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
Cway

United States

#864092 Feb 25, 2013
proud2bwhite wrote:
<quoted text> translation... no answer found on the left wing propaganda web sites.
No, the translation of my sarcastic remark is, he was being unintelligible.

I see you didn't attempt to decipher it, either.

Right, cochroachie?

spray-spray-spray

(proud2bwhite: "Oh no! The truth... not again! Ahhhhh! scurry-scurry-scurry)

“Constitutionalis t”

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#864093 Feb 25, 2013
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
Good grief. How about the excerpt from the NY Times which your are responding to here and which I repeat below.
Do you really think you fool anyone by closing your eyes and running around the chat room, three stooges style, yelling "Ah'm blind! Ah'm blind!" fools anyone? Thou art truly pathetic.
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
From the NY Times about one year ago:
Obama’s Bid to End Oil Subsidies Revives DebateBy JOHN M. BRODER
Published: January 31, 2011
WASHINGTON — When he releases his new budget in two weeks, President Obama will propose doing away with roughly $4 billion a year in subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies, in his third effort to eliminate federal support for an industry that remains hugely profitable.
You still didn't tell us what subsidies you are talking about. Read that New York Times article again and just copy and paste the subsidies they identified. An idiot can do that.

What subsidies?
I hear the word "subsidies" said a lot. I just have never seen anything to back that Democrat propaganda bullshit up.
What subsidies is Obama talking about?
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#864094 Feb 25, 2013
marlowe44 wrote:
Bob Woodward and others confirm Obama and his boy Lew are lying thru their teeth about who is responsible for sequestration.
They are.,
“Moving the goal posts” isn’t a concept that actually makes any sense in the context of replacing the sequester. The whole point of the policy was to buy time until someone, somehow, moved the goalposts such that the sequester could be replaced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...

Here in DC, we can get a bit buried in Beltway minutia. The ongoing blame game over who concocted the sequester is an excellent example. But it’s worth remembering that the goalposts in American politics aren’t set in backroom deals between politicians. They’re set in elections. And in the 2012 election, the American people were very clear on where they wanted the goalposts moved to.

“Often imitated”

Level 6

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#864095 Feb 25, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree California is awesome. My wife and I may retire in the Palm Desert/Palm Springs area. Sure it's still years off but now that my 401K is once again rocking and rolling after the Bush debacle I think we'll be okay.
I used to want to retire in the monterey bay area, but nevada is looking mighty appealing. Low gas prices, you can shoot fully automatic (real) assault rifles, no state income tax...
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#864096 Feb 25, 2013
Homer 2016 wrote:
<quoted text>Bah, down 200, you want to see some crashing go back and check out 2008 then you'll see some crashing. This is just a slight market correction. Sorry to burst your's and Flack's bubble.
Minimum 10% correction coming.

Sell now and buy back 10% lower or just ride it out with no profit.

Take your choice.

“Often imitated”

Level 6

Since: Jul 07

never duplicated

#864097 Feb 25, 2013
leosnana wrote:
<quoted text>I called Jane a slut, not carol, and that was an allusion to an old SNL bit. If you read back, you will notice it was in response to Cherokreep's threatening Lily that he could find her any time he wanted and calling her a bitch. I know carol's a liar, racist, and drain on society, but I have no idea about her sexuality or lack thereof.
You lying mysogonist. You called her a slut right on this thread. You call any woman who you disagree with a slut. Why do you hate women?

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#864098 Feb 25, 2013
John Galt wrote:
Market crashing today.
Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#864099 Feb 25, 2013
Woodward Misses The Mark

....But in this case Woodward is just dead wrong. Obama and Democrats have always insisted that a balanced mix of spending cuts and higher taxes replace sequestration. It’s true that John Boehner wouldn’t agree to include new taxes in the enforcement mechanism itself, and thus that the enforcement mechanism he and Obama settled upon — sequestration — is composed exclusively of spending cuts. But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered. The key question is what action it was designed to compel. And on that score, the Budget Control Act is unambiguous.

First:“Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be reduced.”

Key words:“deficit reduction.” Not “spending cuts.” If Republicans wanted to make sure sequestration would be replaced with spending cuts only, that would have been the place to make a stand. Some of them certainly tried. But that’s not what ultimately won the day. Instead the, law tasked the Super Committee with replacing sequestration with a different deficit reduction bill — tax increases or no.

“The goal of the joint committee shall be to reduce the deficit by at least $1,500,000,000,000 over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021,” according to the BCA. The bill even provided the House and Senate instructions for advancing a Super Committee bill if it included revenue. This couldn’t be clearer. In the Super Committee’s waning hours, Republicans tried to entice Democrats into a spending-cut heavy agreement by acceding to a small amount of revenue. Democrats balked — the balance was off — but all of that just goes to show that a tax increase has always been a likely element of a replacement bill, and Republicans know it.

Woodward just biffed this one.

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives...

David Brooks got ate up for the same thing. in his 'retraction' he pleaded 'frustration'.

happens when you write an opinion based on nothing.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#864100 Feb 25, 2013
A Denver man was arrested last week over allegations that he harassed a lawmaker sponsoring legislation that would expand background checks for gun sales and ban high-capacity magazines, the Denver Post reported Monday.

Franklin Glenn Sain was arrested Friday, the report said, for allegedly harassing Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora) via emails and a voice mail. Sain was released on bond, according to the Denver Post.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/d...

the gun nut PR campaign stumbles on.
sonicfilter

Fishers, IN

#864101 Feb 25, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!
how much this time?

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Pharr, TX

#864102 Feb 25, 2013
Cway wrote:
Where's Jimmy? I want my good friend Jimmy to come out.
(Shaking can of Raid.)
That's funny but jimmy/waxturd/goober/nosrupriz e et.al. is only frightened by men with white coats and nets.
proud2bwhite

Cicero, IL

#864103 Feb 25, 2013
Cway wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the translation of my sarcastic remark is, he was being unintelligible.
I see you didn't attempt to decipher it, either.
Right, cochroachie?
spray-spray-spray
(proud2bwhite: "Oh no! The truth... not again! Ahhhhh! scurry-scurry-scurry)
does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.
Cway

United States

#864104 Feb 25, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
"1. GOP policies such as tax breaks clearly favor the wealthy."
Only half the goddam country is paying all the income tax for the entire country. Perhaps the Democrats have a fair tax plan where EVERYONE will pay their fair share of what the government they voted for costs?
"2. GOP legislators constantly oppose Wall Street reform."
Wall Street reform written by the very criminals that orchestrated the economic collapse, that being Dodd and Frank, isn't any kind of reform we want.
"3. GOP constantly fights against minimum wage.(And who benefits from that the most? The poor.)"
Why should an employer be forced to pay more for the same useless employee? Why does anyone need minimum wage? Why don't Democrats get off their ass and become worth more than minimum wage?
That will solve their income problem without instituting a Marxist program like minimum wage.
"4. GOP constantly fights social security benefits."
Let's fix Social Security right here and now:
IF YOU DIDN'T PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM SOCIAL SECURITY.
Now that we've fixed Social Security, what other problem do you have?
"5. GOP constantly fights affordable healthcare."
What you call "affordable health care" is paid for by the only half of the goddam population paying all the income taxes for the entire population. Of course, it's affordable to the half of the population that won't have to pay for it. It's not affordable to the other half of the population that pays all the income taxes for the entire population.
"6. GOP under Bush allowed credit card companies to charge 30% interest rates."
If you don't like that, don't earn for yourself an horrible credit rating by not paying any of your bills. If you pay your bills, you will have a normal credit card interest charge.
All of your problems are self-induced.
We are tired of subsidizing your problems. It's time you fixed them yourself, or just live with them.
1. Well, only 53% make enough to pay taxes. Hmmm. Now which president led us to that situation? Yuh think maybe eight years of chimp had something to do with it?

2. Avoids the question of who opposes Wall Street reform, doesn't it, Sir Cochroachie? Try to stay on topic. As for the banks, they willingly made out predatorial loans and are now being investigated for it. Try to stay in the news loop.

3. The issue is not your irrelevant queries, but the simple fact that your kind opposes minimum wage increases. Nothing more be said. The jury is in and the verdict lies on that simple fact.

4. More evasiveness on your part which pretends to address the issue. The bottom line is that Republicans hate social security and would like nothing better than to do away with it, as they tried under Bush. In that case, to privatize it. More specifically, turning over what was a trust over to Wall Street wolves.
Well, doesn't that once more reinforce the alliance between GOPers and Wall Street?

5. More nonsensical whining on your part, with the silly concluding remark that those who pay the taxes can't afford medical care, while the poorest can. Stop, take a deep breath, and listen to your idiocy once in a while.

6. Sorry, but I fail to see the morality or legal justification for jacking up credit card rates to 30%. The people who suffer from this the most are the poor. This is one of several points I made and nothing you state above refutes it.

Profits over people, right Mr. cochroachie?

Or have you forgotten how HMOs denied legitimate, long-term clients the kind of life-saving care they needed in order to pad the bottom line? The HMOs would just cancel their subscription under the bogus excuse "pre-existing condition".

But you don't want us to know that, do you?

Face it, Republicans are the party of the rich and big business. It's their class against everyone else. Actions speak louder than specious denials.
Cway

United States

#864105 Feb 25, 2013
Eman wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I thought...move along.
You don't think. And you don't have the power to make me do anything.
Cway

United States

#864106 Feb 25, 2013
To Mr. Galt,

1. Well, only 53% make enough to pay taxes. Hmmm. Now which president led us to that situation? Yuh think maybe eight years of chimp had something to do with it?

2. Avoids the question of who opposes Wall Street reform, doesn't it? Try to stay on topic. As for the banks, they willingly made out predatorial loans and are now being investigated for it.

3. The issue is not your irrelevant queries, but the simple fact that your kind opposes minimum wage increases. Nothing more be said. The jury is in and the verdict lies on that simple fact.

4. More evasiveness on your part which pretends to address the issue. The bottom line is that Republicans hate social security and would like nothing better than to do away with it, as they tried under Bush. In that case, to privatize it. More specifically, turning over what was a trust over to Wall Street wolves.
Well, doesn't that once more reinforce the alliance between GOPers and Wall Street?

5. More nonsensical whining on your part, with the silly concluding remark that those who pay the taxes can't afford medical care, while the poorest can. Stop, take a deep breath, and listen to your idiocy once in a while.

6. Sorry, but I fail to see the morality or legal justification for jacking up credit card rates to 30%. The people who suffer from it the most are the poor. This is one of several points I made and nothing you state above refutes it.

Profits over people, right Mr. cochroachie?

Or have you forgotten how HMOs denied legitimate, long-term clients the kind of life-saving care they needed in order to pad the bottom line? The HMOs would just cancel their subscription under the bogus excuse "pre-existing condition".

But you don't want us to know that, do you?

Face it, Republicans are the party of the rich and big business. It's their class against everyone else. Actions speak louder than specious denials.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#864107 Feb 25, 2013
proud2bwhite wrote:
<quoted text> does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.
Just the usual Chicago scumbag.
Cway

United States

#864108 Feb 25, 2013
proud2bwhite wrote:
<quoted text> does your mommy know that you are playing on her pc? You sound like an 8 year old with the imaginary can of coddie spray. But please use caution that stuff kills parasites , don't hurt yourself.
Trying to get a night gig in the comedy business?

Better keep the day job. In your case, the window at McDonalds.
Waxman

Windsor, CT

#864109 Feb 25, 2013
OldRaider wrote:
<quoted text>
Great news, money's the only thing that will motivate Republicans to act on sequestration!
Sequestration was Bullwinkle's idea and he said he would VETO any bills that would not abide by it, so why not humor the most divisive president in history?

By the way hypocrite, money in you losers pocket is why you support what you do, old ballsack.
John Galt

Temecula, CA

#864110 Feb 25, 2013
sonicfilter wrote:
A Denver man was arrested last week over allegations that he harassed a lawmaker sponsoring legislation that would expand background checks for gun sales and ban high-capacity magazines, the Denver Post reported Monday.
Franklin Glenn Sain was arrested Friday, the report said, for allegedly harassing Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora) via emails and a voice mail. Sain was released on bond, according to the Denver Post.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/d...
the gun nut PR campaign stumbles on.
Do you have any specifics on the so-called "harassment"?

Far as I know there is no law against sending critical emails and voice mails to public officials.
Cway

United States

#864111 Feb 25, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You still didn't tell us what subsidies you are talking about. Read that New York Times article again and just copy and paste the subsidies they identified. An idiot can do that.
What subsidies?
I hear the word "subsidies" said a lot. I just have never seen anything to back that Democrat propaganda bullshit up.
What subsidies is Obama talking about?
Ohhhh, I see. So in other words, it's not enough that the NY Times mentions $4 billion in federal oil subsidies.

You demand a break down for each oil company, right? Or else you're right and the NY Times is wrong.

Seriously, this kind of hair-splitting shows you to be the fool you are.

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.

Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 6 min Helena-Handbasket 488,657
Boca woman sues UF fraternity brothers for secr... (Jul '08) 38 min Zac Siegel 362
Sarah Palin's father and brother pen book about... (Oct '12) 1 hr RuffnReddy 19
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 3 hr LizW 70,498
Let's Chat (Jan '12) 3 hr LizW 17,685
Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 7 hr zazz 96,519
Change one letter game (Sep '11) 8 hr Princess Hey 2,538
Orlando Dating
Find my Match

Orlando Jobs

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]