Barack Obama, our next President

[Realtime]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Tax breaks are allowing people/companies to keep more of the money they earn. Not a subsidy. Only libtards would call allowing someone to keep the money they earn a subsidy.

You don't have a fkn clue pal__one day you're on here bitchn about subsidies for ethanol and the next day you're denying that oil companies are receiving the lions share of those.

One more time moron, "tax breaks on a grand scale amount to subsidies."

[OzRitz]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
What f**k*ng question? Probvably one you used to avoid answering a question about where Obama was when the White House ordered the Americans in Benghazi hung out to dry and watched Al Qaeda kill them on real-time video, or why Obama lied for two weeks covering up an Al Qaeda attack on the United States, or avoiding answering the question about where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.

Can you enlighten us on why the Republican congress cut funding for the security of US embassies abroad and perhaps how Obama or his defence dept was going to change anything on the outcome when nearest support was 2 hrs away. Do you think they might have taken a time out to wait for the cavalry to arrive ? This crap is typical tea bagger white noise, it has no factual background just a bunch of fox news wannabe's.

[History 101]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
What f**k*ng question? Probvably one you used to avoid answering a question about where Obama was when the White House ordered the Americans in Benghazi hung out to dry and watched Al Qaeda kill them on real-time video, or why Obama lied for two weeks covering up an Al Qaeda attack on the United States, or avoiding answering the question about where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.

Boy, this like an Abbott an' Costello movie, you axed us if we had any questions. Then, I said, "Yes, marine pussy-boy, I have one since you axed, "Since the "war" in Iraq was a complete fabrication designed to allow the Bush Administration to funnel cash to its corporate family friends and those of Carlisle Group; and, given that we lost the war miserably after killing 600,000+ Iraqis for no reason, and given that there were never any weapons of mass destruction nor did anything remotely resembling democracy did we import with the bushels of cash we paid to the very people who were trying to kill us after we invaded their country, was the Surge a success or a failure. It's a yes or no question. "

Now. Befo' you dismiss my question as a rhetorical ploy, you need to consider how many times you axed you own rhetorical "questions" never expecting to get an answer. However, I expect an answer. A yes or no answer which is the same thing Senator McCain just demanded of Chuck Hagel. It's a simple question: in light of the plain as day accepted realities I described, was the Surge a success or a failure. It's a yes or no question, pussy-boy.

[OldRaider]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. For the "special needs" people in the class, for the umpteenth time....
The Treasury Department isn't a source of money. The Treasury Department is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
Besides, there isn't any money in the Treasury Department because the Treasury Department is already 16.5 trillion dollars in debt.
If you're too ignorant to answer the question of where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government, just read a little when someone who actually knows what a source of money is might answer.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

Good question, glad you asked. Can you first tell me can the President of the United States of America spend $1 without approval of congress?

[Homer 2016]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. For the "special needs" people in the class, for the umpteenth time....
The Treasury Department isn't a source of money. The Treasury Department is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
Besides, there isn't any money in the Treasury Department because the Treasury Department is already 16.5 trillion dollars in debt.
If you're too ignorant to answer the question of where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government, just read a little when someone who actually knows what a source of money is might answer.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

The Treasury Department or if you prefer The U.S. Treasury

[lily waxman raton fl]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>
Was that the guy who was interviewed by Pierce Morgan last night?
He was such a moron.

Obama was on with Pierce Morgan last night?

[lily waxman raton fl]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't imagine him getting re elected.

I know; who would have been stupid enough to re-elect Obama?

[TSM]

OzRitz wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you enlighten us on why the Republican congress cut funding for the security of US embassies abroad and perhaps how Obama or his defence dept was going to change anything on the outcome when nearest support was 2 hrs away. Do you think they might have taken a time out to wait for the cavalry to arrive ? This crap is typical tea bagger white noise, it has no factual background just a bunch of fox news wannabe's.

OzRitz Wrong…. More Democrats voted to cut embassy security than Republicans!! Total Vote from Congress: Voting to Cut Embassy Security, 199 Democrats, 163 Republicans that’s just the Facts!!

[lily waxman raton fl]

lily boca raton fl wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not surprising that an authoritarian personality type like yourself thinks that the the police should be involved in schoolroom problems that should be solved by the teachers and the principle.
This is the NRAs dream; the pipeline from school to prison. This is fueled by private prison contributions to politicians. That's who elected our Governor Rick Scott.
You're a stupid woman.

leosanabananarama will be making fun of you for misspelling "principal" as "principle".

[Death of Tenzing]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
You continue to repeat the propaganda lie that the oil companies get subsidies. But, you can't tell us what those subsidies are, for some reason.
Tell us about those subsidies to the oil companies, dufus.
... inquiring minds want to know.

4/25/2012 @ 12:52PM |32,397 views
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012...

Oh yeah, the US Treasury.

[Death of Tenzing]

History 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm pretty sure you should'a put a comma in there, fluck.

Nah, Religious Clown is a popular Nickelodeon cartoon character.

[Death of Tenzing]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Tax breaks are allowing people/companies to keep more of the money they earn. Not a subsidy. Only libtards would call allowing someone to keep the money they earn a subsidy.

If you work in a bakery and earn $50k/year and are taxed at a rate of 28% but your neighbor who also earns $50/year but, as an employee in the subsidized shoe manufacturing industry, is taxed at a rate of 15% is he being subsidized?

[History 101]

TSM wrote:

<quoted text>
OzRitz Wrong…. More Democrats voted to cut embassy security than Republicans!! Total Vote from Congress: Voting to Cut Embassy Security, 199 Democrats, 163 Republicans that’s just the Facts!!

Lessee... um... 199 plus 163.... equals... 362? Somebody missin' in there ain't they? Wait, I get it, you usin' that new southern math ain't you, boy?

[Death of Tenzing]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. For the "special needs" people in the class, for the umpteenth time....
The Treasury Department isn't a source of money. The Treasury Department is a repository for money collected from a source of money.
Besides, there isn't any money in the Treasury Department because the Treasury Department is already 16.5 trillion dollars in debt.
If you're too ignorant to answer the question of where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government, just read a little when someone who actually knows what a source of money is might answer.
Where will the money come from to pay for Obama's government?

The US Treasury.

[Homer 2016]

Death of Tenzing wrote:

<quoted text>
4/25/2012 @ 12:52PM |32,397 views
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012...
Oh yeah, the US Treasury.

U.S. Department of The Treasury.

The Department of the Treasury operates and maintains systems that are critical to the nation's financial infrastructure, such as the production of coin and currency, the disbursement of payments to the American public, revenue collection, and the borrowing of funds necessary to run the federal government.

http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasur...

So now we all know where the president will get the money to run the government.

[OldRaider]

While DBWriter is off working on his bunker, I think we may be able to resolve his dilemma. Once we can determine WHO spent the money then we can determine WHERE the money will come from to pay for it. So, first things first, according to Article I, section 8 of the Constitution it would appear that it was congress that spent the money. Once we agree on this then we can examine which congress was responsible for this massive debt.

hint: unprovoked war and deregulated banks

When he comes back we'll have the answer for him!

[Death of Tenzing]

DBWriter wrote:

<quoted text>
What f**k*ng question? Probvably one you used to avoid answering a question about where Obama was when the White House ordered the Americans in Benghazi hung out to dry and watched Al Qaeda kill them on real-time video, or why Obama lied for two weeks covering up an Al Qaeda attack on the United States, or avoiding answering the question about where the money will come from to pay for Obama's government.

The Department of the Treasury.

[Death of Tenzing]

RealDave wrote:

<quoted text>
I get it.
If an oil company makes a billion dollars in profit, handing then $200,000 is a subsidy.
If an oil company makes a billion dollars in profit, handing them a $200,000 tax break is not.
Right whiner thinking at its best

They are math and finance challenged. Be kind.

[Truth is no SIN]

The North-South difference in color line perception startled newcomers. Union General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (of Little Round Top, Gettysburg fame) in occupied Virginia after Appomattox, saw…

wild-looking men in homespun gray, standing sulkily by, or speaking only to insist that they are civilians and not soldiers; sometimes white men, or what seem to be, declaring that they are not white, but colored;–a claim not often set up in that part of the Republic, though there may be some truth in it for all that; for there was in those days a whimsical variance between law and fact,–between being actually white and legally white…

Of course, a borderline racial identification that was “legally but not actually” White to Maine-born Chamberlain was as “actual” as can be to a swarthy South Carolinian.

[Truth is no SIN]

Anna Kingsley
Anna Kingsley (no relation to Calvin Kingsley) was kidnapped by slave traders from her home in Senegal, sold to the highest bidder, and shipped to Florida. Five years later she was free and running a business. By 1826 she was among the wealthiest business owners in Florida.

For the next seventeen years, while increasing her wealth, she wrote hundreds of: editorials, letters to Congress, public circulars, petitions to state and federal courts, and memos to state legislators. All were on the same topic—the need for a color-blind society. Anna passionately believed that the United States could never reach its full potential until black, brown, and white people were treated equally and had identical rights. She understood that both the law and public prejudice had to change. She strove to make them change in step. She honestly believed that no society could call itself civilized unless everyone, black, white or beige, could attend schools, hold jobs, own businesses, attend theaters, ride public transportation, go to church, vote, marry whom they chose, serve on juries, and testify in court. Eradicating the “race” notion once and for all was her unwavering goal for seventeen years.

Why was Anna Kingsley so zealous about a color-blind society? She was a slave trader. By 1843 she owned a chain of slave plantations stretching from Haiti to the Florida-Georgia line. A study of her business accounts reveals that she did not make her money growing and selling cotton or timber or turpentine. The heart of her business was growing and selling slaves. Her husband, a ship’s captain in the triangle trade, brought them from Africa or the Caribbean. Her plantations seasoned them, trained them and sold them for phenomenal profit.

A recently published collection of writings by the Kingsley family (Anna, her husband Zephania, and their son George) pleads their case. The book is: Zephaniah Kingsley, Balancing Evils Judiciously: The Proslavery Writings of Zephaniah Kingsley, ed. Daniel W. Stowell, Florida History and Culture (Gainesville: University of Florida, 2000). Anna felt that slavery was noble, good for both slave and owner. She thought that the way to safeguard slavery forever was to make it an equal opportunity employer. Each plantation, she wrote, should have the same mix of White slaves, Black slaves, and biracial slaves as in the population as a whole (the way her plantations did). She said slavery should also be an equal opportunity business. There should be the same mix of Black slaveowners (like her), White slaveowners (like her husband), and biracial slaveowners (like their children) as in the population as a whole.