Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30994 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me introduce you to a new word liberals are unfamiliar with: Broke.
Okay, what does broke mean?
Broke means no money. Broke likely means in debt. Broke means failure.
So why would Republicans object to spending money we don't have? Because what idiot would vote for failure? Well...... a Democrat of course.
But besides that, we have evidence that spending tax dollars on infrastructure has no impact on our financial situation. Check out the Pork Bill, or as DumBama called it, the Stimulus Bill.
You see, the financial success of our country is a simple calculation that the private sector supports the public sector. In other words, people in the private industry create wealth. Some of that wealth is extracted via taxes to support the public sector.
One of the reasons DumBama and the Democrats are such failures at this is because they tried (and are still trying) to do the exact opposite: the public sector supporting the private sector.
Why doesn't this work? Quite simple, because the public sectors has no money. The public sector produces no sellable goods or services. Therefore, the public sector makes no profit.
The public sector depends on profit making entities like the private sector to survive. Is this information privy to Republicans only? Of course not. Even Democrat politicians are not that dumb, but their constituents are.
So once again, Rush is right when he said "Liberals don't measure success by results, liberals measure success by intent." Let me give you an example:
The Golden Gate Bridge is not only a model of American ingenuity, but a landmark as well. It's a beautiful bridge that millions from all over the world come to see. The problem with the bridge? Kooks jump off of it to commit suicide.
Now they want to use 76 million of our dollars to erect a safety net to stop people from jumping off of the bridge. Will that stop people from committing suicides? Of course not, and even the Democrats in charge understand this. But it's a dog and pony show liberal constituents like to see. As Rush said, it doesn't matter if it solves anything, as long as it looks like they care.
So the liberal solution to this problem is to take a beautiful bridge and make it ugly. Invite all kinds of daredevils to jump off into the steel safety net; some of which will become paralyzed or otherwise die in the process, and will place all kinds of liability on the taxpayers of San Francisco. Not to mention all the rescue personnel needed for these clowns plus the maintenance of the safety nets. Will all this money and resources stop one suicide? No, but again, it looks good.
I hope you are on the next bridge that collapses. When you get to the ER without any insurance someone can meet you with one simple word. Broke.
Canton

Canton, OH

#30995 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me introduce you to a new word liberals are unfamiliar with: Broke.
Okay, what does broke mean?
Broke means no money. Broke likely means in debt. Broke means failure.
So why would Republicans object to spending money we don't have? Because what idiot would vote for failure? Well...... a Democrat of course.
But besides that, we have evidence that spending tax dollars on infrastructure has no impact on our financial situation. Check out the Pork Bill, or as DumBama called it, the Stimulus Bill.
You see, the financial success of our country is a simple calculation that the private sector supports the public sector. In other words, people in the private industry create wealth. Some of that wealth is extracted via taxes to support the public sector.
One of the reasons DumBama and the Democrats are such failures at this is because they tried (and are still trying) to do the exact opposite: the public sector supporting the private sector.
Why doesn't this work? Quite simple, because the public sectors has no money. The public sector produces no sellable goods or services. Therefore, the public sector makes no profit.
The public sector depends on profit making entities like the private sector to survive. Is this information privy to Republicans only? Of course not. Even Democrat politicians are not that dumb, but their constituents are.
So once again, Rush is right when he said "Liberals don't measure success by results, liberals measure success by intent." Let me give you an example:
The Golden Gate Bridge is not only a model of American ingenuity, but a landmark as well. It's a beautiful bridge that millions from all over the world come to see. The problem with the bridge? Kooks jump off of it to commit suicide.
Now they want to use 76 million of our dollars to erect a safety net to stop people from jumping off of the bridge. Will that stop people from committing suicides? Of course not, and even the Democrats in charge understand this. But it's a dog and pony show liberal constituents like to see. As Rush said, it doesn't matter if it solves anything, as long as it looks like they care.
So the liberal solution to this problem is to take a beautiful bridge and make it ugly. Invite all kinds of daredevils to jump off into the steel safety net; some of which will become paralyzed or otherwise die in the process, and will place all kinds of liability on the taxpayers of San Francisco. Not to mention all the rescue personnel needed for these clowns plus the maintenance of the safety nets. Will all this money and resources stop one suicide? No, but again, it looks good.
Let me introduce you to a notion that you Tea Bagging Bible voters live in denial about. Halliburton made billions in no-bid contracts rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Seems we weren't "broke" then.
Canton

Canton, OH

#30996 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
They get upset every time their left-wing blogs tell them otherwise, like "It's the Republicans who are obstructionists."
They elected a joker that not only doesn't know his job, but refuses to deal with anybody. Then when things don't get done, it has nothing to do with the Democrats, NO, it has to do with the Republicans only.
It doesn't take two to Tango as long as liberals think they can use it for their side. Did you see or hear how DumBama acted after the SC ruling? Like a brat that was told by his mother he couldn't have an item in the store that he wanted. I was actually waiting for him to say "Now I have three pens and three cell phones."
Yah, you know us. Always slopping around links to bogus propaganda blogs. No...wait. That's you. You're the one who posts links to proven bogus propaganda blogs and calls them facts. You're the one who we have to constantly remind about posting garbage for proof of you claims. Typical lazy right winger welfare queens. Get up off your belly. Do you think that men fought and died for this nation just so you can crawl on your belly like a cowardly dog for the big boss man?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#30997 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
To the point that congress exists because of the constitution, I suppose you are correct. The interpretation of federal statute, unless the constitutionality of the statute is directly questioned, does not require application of any constitutional principles. The Hobby Lobby case was decided on the interplay between two competing statutes, not the constitution. You should take some time to contemplate that and appreciate that you have learned something.
Those statutes had to do with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is the point and like I said the SCOTUS went about it a different way and the Liberals are in arms because of it.
Canton

Canton, OH

#30998 Jul 4, 2014
I think a certain trucking company needs to start taking 10% of every driver's pay who doesn't attend church, as a tithe. This corporate religious thing has all kind of neat possibilities. I wonder if a Muslim owned Hobby Lobby and they were trying to block women having birth control due to the religion of Islam, how the Supreme Court would have ruled? I think we all know the answer to that one. Also, I wonder why the founders of this nation made no mention about money being speech or corporations being people?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#30999 Jul 4, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Those statutes had to do with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution is the point and like I said the SCOTUS went about it a different way and the Liberals are in arms because of it.
I think you should stick to copying and pasting Wikipedia links. You are out of your element on this one, Donnie.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31000 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
I think a certain trucking company needs to start taking 10% of every driver's pay who doesn't attend church, as a tithe. This corporate religious thing has all kind of neat possibilities. I wonder if a Muslim owned Hobby Lobby and they were trying to block women having birth control due to the religion of Islam, how the Supreme Court would have ruled? I think we all know the answer to that one. Also, I wonder why the founders of this nation made no mention about money being speech or corporations being people?
Its right in the US Constitution plain as day. It's between Church and State and Abortion Rights about six paragraphs past Hate Crimes
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31001 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah, you know us. Always slopping around links to bogus propaganda blogs. No...wait. That's you. You're the one who posts links to proven bogus propaganda blogs and calls them facts. You're the one who we have to constantly remind about posting garbage for proof of you claims. Typical lazy right winger welfare queens. Get up off your belly. Do you think that men fought and died for this nation just so you can crawl on your belly like a cowardly dog for the big boss man?
You've never proven any of my evidence wrong. You do the same thing all liberals do which is criticize the source instead of the evidence. You liberals think you've won the debate when all you're really done is prove you can't defend what you wrote.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31002 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me introduce you to a notion that you Tea Bagging Bible voters live in denial about. Halliburton made billions in no-bid contracts rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Seems we weren't "broke" then.
Haliburton built the Iraqi infrastructure so who better to call for a repair than them? Not to mention Haliburton has been involved with every rebuilding project of the US since Vietnam, and that's besides the fact no other corporation was large enough to take on such a massive project like Iraq.

How much stock did you have in Haliburton after the Iraq war?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31003 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
I hope you are on the next bridge that collapses. When you get to the ER without any insurance someone can meet you with one simple word. Broke.
And who's fault is that? He wouldn't happen to have a (D) next to his name, now would he?
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31004 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me introduce you to a new word liberals are unfamiliar with: Broke.
Well, you are right about that. I haven't been broke for many years. I've always planned for the future, and financial security was high on my list. Liberals believe that the future can be better than the past, and that was how I planned.
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, what does broke mean?
Among other things, being broke means that you can't afford to buy health insurance, and that you will depend on the charity of other people when you get sick.

Meanwhile, those of us that are invested in the stock market are feeling rather flush right now. My personal net worth has never been higher.

"The Dow Jones industrial average continued its heady climb into uncharted territory on the eve of the Fourth of July, eclipsing the 17,000 milestone for the first time in its 118-year history and building on the bullish start to the second half of 2014.

After coming within 2 points of 17,000 Tuesday, the Dow finally cracked what Wall Street is dubbing “Dow 17K” after the government reported that a better-than-expected 288,000 jobs were created last month and the unemployment rate dipped to 6.1%, its lowest level since September 2008."

http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/07/0...
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31005 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And who's fault is that? He wouldn't happen to have a (D) next to his name, now would he?
It's your fault Ray. Man up.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31006 Jul 4, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you are right about that. I haven't been broke for many years. I've always planned for the future, and financial security was high on my list. Liberals believe that the future can be better than the past, and that was how I planned.
<quoted text>
Among other things, being broke means that you can't afford to buy health insurance, and that you will depend on the charity of other people when you get sick.
Meanwhile, those of us that are invested in the stock market are feeling rather flush right now. My personal net worth has never been higher.
"The Dow Jones industrial average continued its heady climb into uncharted territory on the eve of the Fourth of July, eclipsing the 17,000 milestone for the first time in its 118-year history and building on the bullish start to the second half of 2014.
After coming within 2 points of 17,000 Tuesday, the Dow finally cracked what Wall Street is dubbing “Dow 17K” after the government reported that a better-than-expected 288,000 jobs were created last month and the unemployment rate dipped to 6.1%, its lowest level since September 2008."
http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/07/0...
That's good Old Guy. Take advantage of all the phony money being poured into the market because it can't last forever. Also, make sure you pull out in time because the bubble being created in the stock market right now will make the housing bubble seem like a pikers loss.

And BTW, I've had health insurance my entire life until the Commie took over the White House. As I explained repeatedly, I made sure that I only accepted jobs with health insurance even though it meant working for less money. But since Democrats attack responsible people because responsible people don't need government, I now have no insurance at all. My insurance went to irresponsible people that never had it. You know, the Obama voter type.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Lodi, OH

#31007 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's good Old Guy. Take advantage of all the phony money being poured into the market because it can't last forever. Also, make sure you pull out in time because the bubble being created in the stock market right now will make the housing bubble seem like a pikers loss.
And BTW, I've had health insurance my entire life until the Commie took over the White House. As I explained repeatedly, I made sure that I only accepted jobs with health insurance even though it meant working for less money. But since Democrats attack responsible people because responsible people don't need government, I now have no insurance at all. My insurance went to irresponsible people that never had it. You know, the Obama voter type.
There is nothing, other than your desire to wallow in your ill conceived martyrdom, stopping you from getting a job that provides health insurance, Ray.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31008 Jul 4, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your fault Ray. Man up.
How is it my fault? Did I create a system that increased insurance premiums so high employers could no longer afford the coverage for their employees? Is it my fault that I'm like most Americans who doesn't have an extra 500 to 600 bucks laying around the house every month that I have nothing better to do with than buy insurance?

The better question is, did I bring this upon myself or did YOU and your ilk inflict me with this problem? I may no longer have insurance, but it's way more your fault than mine. Had DumBama never been elected, I like millions of other Americans would still have our insurance today.
nobama

Toledo, OH

#31009 Jul 4, 2014
Nobama
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Detroit, MI

#31010 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it my fault? Did I create a system that increased insurance premiums so high employers could no longer afford the coverage for their employees? Is it my fault that I'm like most Americans who doesn't have an extra 500 to 600 bucks laying around the house every month that I have nothing better to do with than buy insurance?
The better question is, did I bring this upon myself or did YOU and your ilk inflict me with this problem? I may no longer have insurance, but it's way more your fault than mine. Had DumBama never been elected, I like millions of other Americans would still have our insurance today.
Other people have figured out how to have insurance just fine. You would rather cry than have insurance.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#31011 Jul 4, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask Reagan, or is this just another example of how Tea Baggers try to rewrite history? How about the Union slogan "Buy American"? Now go wave your little flag that was made in China.
Reagan? You need to study history, sir.

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the administration's face-off with Ross Perot in its last-ditch effort to rescue the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton took on another NAFTA opponent yesterday, attacking labor unions for using "roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" to try to defeat the trade pact.

In an hour-long, Oval Office interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, Mr. Clinton conceded he is about 30 votes short of the majority needed to pass the trade legislation in the House, which will cast its decision Nov. 17.

"I think we'll make it, however," he added.

The House vote is the crucial test on Capitol Hill. Senate approval is regarded as certain.

The president said Mr. Perot, scheduled to debate the issue with Vice President Al Gore tomorrow night on CNN's "Larry King Live," has "kept things stirred up" as a loud and ubiquitous anti-NAFTA voice.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-11-08/n...

Two decades ago, the strongest critics of the North American Free Trade Agreement were members of labor unions. They warned that the trade deal would mean the loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and lower wages for U.S. workers.

Today, 20 years since NAFTA's passage, unions feel as strongly as ever that the deal was a bad idea.

Back in 1993, the labor movement was mobilized against the creation of a massive free-trade zone including the U.S., Canada and Mexico. There were union-backed protests around the U.S.— at the Capitol in Washington and especially in the industrial Midwest and in big manufacturing states.

That fall in Lansing, Mich., Ruben Burks of the United Auto Workers addressed a big crowd. "Do we care about our jobs?" he said to cheers. "Do we care about our brothers and sisters in Mexico and Canada? Brothers and sisters, we're going to stop this NAFTA — you're darn right we are."

Except they didn't. President Clinton was in his first year in the White House, having been elected with help from traditional Democrats — including union members. But he disagreed with labor on NAFTA.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251945882/what-...

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill...

China's Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615...
Canton

Canton, OH

#31013 Jul 4, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You've never proven any of my evidence wrong. You do the same thing all liberals do which is criticize the source instead of the evidence. You liberals think you've won the debate when all you're really done is prove you can't defend what you wrote.
You have used The Heritage Foundation, Breitbart, and Rush Limbaugh as the source of your "facts". Now name some bogus leftwing propaganda mills that I used as my sources. Yah, that's what I thought. Just because you are too dumb to understand the difference between opinion pieces and corporate sponsored propaganda doesn't mean it's anything close to being called "facts".
Canton

Canton, OH

#31014 Jul 4, 2014
Nickled Dimed wrote:
<quoted text>
Reagan? You need to study history, sir.
WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the administration's face-off with Ross Perot in its last-ditch effort to rescue the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton took on another NAFTA opponent yesterday, attacking labor unions for using "roughshod, muscle-bound tactics" to try to defeat the trade pact.
In an hour-long, Oval Office interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday morning, Mr. Clinton conceded he is about 30 votes short of the majority needed to pass the trade legislation in the House, which will cast its decision Nov. 17.
"I think we'll make it, however," he added.
The House vote is the crucial test on Capitol Hill. Senate approval is regarded as certain.
The president said Mr. Perot, scheduled to debate the issue with Vice President Al Gore tomorrow night on CNN's "Larry King Live," has "kept things stirred up" as a loud and ubiquitous anti-NAFTA voice.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-11-08/n...
Two decades ago, the strongest critics of the North American Free Trade Agreement were members of labor unions. They warned that the trade deal would mean the loss of manufacturing jobs to Mexico and lower wages for U.S. workers.
Today, 20 years since NAFTA's passage, unions feel as strongly as ever that the deal was a bad idea.
Back in 1993, the labor movement was mobilized against the creation of a massive free-trade zone including the U.S., Canada and Mexico. There were union-backed protests around the U.S.— at the Capitol in Washington and especially in the industrial Midwest and in big manufacturing states.
That fall in Lansing, Mich., Ruben Burks of the United Auto Workers addressed a big crowd. "Do we care about our jobs?" he said to cheers. "Do we care about our brothers and sisters in Mexico and Canada? Brothers and sisters, we're going to stop this NAFTA — you're darn right we are."
Except they didn't. President Clinton was in his first year in the White House, having been elected with help from traditional Democrats — including union members. But he disagreed with labor on NAFTA.
http://www.npr.org/2013/12/17/251945882/what-...
Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill...
China's Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615...
Reagan broke the unions. Neat, I didn't have to use 20 links and 5 paragraphs that nobody will read to state that. It's because everybody already knows this common knowledge. Everyone except you, I guess. Oh well. Who cares.

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.

Mason Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 33 min PERVY 19,558
Culture Rant 16 hr Simplyd 1
Message and or Shaving Service Fri mike0u812 2
Taboo, kink, forbidden loving females.... looki... Dec 18 WARNING 3
Heroin In Cinci (Jan '12) Dec 17 Christa Eldridge 82
Tattoo's Dec 16 Pops 6
Who's giving away toys 4 Christmas (Oct '09) Dec 16 thedoctor 48
Mason Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Mason People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Mason News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Mason

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 9:01 am PST

NFL 9:01AM
Browns place safety Tashaun Gipson on injured reserve
ESPN 9:39 AM
Setback-free Newton to start against Browns
NBC Sports10:00 AM
Browns put Tashaun Gipson on IR
NBC Sports11:17 AM
Peyton Manning officially questionable for Monday night
CBS Sports 5:01 AM
Signs of Johnny Manziel's struggles evident in poor practice outings