The President has failed us

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election. Full Story

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100254 Feb 6, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that racist? LOL
Aryan is not a real race so no.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#100255 Feb 6, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that racist? LOL
Nah, liberals are incapable of racism. Didn't you get the memo?

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100256 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
That claim is complete BS. The AHA is all about power and eventually nationalizing health care by making private insurance unaffordable.
Private insurance has already become unaffordable if you have a shit job and it was like that long before Obamacare.
From my cold dead hands

Providence, UT

#100257 Feb 6, 2013
Zimmerman Brother: Obama 'Bullied' My Family

by Ben Shapiro 5 Feb 2013
George Zimmerman was back in court today for a hearing on the start date for his trial on murder charges. Zimmerman, of course, was the Hispanic neighborhood watchman in Sanford, Florida, who trailed a young black man named Trayvon Martin after calling 911, got into an altercation with Martin in which Martin ended up pounding Zimmerman’s head into the pavement, and then ended up shooting Martin in the chest. The media used the Zimmerman case as an opportunity to bully Americans over their supposed racial intolerance. Even the President of the United States weighed in in the midst of an election cycle, suggesting that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/...

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#100258 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm very tolerant of progressive ideology. It makes me laugh, so I embrace it.
Just admit it - liberal tolerance is a myth.
Next?
They will kill, whether physically, fiscally, or psychologically to take away our guns.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#100259 Feb 6, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
The term Aryan is merely PC terminology (i.e. special needs vs retarded).
In that case, I am neither.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100260 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Change and "moving forward" is no guarantee of improvement.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a tried and true statement.
With that kind of ideology... we'd still be wearing wigs and shooting muzzle-loaded, smooth bore long guns.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#100261 Feb 6, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Aryan is not a real race so no.
Neither is Hispanic.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100262 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! You fools believe everything this regime throws your way. Low-information voters rejoice!
**********
President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History
The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.
Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump,“federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012...
Forbes hoodwinked ya!

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

What people forget (or never knew) is that the first year of every presidential term starts with a budget approved by the previous administration and Congress. The president only begins to shape the budget in his second year. It takes time to develop a budget and steer it through Congress — especially in these days of congressional gridlock.

The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/co...

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100263 Feb 6, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Her trolling has reached an unhealthy level.
Troll Rehab? LOL!
SHlTS and GIGGLES

France

#100265 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, liberals are incapable of racism. Didn't you get the memo?
You got that right ya honkey!

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100266 Feb 6, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't trolling princess trolluna ...
An associate 'found it' and sent it by ... ;0)
Don't you wish you had someone "you" could trust ...
For telling the TRUTH ...:)
Not a lot of "distorted HOGwash" ...
Ta ta ...
You don't tell the truth about anything.

And if you need to rely on an "associate" to get your so-called "truth" secondhand, then you don't even care about the truth. Idle gossip meant to hurt another person doesn't belong in the same sentence with TRUTH.

Buzz off, troll.
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#100267 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
Target shooting, home defense and military operations are not the same. This was all covered in earlier post, which I assumed you missed. This is rather obvious, but I will go over a bit since you asked:
Yes, having a gun is a great equalizer when it comes to women vs. men (or young adult males vs. the elderly, the lame, the sick or the female). That's rather obvious. If someone is breaking into a young woman's apartment intent on rape or murder, she's almost always better off with a firearm, assuming a rudimentary understanding of its use and due caution. The IDEAL outcome is no shots fired, but rather the presence of an armed victim causes the perp to flee. War is quite different.
Target shooting is a sport. There's no intent to kill anything. Normally small caliber arms are used such as a .22. It has noting to do with this discussion, other than to note that women, with training, can perform it as well as any similarly-trained man. War is not target shooting.
Military operations are another thing entirely. Only very rarely is anything done alone or even in small groups. It's a team effort from beginning to end. Anyone who can't keep up with the standards drags the team down. That applies to EVERYTHING, not just to putting bullets on a target. Yes, marksmanship is important. But the ability to carry large numbers of supplies (bullets, med gear, water, food, comm, etc) and keep up with the others is probably more important. Warfare is more about logistics and maneuver than anything else.
The woman front-line combat soldier will be, on average, 60% of what you get for the same training & equipping cost of a man. The assets she brings to the unit are not her's alone. They're everybody's. If by bad luck she's shot dead in the first few minutes, her kit only gives the unit 300 rounds (vs. 500). Why? Because she couldn't carry the full load. If she falls behind on a march or a run for cover during an attack, she slows down the entire unit. If she can't fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, the next mortar attack may have a devastating affect. If she can't dig a trench quickly, same thing.
It's an easy (amateur) mistake to assume that marksmanship is all there is to military operations, especially front-line ground combat. That is simply not true. Much more time is devoted to physical conditioning, unit tactics, communications, movement and other skills than to weapons firing. A valuable skill? No doubt. But most definitely NOT the only factor. Not even close. If it was, they'd spend most of the time at the firing range. But they don't. That's because the military has carefully analyzed this and have apportionend training time & resources to match their utility in actual combat.
Ever since the industrial revolution the ratio of support troops to front-line combat troops has increased. I don't know the numbers for today's armies, but let's say it's 10-1. The leave plenty of jobs for women in the support field. Bringing them to the front lines is a foolish as deliberately selecting under-size, slow and more easily fatigued men for that job. This is all about fulfilling some liberal's notion of reality and has NOTHING to do with actual ground combat.
According to the military, the military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women.

So regardless of gender, all individuals must be able to carry large numbers of supplies, carry 500 rounds, fill 1000 lbs of sandbags in 1/2 hour, etc

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100268 Feb 6, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT YOU THINK ... ;0)
Was THAT post to "you" ...???
THEN get the HELL
"off my CLOUD" ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =X4OUZew33Q4XX
Red, White And Blue
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
If ya don't wanna go to
FIST City ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
ya betta detour around my 'post'... ;0)
The post I was referring to was ABOUT NTR, and it was stupid of you just like she said.

You thought you hit the mother lode with some old crap from a 2007 thread, and you came up with a great big NOTHING.

Tell your "associate" to get you something really juicy, you conniving little twit.

People her like NTR. They don't like you. LOL!

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100269 Feb 6, 2013
<here>

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#100270 Feb 6, 2013
La Santa Muerte wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, liberals are incapable of racism. Didn't you get the memo?
Disagree strongly. Every normal person is capable of racism.
Whether they practice racism or not is another issue. The only way that one can determine if another is a racist in the virtual world is by a count of instances of racism expressed by another in comparison to all. I have one of the best records of non-racism on topix by count of instances of my expression of such. That I know I can own.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100271 Feb 6, 2013
Parthenon wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama, the Prophet of Small Government! LOL!
Ok, you just might, if you try very, very hard, have some success at selling this fiction to a bunch of 8-year olds.
Go away, tiny-brained idiot.
I've presented you with the facts... you're free to live in your little delusional world of denial.

I really don't give a shit!!

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100272 Feb 6, 2013
huntscoyotes wrote:
<quoted text>From what I've read, you do the same thing. So do I. So does everyone. The thing is, that's MOST of your postings. The Lady NTR posts things that are interesting and informative as does Jaxxon, Eagle, Xman,and (not lately) USMail. Where are yours?
And who are you and why should I care WHAT you think of what I post?

I don't go researching five-year-old threads just to bring forth old posts for no reason.

I don't post anywhere to please anyone. You want interesting, then be interesting. I have no idea who you are, but I don't recall criticizing you for what you post.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#100273 Feb 6, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>Neither is Hispanic.
You're learning well little grasshopper!!!

Since: Jun 10

San Ramon, CA

#100274 Feb 6, 2013
Figarooo wrote:
Good morning everyone!((HUGS))
Hi Figgy!

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.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
More Americans believe in global warming (Oct '12) Oct 17 dont drink the ko... 240
Newest National Monument Will Encompass Wild Mo... Oct 9 CriminalLandGrabSGV 1
Mega Aussie solar project falls on global warmi... Oct 8 Alison Young 4
Clean-up volunteers tackle largely plastic poll... Oct 8 unknown 3
Does air quality suffer as Utah moves more oil ... Oct 2 Sneaky Pete 2
Thousands Attend Climate March in New York Sep 29 Jake999 66
Study Shows Ethanol Produces Worse 'Global Warm... (Apr '14) Sep 29 Brian_G 22

Environment People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE