Barack Obama, our next President

[Demos]

Nobama wrote:

<quoted text>
That entire analogy is so juvenile it's not worth any further response.
Obama is like the cartoon guy on the tree limb, sawing off the limb on the wrong side. Keep boasting and your fantasy will crash.

... at least you hope it will crash. You hope we get attacked, you hope the economic recovery fails, you hope Israel disappears in a mushroom cloud courtesy of Iran, you hope more American soldiers are killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. All so you can say "I told ya so."
Sick.

[Nobama]

grand obsolete party wrote:

<quoted text>
What A GREAT idea.
And if only we had done that under Bush everyone's retirement protfolio would have lost 50% in value!!
Excellent idea!
There's also this little problem.
Right now, current workers are paying the benefit being collected by reirees. The system's not bankrupt, moron.
There will be a problem around 2030, when we are projected to have som any folks collecting benefits.
If you start letting workers do their own investing from their withholding, then who is going to pay for all the folks collecting benefits?
Dumbass, that as the problem with 'W's grand Social Security plan.
His own commission determined his plan would cost over 10 trillion dollars.
But hey, if you want to tell all the old folks that the gravy train is over, be my guest.

So just perpetuate a system that steals your money and provides a lousy return, if any?

And just to show how ignorant you are, the Dow was approximately 10,600 in January 2005 when Bush began floating the idea of privatization and is now approximately 10,200, a decline of approximately 4%, not 50%.

But then you're just a dumbass schoolteacher with a short perspective and can't be expected to manage money on your own.

[Realtime]

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
What's a moral compass got to do with civil rights? Who's moral compass should be used? Yours, mine? This is a nation of laws, not morals.

Exactly my point.

[carol]

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
What's a moral compass got to do with civil rights? Who's moral compass should be used? Yours, mine? This is a nation of laws, not morals.

If one has to explain a moral compass, you don't have one.

[Jennifer]

Nobama wrote:

<quoted text>
So just perpetuate a system that steals your money and provides a lousy return, if any?
And just to show how ignorant you are, the Dow was approximately 10,600 in January 2005 when Bush began floating the idea of privatization and is now approximately 10,200, a decline of approximately 4%, not 50%.
But then you're just a dumbass schoolteacher with a short perspective and can't be expected to manage money on your own.

Good one! I doubt he is really a school teacher. Pre school teacher maybe. LOL!

[Nobama]

Nobama wrote:

How does this sound for an energy policy?
"While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production."

In case there is any misunderstanding of my position on the Libertarian energy policy noted above, I believe it is exactly correct.

Unfortunately, it is 180 degrees opposite the Obama energy policy, which not only subsidizes particular forms of energy, but heavily subsidizes the most impractical forms of energy.

[Nobama]

Conservatives want the US to be safe, want the economy to prosper, want our allies to be safe from attack, and want US soldiers to return home safely.

Unfortunately, the misguided policies of the Obama administration make these outcomes unlikely no matter what we say.

[carol]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/alex...
Marine attacks Greek Orthodox Priest with tire iron in Tampa, thinks he was a muslim terrorist

You apparently still haven't gotten the concept of perspective, Lily. Pointing to one single example of someone who obviously lost his mind and equating that to a vast network of jihadist beheaders, women and children killers and suicide bombers who kill in the name of their God shows you have a long way to go yet.

[Demos]

Nobama wrote:

An alternate view of retirement investing, instead of allowing the government to control your future:
"Politicians in Washington are stealing your future.
Every year, they take 12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy.
If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show.
That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security.
Even a very conservative investment strategy would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security."

You should be citing your sources.

lp.org

You're welcome.

[Nobama]

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup's generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

[Demos]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>Hasn't this all been posted before ad nauseum?

Of course but its Carol, whaddya expect?

[Demos]

Grampy wrote:

<quoted text>
Not when political correctness rules the land. Why nobody in the FBI or Homeland Security wants to be accused of "Acting Stupidly" and appear to be profiling. Not while the Ditherer-in-Chief has a full deck of race cards and won't hesitate to toss one out and kill a bureaucrat's career in a second.

He was investigated last year.

[grand obsolete party]

Nobama wrote:

Conservatives want the US to be safe, want the economy to prosper, want our allies to be safe from attack, and want US soldiers to return home safely.
Unfortunately, the misguided policies of the Obama administration make these outcomes unlikely no matter what we say.

If that's what Conservatives want, then why didn't they accomplish even ONE of those things from 2000-206 wile they had all the power to do so?
1. Safe? No, we were attacked in 2001, with a Conservative President and Congress.
2. US soldiers home? HECK NO! Conservatieves started 2 wars, sending 175,000 Americans to war, and resulting in over 4,500 deaths.
3. Economy prosper? HELL NO! Complete collapse of our financial system after 12 years of Republican controlled congress.
Face it, Conservaives just want power back so that they can do what they do best when in power....nothing.
Please name on piece of legislation from 2000 - 2001 that addressed evevn ONE of the gols you attribute to Conservatives.

[Demos]

Thinkingperson wrote:

<quoted text>
Too many being too PC maybe.
If it looks like a rabid duck, it ought to be monitored and kept watch on, at least, like a rabid duck. No matter what the faith, or lack of.

Homeland Security under Bush was too PC???

[Demos]

Thinkingperson wrote:

<quoted text>
Another domestic terrorist sounding whacko.
Ought to be monitored.

He's long dead so you've been selected to monitor his grave.

Dress warm.

[Demos]

Thinkingperson wrote:

<quoted text>
Repost. For those who realize reality isn't fun and sought out soapboxes.
Dear Lord, grant some common sense, humanity and some decency to this country.
grand obsolete party wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello, anybody home?
Fort Hood?
FBI investigated?
Wasn't Homeland Security supposed to improve communications among agencies?
We now know all this stuff about the guy AFTER the fact?
The Homeland Security that includes FEMA?
Right. Excellent.
Quote Grampy-
Not when political correctness rules the land. Why nobody in the FBI or Homeland Security wants to be accused of "Acting Stupidly" and appear to be profiling. Not while the Ditherer-in-Chief has a full deck of race cards and won't hesitate to toss one out and kill a bureaucrat's career in a second.

Ask Brandon Mayfield how PC the last administration was.

[grand obsolete party]

Nobama wrote:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup's generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

Hmmmmmm, I guess that's why in the most recent special congressional elections in CA- 10 and NY -23, where there were REAL (not generic) candidates, and no incumbents, Democrats won both elections.

[Nobama]

grand obsolete party wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's what Conservatives want, then why didn't they accomplish even ONE of those things from 2000-206 wile they had all the power to do so?
1. Safe? No, we were attacked in 2001, with a Conservative President and Congress.
2. US soldiers home? HECK NO! Conservatieves started 2 wars, sending 175,000 Americans to war, and resulting in over 4,500 deaths.
3. Economy prosper? HELL NO! Complete collapse of our financial system after 12 years of Republican controlled congress.
Face it, Conservaives just want power back so that they can do what they do best when in power....nothing.
Please name on piece of legislation from 2000 - 2001 that addressed evevn ONE of the gols you attribute to Conservatives.

Here is an interesting concept to ponder.

Much of what the government does is ill-advised and negative.

Sometimes doing nothing is the best course of action for the government.

[grand obsolete party]

Nobama wrote:

<quoted text>
So just perpetuate a system that steals your money and provides a lousy return, if any?
And just to show how ignorant you are, the Dow was approximately 10,600 in January 2005 when Bush began floating the idea of privatization and is now approximately 10,200, a decline of approximately 4%, not 50%.
But then you're just a dumbass schoolteacher with a short perspective and can't be expected to manage money on your own.

I'm sorry that you work some menial job and that you have no savings for retirement, otherwise you would have seen your portfolio lose 50% from 2007-2008

[Demos]

grand obsolete party wrote:

<quoted text>
What part of the world is undiscovered? Or has been discovered since that time?

Gramps was talking about when he was a kid. You know, before Peary and Amundsen.