented by you for thought by others who need to step back and think. I think you need to think before you post such delusional stuff.
Really wasn't about a big alternative energy conspiracy at all just a simple posting about government. Evidently in addition to having a problem understanding what others post you have a problem posting things that others can understand.
Zip up your pants and b/s someone else I don't really care to play pretzel reasoning games with you. Say clearly what you believe and then stand behind it. If you later change your mind -- then say so. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind on something.
I once said I would never vote for another Clinton. Never for Hillary who I would agree is smart but I still have a tough time with her. Yet unless the Republicans can get the right-wing nuts controlled and go back to being somewhat reasonable conservatives, I will have to choke, cough and consider Hillary.
I believe the Republicans are too much controlled by outside right-wing interests . All this spurred on by the extreme radio and TV commentators AND political action groups that score Republican votes.
You might note that Bo-ho House Majority Leader Boehner is getting tired of being controlled by the nuts.
I didn't change my mind about anything. I (unsuccessfully) tried to explain to you what the post was about. You don't get it, fair enough.

Who are the "nuts" that you oddly mentioned at the end of that rant, and what are they trying to accomplish? What is their end-game?
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13722 Dec 14, 2013
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't change my mind about anything. I (unsuccessfully) tried to explain to you what the post was about. You don't get it, fair enough.
Who are the "nuts" that you oddly mentioned at the end of that rant, and what are they trying to accomplish? What is their end-game?
You never came close to explaining anything other than first presenting a delusional Grand Conspiracy and when that is pointed out you do a flip flop and claim it was all just something presented to discuss and not your personal feelings at all..

I already told you I was buying it nor is any intelligent reader.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/14/te ...

Amazing that House Speaker Boehner is getting tired of the extreme rightwing nuts.

Republicans invited the loony's in and played them for votes -- now the baby monster has taken root in the party of whackos.
Accomplish? What is their end-game --- you read up on them.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13723 Dec 14, 2013
nac

Massapequa, NY

#13724 Dec 14, 2013
Who, Polly, are the "loonys," and what specifically are they trying to accomplish?

Do you have an "opinion?" I'm not interested in fox's.
DILLIGAF

New York, NY

#13725 Dec 15, 2013
Why don't you 2 take a pause, take a breath, and come back for round 2, it may be of the utmost benefit for your sanity, I cannot believe you both still going on this thread, arguing inane points, of which is nothing more than an opinion thread, life offers much more then posting in here this is not an indictment of either of you, but a bit of advice, you both have your points and some are valid, and some not so valid, but with the Yule season upon us, try a bit of Détente. If I can say this while my ailing wife is in her late stages of her cancer riddled body, I'm sure you both can heed my advice. And I wish both of you, and your families a Merry Christmas.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13726 Dec 15, 2013
DILLIGAF wrote:
Why don't you 2 take a pause, take a breath, and come back for round 2, it may be of the utmost benefit for your sanity, I cannot believe you both still going on this thread, arguing inane points, of which is nothing more than an opinion thread, life offers much more then posting in here this is not an indictment of either of you, but a bit of advice, you both have your points and some are valid, and some not so valid, but with the Yule season upon us, try a bit of Détente. If I can say this while my ailing wife is in her late stages of her cancer riddled body, I'm sure you both can heed my advice. And I wish both of you, and your families a Merry Christmas.
Good point. I hope the best for your wife and for you. Let peace reign and Merry Christmas to all.
Enemy of the people

Melville, NY

#13727 Dec 15, 2013
nac wrote:
Who, Polly, are the "loonys," and what specifically are they trying to accomplish?
Do you have an "opinion?" I'm not interested in fox's.
He attacks you because he has no argument against your facts, if liberals can't win an argument and they usually can not, they attack you personally.

And frankly he is winning the argument because you are wasting your time with his personal attacks rather then the facts at hand.

The bottom line is liberals are some of the most despicable people, they will attack you mercilessly if it means getting what they want.

That is what Obama is all about.

This horrendous president has caused serious damage to our healthcare system all in order for the liberals to get their hands on trillions of dollars to kickback.

All ready billions have been spent, not on healthcare but on payoffs to companies like the website company, and community organizers, this is all money taken out of the healthcare system.

And we hear their bs comparing the healthcare decision to Iraq. Well the healthcare fiasco was rammed through via reconciliation, without a single vote from the other party and over the objections of the people.

It is the single most despicable piece of legislation passed in this country in my memory, destroying our healthcare system to create more kickbacks, and as always the liberals use their argument that they are helping people, the fact is that liberals only help themselves.

Just like the stimulus, almost a trillion dollars used as a big payoff,

and lets not forget the scandals the democrats are covering up,

fast and furious, irs scandal, NSA, benghazi, the list goes on and on.

The fact is the democratic party has clearly become a force against the people and for a corrupt government with a myriad of payoffs, kickbacks and scandals.
News

Dawson Springs, KY

#13728 Dec 15, 2013
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13729 Dec 15, 2013
Stimulus - scandals - If there was Republicans control the House and can start impeachment any time they wish but they better have the proof, which so far is lacking.

Now if there is a “smoking gun” of factual proof I can’t find it. All I can find is a lot of political rhetoric that appears to be anti-Obama, anti-Hillary political charges without the facts backing them up. Of course every Republican repeats the same talking point line “scandal & the White House” as if it’s a proven fact. Every right wing political talking head on radio and TV is beating it to death repeating over and over the word “scandal” hoping those who hear it enough times will accept it as a fact. Most of those who listen to them already want to believe what they are always spewed out and accept it as gospel.
Now if one disagrees with what I believe to be the case I’m quite open to some facts and proof based on a reliable source rather than the opinions of some gun site, anti-Obama site or some political talking head who rattles one constant anti-Obama drum beat. I do not owe President Obama any blind support because I voted for him any more that I owed President Bush blind support because I voted for him. I quit supporting Bush when the facts and reality became known facts.
I do listen to some of the political talking heads on both sides, and fully understand they present an opinion and most of the pure b/s is put out by the ones on the right. Give me the facts based on the truth. I will listen to an opinion when presented with something to back it up and then make up my own mind. If President Obama did something that reaches the level of impeachment so be it. If though on the other hand it’s mostly political b/s posturing for the mid-term elections or the next Presidential election why not call a Spade a Spade.
Obama and Biden won the election 4 plus years ago and I have watched and listened to the Republicans make fools out of themselves opposing him and making up & spreading lies about everything they could. Yet Obama & Biden won the last election again by a landslide. Yet again the right has no intentions of working with him on anything. They would rather play games for the next election than govern. They are looking for anything to make a scandal to pull not only him down but work on Hillary Clinton.
They know they better do something or likely she could be the next President.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13730 Dec 15, 2013
Bengasi:
A while back I sat and listened to C-span when then Hillary Clinton testified. As far as I could tell they had nothing but accusations. I later listened to C-Span when they brought forth the two so call Whistle Blower’s that were supposed to blow this into a major scandal. Nothing of the sort was presented.
Depending on where you were at tended to give one a different perspective of what was happening and what was going on. I listened to the Generals testify about whether help could get there. I listened to the two Generals who did an independent inquiry into the matter.
I heard the testimony where the Ambassador who got killed turned down additional security for that location prior to the attack.
I heard the Republicans trying to make hay by accusing and using the term “scandal” every time they could.
But there was nothing that I heard come close to making anything about it a “scandal”. But that did not and has not stopped every Republican from still screaming “scandal” and White House.
I heard the smoking gun claim by some news source also turned out to be dead wrong.
At best nothing on this issue comes close to amounting to much of anything. Yes, hind sight is great but to me there is just nothing that rises to the level of a scandal.
Since Hillary Clinton was in charge they want to find something to make her look bad. They are less worried about Obama but he is their favorite target.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13731 Dec 15, 2013
IRS:
Today I set and listened to the C-Span hearing over the IRS targeting Conservative political groups. The head of the Treasury Dept. was there and the fired head of the IRS. Plus in the back ground were other top people in the IRS who were there to either confirm or correct any testimony.
Again I heard nothing that rises to the level of a “scandal” although every Republican who questioned used that term every time he could.
I heard testimony that said after the Supreme Court decision over Citizen’s United where Corporations/wealthy can give unlimited amounts of money to a political campaign, but the amount donated would be a matter of record.
Then someone then came up with the bright idea to use the tax exempt status given to Churches and other non-profit groups get for doing general good. That way whoever gave money and the amount of money given could be hidden from public view just as no one knows how much one gives to the local Church.
Foreign Countries could give money through one of these groups and it would not have to be revealed.
All the sudden after Citizens United Decision, all kinds of requests were being presented for that status- thousands for 100 IRS agents to pour through and make a decision based on whether they were mostly giving money to politics or using it in a broad sense for the general good.
Whether or not it is correct I understood that there were 10 requests by right-wing groups to 1 from a left wing group. In addition to the great number of requests to be looked at, there was a one sided tilt to the number of requests and far more money was showing up on the right leaning groups. Likely because they are either corporate donations or wealthy interest donations that don’t want it known who they are supporting.
Now here is the part that would likely also attract the eye of the IRS – the amounts of money being given to the right-wing groups compared to the left-wing groups. The IRS was using a list of words that would prompt a closer look. Likely they should not have.
All agree that no group should be just targeted based on Republican or Democrat politics. ALL should be examined and in my opinion that loop-hole should be slammed shut.
I heard nothing that smacked of a political scandal and nothing close to reaching into the White House or the Obama Admin. There was no smoking gun that I heard that amounted to anything worthy of all the ranting and raving.
I want some proof that makes reasonable common sense before jumping to any conclusion even through the political talking heads can do it without any proof. Say it enough time and people will believe there must be something there. They take stuff out of context and report it as facts.
So far I can understand why the IRS was doing what they were doing and I don’t think they needed any push from the outside that smacks of politics. Fact is I think based on percentage of requests they denied about as many left groups as right wing groups. At least I have heard that said somewhere but can’t find it now.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#13732 Dec 15, 2013
Monitoring phones:
Monitoring the newspaper phones is something I have not yet listened to the hearings if they have one. It has been done before and I “thought” it takes a subpoena from a Judge but I might be wrong. The Justice Dept might have that authority in this case. Republican McCain on the Senate floor and other house/senate members wanted the Justice Department to act in the interest of national security. The Senate I believe was told that the Justice Dept. would investigate. I don’t yet know everything as who authorized it and why. I also know that Senator John McCain and other Republicans wanted to find out who was leaking.
The different this time is two things. The number of people & different lines checked but who they checked NEW REPORTERS. I don’t think the conversations were tapped but it was more of a case of who called who was monitored. The news reporters don’t like it when the government tries to find out their sources of information and will scream to high heaven.
I think it is perfectly legal to do but the rub is who they were checking into in order to find the leak. Again Holter as head of the Justice Dept. likely knew exactly what was going on. Again I don’t see where they reaches into politics other than giving them something to rant and rave about rather than actually passing legislation.
The interesting thing is that the Democrats tried to pass a law that would have prevented this and it was opposed by the same Republicans who now are jumping up and down over it.
Go figure. I don’t see a big scandal here that amounts to much.
Boone

Kuttawa, KY

#13733 Dec 15, 2013
If it sounds like Karl Marx, acts like Joe Stalin, and looks like Robert Mubabe ... it's probably named Obama.
OBAMA THE FIRST GAY PRES

Dover, OH

#13734 Dec 16, 2013
MSNBC thinks so...hahaha

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.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 28 min jimi-yank 331,999
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 1 hr SweLL GirL 16,042
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr zef 311,621
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr momma chamberlin 41,513
Mets talk back (Dec '06) 2 hr jimi-yank 29,276
trump mind flips flops 3 hr trump filps and f... 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr Curiouser And Cur... 61,038

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages