# Why I am voting for Obama again



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance. 

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.






most people are putting money ahead of their country.


Priorities



lots of people want a good future,   all people love their money,  even libs,   go fig.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



23,000,000 people out of work under Obama's watch are counting on you to vote for this assclown again 

Don't let them down.


----------



## Nova78 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES


----------



## zeke (Sep 3, 2012)

Mittens wants to do the exact same thing that Bush was able to pull off. And while those actions were excellent for the ultra rich, they put the fuks to me.

So Obama again. At least Obama wants to kiss before he fuks you. Rethugs just want you to bend over and take it. I like being kissed first.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy

Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy


----------



## beretta304 (Sep 3, 2012)

Why I am voting for Obama again...

Because you're not too bright?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

zeke said:


> Mittens wants to do the exact same thing that Bush was able to pull off. And while those actions were excellent for the ultra rich, they put the fuks to me.
> 
> So Obama again. At least Obama wants to kiss before he fuks you. Rethugs just want you to bend over and take it. I like being kissed first.



ya gotta love informed people who believe  "yes both sides are going to screw me,  but at least ill pick the guy who'll feel me up first at least"     the defeatist sympathetic,  its coming back.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES



so...your assertion is that the democratic party has a socialist-communist vision for America.  That's hilarious.  My guess is that you don't even have a clue what those words mean.  My guess is you don't know the difference between them.  My guess is that somebody on talk radio said that and now you dutifully parrot it.  Good girl.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

You idiots want deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.

that is what caused this mess


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy



reading is easy,   learning from what you read is what keeps most people behind



Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> so...your assertion is that the democratic party has a socialist-communist vision for America.



They do. You're either blind or too fucking stupid to see this.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> ...



Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equallyeither directly or through elected representatives


yes we are a democracy


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Do you claim we are not?


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES



and what socio/communistic policy has he followed as of yet?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




you are just freaking stupid


Federal republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES
> ...



nobody give a shit about your guesses
good little tool you are


----------



## SniperFire (Sep 3, 2012)

*WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: *



Perhaps because of the 4 or 5 gubmint programs you are on?

LOL


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Sinjorri said:
> ...



The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES
> ...



oh we dunno,    possibly the healthcare act where YOU are forced to buy it,   wait til 27 year olds cant afford it and cursing the day obama became president.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Jefferson agrees with me


----------



## beretta304 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES
> ...




You do an awful lot of *guessing* which means you aren't sure of a damned thing!


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Say it out loud.

Do you claim we are NOT a democracy?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...





and we are a federated republic with democracy inside of it,  but we have a constitution   i know the dems hate that but when they want to use it whats obama saying   "this will be the law of the land"   and thats correct,   the constituion is the law of the land.   That above all else is why we are free to be who we are.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > so...your assertion is that the democratic party has a socialist-communist vision for America.
> ...



and you have apoor ability of backing up what you say with any evidence. name one communistic policy Oblama has undertaken.
But all we will have from you is your stupid profanity which makes you look the fool.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Say it out loud.
> 
> Do you claim we are NOT a democracy?



we are a federated republic  I LOVE the constitution.  you might hate it,  i love it.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy



We aren't a democracy, we are a Republic.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

sinjorri said:


> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > sinjorri said:
> ...



gfy


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES
> ...



So, all you can do is guess? My my, how intelligent.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Say it out loud.
> ...



we love our Constitution as well.


----------



## SniperFire (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Jefferson agrees with me



You are one of the biggest idiots on the board, but all one needs to do is look at any recent court decision - take the voting laws being overturned last week - to understand we are not a 'democracy.'


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Say it out loud.
> ...



The introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; Thomas Jefferson 


me and Jefferson beg to disagree with your partisan stance


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

beretta304 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



it means I was giving her the benefit of the doubt.  There is a snowball's chance in hell that she DOES know what socialism and communism mean, and that she didn't just parrot it from Rush or Sean, but I really don't think so.

I know that I am sure of the meanings of both those terms, and I am quite sure that neither one of them accurately applies to the platform or the vision of the democratic party.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



thats right  your constitution, no the constition of america of which the dems want to use as toilet paper.


Constitution of the United States - Official


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Now ask yourselves why the republican party hates the word Democracy?


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES
> ...



I think you really hit the nail on the head


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Jefferson said we were a democracy.

why are you calling him a liar?


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Say it out loud.
> 
> Do you claim we are NOT a democracy?



WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY.  Was that loud enough for you?

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, *and to the Republic for which it stands*, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> *WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


just two sweetheart... O5 military retirement pay from a grateful nation for 25 years of service in uniform, and social security.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Jefferson said we were a democracy.
> 
> why are you calling him a liar?



why do you oppose him?


The Greatest Thomas Jefferson quotes


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Say it out loud.
> ...



yes,   someone else paid attention.  FINALLY .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Say it out loud.
> ...



why did Jefferson call us a Democracy?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Why are you people calling jefferson a liar?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Did you know a republic is a type of democracy ?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...





why do you oppose teh other things he says





> The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Why is your party LYING about the definitions of words so you can trash the label democracy?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Why does the republican party want the word democracy redefined?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

SNIP:

How Many Members Of The U.S. Congress
Are Self-Declared Socialists?

Updated for the 111th Congress

The following FAQ will help clarify a few facts:

Q: What is the Socialist International? 

A:  It is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It currently brings together 131 political parties and organizations from all continents. Its origins go back to the early international organizations of the labor movement of the last century.* It has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. They are now headquartered in London, England.

* In 1864, representatives of English and French industrial workers founded the International Workingmen's Association in London. Karl Marx, who was living in London at the time, became the First International's dominant figure. Marx's doctrines were revived in the 20th century by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them  and we all know that what was started as a labor movement ended up as the biggest totalitarian/communist state, i.e., the USSR.

Q: What is the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA]? 

A: It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Their website is Democratic Socialists of America 

Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA's calls it's "Progressive Challenge?" 

Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.

Never mind their soothing-sounding leftist doublespeak like 'Environmental Justice' (whatever that is supposed to mean) or the soft & fuzzy 'Global Non-Violence' (a euphemism for unilateral disarmament)  the DSA's self-declared principle of 'Economic Redistribution' clearly shows where these folks are coming from and exactly where they plan to take America.

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA? 

A: Seventy!

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee? 

A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of Congress? 

*A: See the listing below*

all of it here
DSA Members of Congress


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Becuase they hate democracy.

they want fewer and fewer Americans voting so they can win


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Why do you people allow your selves to be fooled into lying about words?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

why do you hate Jefferson?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Did you know a republic is a type of democracy ?



wow


Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


federated republic


Federal republic | Define Federal republic at Dictionary.com



more from jefferson




> Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.




wow you are really hating you some Jefferson


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

No balanced budget in 4 years.
23 million unemployed.
Electricity bills have gone up. Food has gone up. Gas has gone up. Insurance premiums have gone up much faster under the new Health Care bill. The poor and lower middle class are suffering and struggling because of these new policies.
He wants to raise taxes on the rich. Washington does not deserve one penny more, until they start getting rid of the waste, fraud and abuse of American taxpayer's dollars.
President Obama and the Dem's, wants to cut spending on the military when we have volatile unrest in the middle east, rather than focus on the spending abuse in all areas of the government.
President Obama does not know how to be a leader. A leader takes control of congress and gets them to work with each other. All he has done is divide them. Quote - 'Republicans are our enemy".
Like Clint Eastwood said "Obama is a disgrace and we need someone new".


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Becuase they hate democracy.
> 
> they want fewer and fewer Americans voting so they can win



One person. One vote.

ID please ?


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Why is your party LYING about the definitions of words so you can trash the label democracy?



teh constitution backs us up.  go read it some day.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

jim crow


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

peach174 said:


> No balanced budget in 4 years.
> 23 million unemployed.
> Electricity bills have gone up. Food has gone up. Gas has gone up. Insurance premiums have gone up much faster under the new Health Care bill. The poor and lower middle class are suffering and struggling because of these new policies.
> He wants to raise taxes on the rich. Washington does not deserve one penny more, until they start getting rid of the waste, fraud and abuse of American taxpayer's dollars.
> ...


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Why is your party LYING about the definitions of words so you can trash the label democracy?
> ...



No it doesnt you fucking brainwashed idiot.


go read the definitions of the words.

we ARE a Democracy


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com



de·moc·ra·cy
&#8194; &#8194;[dih-mok-ruh-see] Show IPA 

noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies. 
1. 
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Becuase they hate democracy.
> ...



you are right   one person  one vote,   but we assumed we meant the person had to be alive.  now we find out dead people are voting,  i dont know.


----------



## waltky (Sep 3, 2012)

Granny says...

... if ya always do...

... what ya already done...

... ya always gonna get...

... what ya already got.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> yes we are a democracy


Liar!!!


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## OODA_Loop (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> jim crow



ID please Mr. Crow.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Now how is it you are sooooo fucking stupid you allow your party to tell you these lies


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are NOT allowed to redefine words for your political purposes


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

stupid fucking right  wing dupes


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)




----------



## Too Tall (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > *WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: *
> ...



I haven't followed your politics, but thanks for your service, Colonel.  6 years, USAF O2, no retirement, but damned proud to have served.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...






you just want to fight things for the sake of fighting.  we are not a democratic government, get it out of your head.


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)

*That obama sticker on your car might as well say...**

..."YES, I'M JUST THAT FUCKING STUPID."*


----------



## squinch (Sep 3, 2012)

While in many ways Obama has been a disapointment, Romney wants to return to Bush's disasterous policies.  I'll take disapointment over disaster.  People can live with disapointment.  They often die from disasters.
Romney will get support from a delusional base that operates with a functional death wish.


----------



## 007 (Sep 3, 2012)

squinch said:


> While in many ways Obama has been a disapointment, Romney wants to return to Bush's disasterous policies.  I'll take disapointment over disaster.  People can live with disapointment.  They often die from disasters.
> Romney will get support from a delusional base that operates with a functional death wish.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

squinch said:


> While in many ways Obama has been a disapointment, Romney wants to return to Bush's disasterous policies.  I'll take disapointment over disaster.  People can live with disapointment.  They often die from disasters.
> Romney will get support from a delusional base that operates with a functional death wish.



how so?   please bring facts to the table.


Romney is looking to heal  the economy,  contrary to the "platform of libs"   everyone loves money,  if you dont think so   see reference Hollywood.

Obama hated Bushs policies too,  which is why he closed Gitmo,  stopped the wars, didnt go after any leaders,  attempted to try our military, stopped teh buch cuts immediately, and really brought bipartisanship back,  reference locking republicans out of meetings.  

So you are correct,  Obama really distanced himself from Bushs policies too.  Obama saved jobs,  no reference, sorry,  and he saved lives by stopping the wars,  also no reference.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

squinch said:


> While in many ways Obama has been a disapointment, Romney wants to return to Bush's disasterous policies.  I'll take disapointment over disaster.  People can live with disapointment.  They often die from disasters.
> Romney will get support from a delusional base that operates with a functional death wish.



whatever,  go vote for NO hope 
8.2% UNEMPLOYMENT, gas prices up to 4 dollars a gallon, FOOD prices THROUGH the roof..no budget, 5 trillion more in dept, ObamaCare shoved on us that we can' AFFORD


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Democracy | Define Democracy at Dictionary.com
> ...





every encyclopedia, dictionary and Jefferson say you are wrong.

the ONLY people who say this stupid shit you are saying are right wing nutters


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

funny stuff.  

Obama's grandfather was a communist who just so happened to work for the furniture store selling furniture.... HOW RADICAL!  Obama's grandmother was a communist who worked for the bank.


and John Conyers, a supposed member of this evil and nefarious organization called the DSA is chairman of the judiciary committee.  I wonder how Boehner let that slip by?


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Jefferson said we were a democracy.
> 
> why are you calling him a liar?



Jefferson said he wanted the *Republic* form of government pushed it's max.
My most earnest wish is to see the *republican element *of popular control pushed to the* maximum *of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations. Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> we ARE a Democracy


TM all you do is lie about everything.     

Have you ever recited the Pledge of Allegiance??



I pledge allegiance to the Flag
     of the United States of America,
and to the *Republic *for which it stands:
     one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

and a republic is a type of democracy you fact challenged asshole


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> and a republic is a type of democracy you fact challenged asshole



So the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't say Republic??


I pledge allegiance to the Flag
     of the United States of America,
and to the *Republic *for which it stands:
     one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy



Every time you post Truthmatters you answer these burning questions for me.

"How fucking stupid can Democrats be? How did they elect a man with no experience to become the Commander in Chief of the greatest country on the planet? How could they be so insane?"

And then I read any given post by you, Lakhota, rdean and others and I get my answers.



America is a Republic. 

* The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district.*

United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> and a republic is a type of democracy you fact challenged asshole



No it is not.
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
We are a Republic and have become a democracy.
We need to get back to the Republic form of government again.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Democracy - New World Encyclopedia


Forms of democracy



There are many variations on the forms of government that put ultimate rule in the citizens of a state:

Representative democracy

Representative democracy involves the selection of the legislature and executive by a popular election. Representatives are to make make decisions on behalf of those they represent. They retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment. Their constituents can communicate with them on important issues and choose a new representative in the next election if they are dissatisfied.

There are a number of systems of varying degrees of complexity for choosing representatives. They may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the electorate as a whole as in many proportional systems.

Liberal democracy

Classical liberal democracy is normally a representative democracy along with the protection of minorities, the rule of law, a separation of powers, and protection of liberties (thus the name "liberal") of speech, assembly, religion, and property.

Since the 1960s the term "liberal" has been used, often pejoratively, towards those legislatures that are liberal with state money and redistribute it to create a welfare state. However, this would be an illiberal democracy in classical terms, because it does not protect the property its citizens acquire.

Direct democracy

Direct democracy is a political system in which the citizens vote on major policy decisions and laws. Issues are resolved by popular vote, or referenda. Many people think direct democracy is the purest form of democracy. Direct democracies function better in small communities or in areas where people have a high degree of independence and self-sufficiency. Switzerland is a direct democracy where new laws often need a referendum in order to be passed. As it is a very stable and prosperous country, few people see any urgent need for change and so few new laws are passed. The system is also very decentralized, with few policies decided on a national level. This means that the French, Italian, and Romance language speaking minorities can order their affairs the way they choose and the large Swiss-German-speaking majority cannot over rule the local level, even if it wanted to.

Socialist democracy

Socialism, where the state economy is shaped by the government, has some forms that are based on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat are some examples of names applied to the ideal of a socialist democracy. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of welfare state and workplace democracy produced by legislation by a representative democracy.

Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and other "orthodox Marxists" generally promote democratic centralism, but they have never formed actual societies which were not ruled by elites who had acquired government power. Libertarian socialists generally believe in direct democracy and Libertarian Marxists often believe in a consociational state that combines consensus democracy with representative democracy. Such consensus democracy has existed in local-level community groups in rural communist China.

Anarchist democracy

The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy, which historically discriminates against minorities. However, some anarchists oppose direct democracy. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous.[18] However, anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[19] and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism.

Sortition

Sortition (or allotment) has formed the basis of systems randomly selecting officers from the population. A much noted classical example would be the ancient Athenian democracy. Drawing by lot from a pool of qualified people elected by the citizens would be a democratic variation on sortition. Such a process would reduce the ability of wealthy contributors or election rigging to guarantee an outcome, and the problems associated with incumbent advantages would be eliminated.

Tribal and consensus democracy

Certain ethnic tribes organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy.[20] However, these are generally face-to-face communities, and it is difficult to develop consensus in a large impersonal modern bureaucratic state. Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy seek consensus among the people.[21]


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> funny stuff.
> 
> Obama's grandfather was a communist who just so happened to work for the furniture store selling furniture.... HOW RADICAL!  Obama's grandmother was a communist who worked for the bank.
> 
> ...



Lamar Smith is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and John Conyers is the ranking member.  Boehner does not select who the Democrats appoint to these committees.

Are all Communists harmless, or just the some of them?


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> funny stuff.
> 
> Obama's grandfather was a communist who just so happened to work for the furniture store selling furniture.... HOW RADICAL!  Obama's grandmother was a communist who worked for the bank.
> 
> ...



 just keep your head buried in the sand and continue being the good sheep to the party..and chant, all hale the Democrat party


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So according to you TM the Pledge of Allegiance should be rewritten to include the word Democracy?

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
     of the United States of America,
and to the *Republic , a form of Democracy*, for which it stands:
     one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

anyone notice most elected Democrats call us a Democracy?

why do you think that is


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

We have both parties saying we are a democracy.
Until both parties get back to the limited federal government and follow the constitution of what the Feds are allowed to do, we will continue to be a democracy, instead of the Constitutional guarantee of being a Republic.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > funny stuff.
> ...


keep cuttin' and pastin' stuff from right wing blog sites... it's what you've always done.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> So according to you TM the Pledge of Allegiance should be rewritten to include the word Democracy?
> 
> I pledge allegiance to the Flag
> of the United States of America,
> ...



originally written by a socialist... and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 50's.  So there certainly is precedent for editing it.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



really? your 13th post and you have us all figured out eh?
just be a good little tool for the Progressive party


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I've seen you operate on other sites, sweetie.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



doubt it..haven't been to any other in years..but you keep on being a good little useful tool, dearie


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I see you're familiar w/ Steph's tactics


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > So according to you TM the Pledge of Allegiance should be rewritten to include the word Democracy?
> ...



 pos-repped


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > So according to you TM the Pledge of Allegiance should be rewritten to include the word Democracy?
> ...



Our Constitution guarantees us a Republic form of Government not a Democracy Republic.
If the founders wanted a Democracy Republic they would have written it into the constitution.
We are not suppose to be an Entitlement Socialist Government nor a Communist Government where business is owned by the Feds. The Treasury still owns 500 million shares -- a 32% stake in the world's largest automaker.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



doubt it all you like, steph... we go way back, darlin'.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



no matter what you think or who you go way back with, you would probably the reason I left...lol
I could care less


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

If Smith and Conyer are communists, then Boehner and Ryan are fascists.

Words have definite meanings.  YOU don't get to change the meanings.



Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > funny stuff.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

stephanie being outed again as a tool of the far extremist non-mainstream right?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> stephanie being outed again as a tool of the far extremist non-mainstream right?



oh jakie, you were outed a long time ago for being a fake "responsible" Republican


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



neither here nor there... the fact of the matter is:  I have seen you operate for a long time and you M.O. is cutting and pasting stuff from hard right wing blogs and trying to pawn it off as fact.  The one you cut and pasted in THIS thread is so old you still have John Conyers as chair of the judiciary.... but you don't care.  You'll just cut and paste more stupid stuff tuesday... and if not this tuesday, then next tuesday, and I'll keep laughing at it.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



pretty much the same we do with the left,  or if they run out links and just make stuff like   like msnbc, cbs and nbc.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



oh goody, you've supposedly seen me operate, what they kick you off this other board so you decide to bless us here..lol
am I suppose to care now or later


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 3, 2012)

It looks like I still remain one of those undecided voters , Mitt Romney appears to represent failed  economic policies that were tried and failed under the Bush Administration which led to where we are now.  I did not vote for President  Obama the first time  around , for the simple reason is that his party while tending to the needs to the American people  which is a noble thing to do, keeping  this nations financial house in order is also noble and  has  been put on sidelines.  Mitt Romney's economic and foreign policy is nothing but a revisit of the Bush Administration in which we as a nation made the choice to cut taxes several times  while at war as well as reduce regulations to point where the economy eventually could not  sustain it.    I do not see much daylight betweeen these two men in terms of how much will get done while they are in office, so I tend to remain undecided and  hopeful that perhaps one day someone will step forward and provide real leadership our nation has been lacking for a very long time now.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 3, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> It looks like I still remain one of those undecided voters , Mitt Romney appears to represent failed  economic policies that were tried and failed under the Bush Administration which led to where we are now.  I did not vote for President  Obama the first time  around , for the simple reason is that his party while tending to the needs to the American people  which is a noble thing to do, keeping  this nations financial house in order is also noble and  has  been put on sidelines.  Mitt Romney's economic and foreign policy is nothing but a revisit of the Bush Administration in which we as a nation made the choice to cut taxes several times  while at war as well as reduce regulations to point where the economy eventually could not  sustain it.    I do not see much daylight betweeen these two men in terms of how much will get done while they are in office, so I tend to remain undecided and  hopeful that perhaps one day someone will step forward and provide real leadership our nation has been lacking for a very long time now.



How can you say that with the state of the economy that the democrats take care of the needs of the people?  The needs of the people should NOT be dependency on the government.  Because of the democrats, who have controlled things for 5 1/2 years the needs of the people have risen to historic proportions.  To me that stinks of failure. I am going to use an analogy that is consistant with the DNC history.  Taking care of the needs of the people is like saying that the slave owner took care of his slaves that were in chains by feeding them.

Romney reformed Mass. and did pretty well at it.  What you need to think is, does Obama deserve to be rewarded for the job he has done regardless of whom he is running against.  In this case the man he is running against has a proven history of success so the choice should be easy.


----------



## peach174 (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Yes TM, our Constitution in Article 4 - Section four says so.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a *Republican* Form of Government.
It does not say a Democracy Republican form of Government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> You idiots want deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.
> 
> that is what caused this mess



Which deregulation caused this mess? Be specific.
How did tax cuts for the rich cause this mess? Be specific.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

The SEC withholding of the broker rules in GLB


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2007-190
Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 3, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You idiots want deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy.
> ...



The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.


why do you idiots keep pretending you have not been told all this before?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



care? of course not.  I merely state that, through past experience, I DO know your style and I DO know your M.O. and it remains a source of great humor for me.  I'll be sure to follow your antics as time goes by and point out the errors in them every once in a while.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> SEC Votes for Final Rules Defining How Banks Can Be Securities Brokers
> Eight Years After Passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Key Provisions Will Now Be Implemented
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> 2007-190
> Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007 - Ending eight years of stalled negotiations and impasse, the Commission today voted to adopt, jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), new rules that will finally implement the bank broker provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The Board will consider these final rules at its Sept. 24, 2007 meeting. The Commission and the Board consulted with and sought the concurrence of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of Thrift Supervision.



Why do you feel that made any difference?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 3, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like I still remain one of those undecided voters , Mitt Romney appears to represent failed  economic policies that were tried and failed under the Bush Administration which led to where we are now.  I did not vote for President  Obama the first time  around , for the simple reason is that his party while tending to the needs to the American people  which is a noble thing to do, keeping  this nations financial house in order is also noble and  has  been put on sidelines.  Mitt Romney's economic and foreign policy is nothing but a revisit of the Bush Administration in which we as a nation made the choice to cut taxes several times  while at war as well as reduce regulations to point where the economy eventually could not  sustain it.    I do not see much daylight betweeen these two men in terms of how much will get done while they are in office, so I tend to remain undecided and  hopeful that perhaps one day someone will step forward and provide real leadership our nation has been lacking for a very long time now.
> ...



Then the question becomes  will Mitt Romney govern as President as he did in Mass.  If you look at his  positions  now and what they were then, you see a stark difference between the two. While  I will not deny  like many others that  Mitt Romney  has had a history of success, I do think that the tendancy to say that President Obama is the sole reason why the economy is in the condition its in is to deny how we got here in the first place.  That  does not excuse  President Obama for his policies that have helped add to that, however someone will have to explain to me in better detail what they mean by Dependancy I suppose, because  take Food Stamps for instance,  thats 78 billion dollars of out of a  3.7 Trillion Dollar Budget.  So your not really talking about much when your spending  about 8 Billion a month in Afghinstan with an unclear outcome.  If your talking about Medicare or Social Security , then  those are programs people worked for and paid into  and  and as for Social Security that program will not impact the Budget for another 20 years.  Of course  Medicare can use some reform but I for one think it doesn't serve any useful purpose to demonize  those on it  while seeking their approval to reform it.   In the end, I do not see  any use in advocating for less revenue into the Federal Govt. and at the same time  advocate for increasing spending on DOD  and saying that by cutting other areas you will balance the budget. To me thats rather like saying you will cut your salary by 20% , and your spending by 20% then go out and buy a new car and hope to pay off your existing bills it just wont work.   As some point be it  President Obama  or Mitt Romney there has to be a happy medium between revenue and  spending in order  get this nation on it's feet and forgive me if I tend to see  Mitt Romney as just a replay of President Bush  and  all of the former  Bush staff and advisors he surrrounds himself with doesn't help much.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



*The tax cuts for the wealthy in the Bush years decreased our revenue *

How much did they decrease government revenue? Why did that decrease cause this mess?

*anlong with two wars that were kept off budget.*

What does that mean? Spending $100 billion "on-budget" and spending $100 billion "off-budget" both have exactly the same impact on our deficit and debt.


----------



## Sinjorri (Sep 3, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...





i really dont think he will,   while he has more experience than Obama did and still puzzles me why people defend obama,   the question isnt   will he preside as he governeed,  the questions become will he turn his back on the republican party and thats what some republicans will question,  but our fight is the same as the libs was with BUsh and they didnt hide it,   get Bush out,   now its get OBama out,  the difference is Obama cant run on his record,  and some wont vote on his record, but hes a dem so its okay,  Romney isnt Obama so its ok.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 3, 2012)

zeke said:


> Mittens wants to do the exact same thing that Bush was able to pull off. And while those actions were excellent for the ultra rich, they put the fuks to me.
> 
> So Obama again. At least Obama wants to kiss before he fuks you. Rethugs just want you to bend over and take it. I like being kissed first.



They put the _fuks_ to you?



What a moron.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 3, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's TM, she doesn't know her asshole from a buttonhole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



I know, I just enjoy pointing out her errors.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative.  Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support.  People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 3, 2012)

Sinjorri said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



You see though to me thats  not  what we as a nation need, to settle for someone because they are not the last guy and only because he is not in the party they are in.  We as a nation in my humble opinion need real leadership and from someone willing to tell both sides  we are  ALL going to fix this and recognize that ideas are not the exclusive property of  one side or the other and one should do whats best for the nation first before their respective party.  I honestly do not see these two men as changing  the dynamic to an atmosphere in which people can look  to their President and get a sense that even though they might not agree with them sometimes they are there  to reprent them and not the party they are part of.   Be it Mitt Romney or  President Obama I see an entrenched  congress making it very difficult  for there two to do anything that will change this nation for the better.  I do agree with you that the current  Republican feeling by some  is more akin to the Democrat feeling towards Bush in 08, however there are a few of old timer Republicans out there who do not share that sentiment in this candidate nor do we share much enthusiam for the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave.


----------



## Freewill (Sep 3, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> .



Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney.  I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president.  MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection.  Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.


----------



## NoNukes (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative.  Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support.  People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.



If you look at the OP and then look at many of the replies, it is obvious why many of us do not vote Republican. We would never be associated with these people v


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 3, 2012)

NoNukes said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > back to my point in the OP... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... whatever success he does have going forward will be down a path that democrats prefer over the alternative.  Voting for Romney will guarantee that all motion down the democrat's preferred path will cease immediately and any success that Romney enjoys will be heading down a path that democrats do NOT support.  People like to try to make voting for president like voting for Prom King... it isn't a popularity contest but rather a regularly recurring clash between diametrically opposed political philosophies.
> ...



feelings are mutual I'm sure..now stable that high horse...or giddyup


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



we understand there are two different political philosophies here... and it is unreasonable to expect folks from YOUR side to vote for our candidate, and the reverse is true.  What direction do you want the country to go?  Pick which platform most suits your beliefs and then vote for that party.  Pretty simple really.  Denigrating folks on either side is not going to shame them into changing their political philosophy


----------



## BluePhantom (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



I see.  And all this time I thought it was just because you were a tool.


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...


You do realize you have a Klingon symbol in your sig right?  I mean...  Romney with a Klingon symbol.   Did you lose a bet?


----------



## BluePhantom (Sep 3, 2012)

Shelzin said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Yeah I know what a Klingon symbol is.  One might reasonably conclude that by putting a Klingon symbol in my signature I have a pretty decent idea about what that symbol might signify.  I know such concepts may challenge the intellectual capacity of the average liberal mind, but indeed I am fully aware of the implications.

BTW....Hab SoSlI' Quch.  PetaQ!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.


First,Obama does not have supporters. He as "followers".
The reason why you people are voting for him again is because you know you made the wrong choice when you bought into "hopey changey"...It is you cannot admit to yourself and others that you made a poor choice. So you typify the base for the existence of liberalism. That is to keep doing the same wrong thing and expecting a different result.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...


Do you not realize that it's BUSH's FAULT!


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> ... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... .






LOL! You are exactly the kind of fool obama dreams about.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...




Whooo! Someone open a window. The geek-stink is getting pretty thick in here!


----------



## BluePhantom (Sep 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > Shelzin said:
> ...



  What can I say?  I can indeed speak Klingon....well somewhat at least.  On the plus side I do not own Star Trek uniforms or go to conventions.  It actually started as a bonding thing with my step-daughter so we could speak to each other without anyone else knowing what we were talking about.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

zeke said:


> Mittens wants to do the exact same thing that Bush was able to pull off. And while those actions were excellent for the ultra rich, they put the fuks to me.
> 
> So Obama again. At least Obama wants to kiss before he fuks you. Rethugs just want you to bend over and take it. I like being kissed first.


Show examples of how "you got fucked".
Then show examples that prove the policies of Bush 43 were directly responsible.
While you are at it, show how the decisions made in Congress over the second Bush 43 admin are exonerated from the "fucking of zeke".
Oh, don't bother posting opinion pieces or conjured up stories from huffpo, snopes, politico, etc.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Say it out loud.
> 
> Do you claim we are NOT a democracy?



Nope. Representative republic.
As far as democracies go, California and New Jersey have the closest thing to democracy.
NJ is a binding referendum state. Also it has "home rule"..
California has it's form or referendum as well in the form of "propositions"..
 Pure Democracy does not work because the deck is stacked in favor of the "50% plus one majority".


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...


ok.



> BTW....Hab SoSlI' Quch.  PetaQ!


*laughs*

Pahtak

*Edit*: I might have misspelled that... I have absolutely no clue.  Might be Pahtahc or Pahtahq... *shrugs*  I should find a Klingon spell checker.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Only when it works to the political advantage of liberalism.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


"me and Jefferson" ???? You arrogant little shit. 
 How dare you ingratiate yourself with greatness?
Your posts do not rise to the level of stupid.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

truthmatters said:


> now ask yourselves why the republican party hates the word democracy?


huh?!!!!


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> It actually started as a bonding thing with my step-daughter so we could speak to each other without anyone else knowing what we were talking about.





Far be it from me and all that but, you know you could have done that with a real language...


----------



## BluePhantom (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > now ask yourselves why the republican party hates the word democracy?
> ...



Spoon...don't you realize by now that speaking logic to TM is about as useful as speaking Klingon to a frog? I know she has brain cells, I just don't think they intermingle. That is pretty much a classic TM comment that everyone just kind of shrugs their shoulders at and says "_well....it's TM...what do you expect?_"


----------



## Mad Scientist (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even *claim* we are *NOT a democracy*


We're not, we're a Representative Republic.


----------



## BluePhantom (Sep 3, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> > It actually started as a bonding thing with my step-daughter so we could speak to each other without anyone else knowing what we were talking about.
> ...



Where's the fun in that?  My other children and I do the same thing by speaking a language we made up....we call it "Malleblab".  It's pretty funny actually.  We incorporated tongue clicks and finger snaps, and hand claps as well as vocal sounds.  For example a high pitched tongue click off the side of the mouth means the subject is enlarged while a low click from the front of the mouth means it's diminished. Two quick sucking sounds off the front teeth with your tongue (sounds kind of like a weasel or something) is superlative.

So for example:

Kotosh = to lie

Kotosh followed by a side tongue click is a huge lie

Kotosh followed by a front tongue click is a small fib

Kotosh followed by two quick front teeth sucking clicks is the biggest lie that can be told.

te as a suffix is plural

ko as a suffix is past tense

je- as a prefix is you

ka- as a prefix is motion "to me"

so if I said jekakotoshte'ko (low front click) I have said "you told have told me small lies" 

By the same token:

la- as a prefix is motion "to him"
le- as a prefix is motion "to her"

so while:

jekakotoshte'ko (low front click) means "you told have told me small lies"

jelakotoshte'ko (low front click) means "you told have told him small lies"

and

jelekotoshte'ko (low front click) means "you told have told her small lies"

It's fun...silly...but it's fun


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy



We're not dipshit.
We're a representative republic and if you're too stupid to know the difference perhaps you should give up on politics and go read a little something.


----------



## Vel (Sep 3, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I think you are wrong to assume that Romney will have fiscal policies like George Bush's. Romney has already signaled his intentions to get serious on the economy by selecting Paul Ryan as his VP. I think he will look at the federal budget the same way he looked at the Mass. budget. Closing loopholes, eliminating duplication and raising some fees. And when it comes to money, I don't think a guy like Romney who is used to being the guy at the top is going to need much financial advice.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > truthmatters said:
> ...



Well stated!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Mad Scientist said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> ...



House of REPRESENTATIVES...State REPRESENTATIVES( Assembly) ....That about sums it up.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 3, 2012)

BluePhantom said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > BluePhantom said:
> ...



How about you could still have fun and all learn something useful at the same time?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2012)

Why am I voting for Obama again? Because I don't want the USA to become a corporate feudal oligarch state. That concern pretty much overrides everything else.

Don't try to imagine the harm that a Supreme Court with a 7-2 hyperactivist conservative majority could do. It's just too frightening.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> If Smith and Conyer are communists, then Boehner and Ryan are fascists.
> 
> Words have definite meanings.  YOU don't get to change the meanings.
> 
> ...



Lamar Smith is a Republican and my question was in reference to Obama's grandfather and grandmother being Communists.  It is basic knowledge that the Speaker of the House in the majority party appoints the Chairman of all committees in the Congress and the minority party appoints the ranking member of the committees.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> 
> Hell they even claim we are NOT a democracy



1.	Socialist policies favor increased central planning of the economy by politicians and by bureaucrats, instead of allowing entrepreneurs, businesses, and customers to make decisions in a free market. Socialists also favor government attempts to collectivize the means of production and to divvy up the national wealth. The reason: because they insist on equality of results, as opposed to the traditional American belief in equality under the law.

2.	Do you want an economic system in which you pay most of the money you earn to the government, and the government gives you back benefits on terms and conditions decided by politicians and bureaucrats? That is not the America of freedom and prosperity we have known for 300 years. That is the vision of Karl Marx. And that is what the secular-socialist design is about.

Gingrich, "To Save America"


----------



## AquaAthena (Sep 3, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> ...



*Obama and the progressives are also following the Cloward and Piven strategy and let us hope it does not advance:* The result would be Greece.
*
The ClowardPiven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (19262001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty"*. 

Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in left-wing[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

*The two were critical of the public welfare system, and their strategy called for overloading that system to force a different set of policies to address poverty*. 

Cloward and Piven wrote that the ultimate objective of this strategy [would be] to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income...[2] There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven.

Much more:  Cloward


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




Oh no.

Yikes.

Again.

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.


You don't have to explain why you're stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

The social democrats (almost all of the Democrats and most of the Republicans) are progressive statists of the left and right who want to regulate business to protect working conditions, the environment, and ensure competition, which ensures improved technology and competition and lower prices.

Socialists believe in centralized planning in combinations of politicians, technocrats, and businessmen. That involves the nationalization of services by governments and the administration of said services.  Think Denmark and Sweden, for starters.

The term 'free market' and 'free market policies' should bring to mind Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gould, Vanderbilt, Krupp, Morgan, etc.  This is not the nation we want to return to.



PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > like Norquist the right wants to kill our democracy
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

OK, Aqua Athena, you have made your thesis.

Let's see the evidence, particularly taking in the deregulation from the 1980s on in this "centralized" governmental planning.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> OK, Aqua Athena, you have made your thesis.
> 
> Let's see the evidence, particularly taking in the deregulation from the 1980s on in this "centralized" governmental planning.



Jake, you'd need to care enough to research the origins of community organizing, ACORN, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, the NWRO, SDS, the Woods Fund, the Tides Foundation, the New Party and a half dozen other organizations and movements before you could even begin to wrap your head around Cloward-Piven and Obama's true intent and motives.
____________________________________
EDIT:
I'm guessing you're really not THAT interested.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Why am I voting for Obama again? Because I don't want the USA to become a corporate feudal oligarch state. That concern pretty much overrides everything else.
> 
> Don't try to imagine the harm that a Supreme Court with a 7-2 hyperactivist conservative majority could do. It's just too frightening.



Ya know what's frightening? That a person who has a job that pays enough to buy a computer, hook it up, get it running then contract with the local cable or phone company AND believe that bullshit you just posted.
No, you'd rather vote for Obama and live in a socialist centrally planned state where government is the answer to everything. 
See Communism and Socialism under the heading of FAILED SYSTEMS.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

You goofball: if it is that secret and complicated, it did not happen and you are part of being taken in by a conspiracy right there with birferism.

Explain how all the deregulation is part of the "plan", OK?



IGetItAlready said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Aqua Athena, you have made your thesis.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon cannot define either communism or socialism and cannot demonstrate how American government fits either of the systems.

Los-ah.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You goofball: if it is that secret and complicated, it did not happen and you are part of being taken in by a conspiracy right there with birferism.
> 
> Explain how all the deregulation is part of the "plan", OK?
> 
> ...



*Explain how all the deregulation is part of the "plan", OK?*

What deregulation?


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You goofball: if it is that secret and complicated, it did not happen and you are part of being taken in by a conspiracy right there with birferism.
> 
> Explain how all the deregulation is part of the "plan", OK?
> 
> ...



It's not that secret nor complicated...it just takes a little effort that you're clearly not willing to make. 

Start here if you like, no obscure bullshit about this ideology or that. Just what Obama was up to before his run in the Illinois state senate. 

Barack Hussein Obama - Discover the Networks


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Aqua Athena, you have made your thesis.
> ...


You do realize jakey will offer up some non sequitur response which he will disguise as profound liberal logic, do you not?
Having honest debate with jakey? You may as well take a time portal to the 1920's and ask Al Capone to pay his taxes and quit bootlegging booze.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

toddsterpatriot is as silly as thereisnospoon.

todd, go back to page one and read forward, and stop the 13 year-old girl ESI (earth shattering of [no] importance) questions.

Flounce off and go brush your hair.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

The point is, spoon, and you can't debate as has proven time and time again.

You have made an affirmative statement.  Posting a link is not evidence.  Give us the argument with stats, facts, analysis, and so forth.

Otherwise, yeah, you are a loony.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> toddsterpatriot is as silly as thereisnospoon.
> 
> todd, go back to page one and read forward, and stop the 13 year-old girl ESI (earth shattering of [no] importance) questions.
> 
> Flounce off and go brush your hair.



I read your deregulation claim and wondered where that happened?
I understand if you can't answer.


----------



## KGB (Sep 3, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Sinjorri said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



did you pay attention in 9th grade civics?  We are a representative republic, not a democracy.  Switzerland is a democracy, we are not....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

The claim is one that you don't understand and to is a response to a stupidity written by spoon.

Yes, I understand that you can't answer or understand the discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

KGB, our representative republic has always rested on democratic elements in it.

Jefferson's election in 1800 placed the voting plebiscite over the actual electors.  When the Federalists caved in the week before Inauguration Day, they did so because Jefferson had told Adams he would becoming with the militias of Democratic-Republican PA and VA behind to claim the chair the people had elected him to.

We are a democratically influenced representative republic: it is what it is.



KGB said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Sinjorri said:
> ...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> thereisnospoon cannot define either communism or socialism and cannot demonstrate how American government fits either of the systems.
> 
> Los-ah.


Where did I state the American government fit either communism or socialism"?
I stated this was the goal of the Obama admin. He is an avowed socialist. 
He views the US Constitution as a roadblock to his agenda. 
Which definition do you want. The dictionary one?....You look that up yourself. Because it is the only way YOU could figure it out.
You go ahead and vote for Obama. Go ahead and help further fuck up the country.
When the shit goes down hill, we will have you to blame. 
Better build your shelter now just in case the unthinkable happens and Obama somehow wins again.
What I find amusing is you libs think you are going to get a hall pass after the taxes and other government regulations, restrictions and policies are enacted. 
You think you can just wave and say " Not me Mr President, remember I voted for you!!!!".....
Maybe you want to live in a nation where government has virtual control and equality of outcome rules, most of us and hopefully enough to vote this pox on the nation out of office, do not.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



Yes, when I look at the candidates, I look at the one that best expresses my views and my hope for the direction of this country. I look at all the issues, inform myself, and make the best decision I can. I actually wish there was instant runoff voting so I can put Jill Stein of the Green Party as my second choice. But, I believe strongly that Obama better represents my views that Romney could ever hope to do. On all the issues you mentioned and also on healthcare. I eventually want a universal health care plan in place in this country. Something like Medicare for all. Obama's plan is a start in that direction. But on the environment-Dems win hands down for what I want to see, same thing on women's issues, on taxes, on global affairs, on regulations, on education, on a whole host of issues. I am voting for my daughter's future too.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon cannot define either communism or socialism and cannot demonstrate how American government fits either of the systems.
> ...



There's not one thing Obama has done that makes me think he's a Socialist. I think our economy is a blend of Capitalism/Socialism as it is right now. An example of how Obama is not a Socialist-the healthcare bill which gives power to private insurance companies.

The rest of the stuff you posted is just your emotional opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The claim is one that you don't understand and to is a response to a stupidity written by spoon.
> 
> Yes, I understand that you can't answer or understand the discussion.



*The claim is one that you don't understand *

I don't understand your claim about deregulation?
Okay, explain your claim.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

Very easily answered: no, Obama does not, and you are a nothing more than an useful tool.



thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon cannot define either communism or socialism and cannot demonstrate how American government fits either of the systems.
> ...


----------



## KGB (Sep 3, 2012)

in a democracy, you have direct voting on the issues by the public, which is the not the way our system works.  Yes, we have elections for representatives, but originally, the Senate was not direct elected.  The presidency isn't direct elect.  The Founding Fathers didn't want mob rule which is why they set up a republic instead.  Yes, there is democratic elements to it, but the OP was trying to state we are a democracy, when we clearly are not....




JakeStarkey said:


> KGB, our representative republic has always rested on democratic elements in it.
> 
> Jefferson's election in 1800 placed the voting plebiscite over the actual electors.  When the Federalists caved in the week before Inauguration Day, they did so because Jefferson had told Adams he would becoming with the militias of Democratic-Republican PA and VA behind to claim the chair the people had elected him to.
> 
> ...


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



Under Obama you'll get it.

SHOCK VIDEO Obama admits his health care plan will eliminate private insurance - YouTube!

And I guess the statements made in this video also tend to debunk your claim that Obama's not a socialist because his healthcare take over empowers insurance companies.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 3, 2012)

IGetItAlready said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I don't hold much stock in videos and Obama's health care plan gives a lot of power to insurance companies, but if it results in a Universal health care plan-fine by me. 

Obama's done nothing to make me think he is a Socialist. I haven't seen it. He sure as heck has helped Wall Street plenty. I think he's more of a corporatist with some mild Socialist tendencies. But to me, we kind of need both-Socialism/Capitalism to make things work in this country and that is what we have now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 3, 2012)

Yes, we are a democratic representative republic.  Nothing you say changes any of that.  I suggest gently yet firmly you study the Revolution of 1800 carefully.  Many of your questions and much of your understanding will be satisfied.



KGB said:


> in a democracy, you have direct voting on the issues by the public, which is the not the way our system works.  Yes, we have elections for representatives, but originally, the Senate was not direct elected.  The presidency isn't direct elect.  The Founding Fathers didn't want mob rule which is why they set up a republic instead.  Yes, there is democratic elements to it, but the OP was trying to state we are a democracy, when we clearly are not....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...


Universal health care...Pk. who gets to pay for it?....Who funds the research for new medicines, technology, new surgical procedures, rare but essential life saving procedures?

Hmmm....Who funds that?
What about the environment? 
Women's issues? WHAT is a women's issue. One example. And please do not mention birth control. That is not and nor should it ever be a taxpayer responsibility. If one wishes to have sex, let them worry about the consequences of their actions. Abortion? It is legal and for the foreseeable future will remain so.
Taxes? Be specific. What about them? 
And you can also elaborate on global affairs...Explain what you refer to by global affairs.
Which regulations not in place would you believe you want to see in place. Be specific. Do not state "Wall Street" or "The Banks"....That won't do. 
Education. What is the federal government NOT doing that you believe it should be doing for "education"? Do not answer "more funding". The federal education budget is ( 2009) $40 billion.. That is just 10% of the total expense(2009) for public education...
Clearly the money is not the problem. So when you say "education" what are you talking about. Again, be specific.
And now for the big part...What is the "whole host of issues"..
Do you see where this is going?
Here you are claiming to go about being informed yet you form a conclusion after rattling off a list of terms with absolutely no explanation as to why these issues mean anything to you. You cannot engage in debate and make decisions based on a list. 
my thinking is you had your mind made up already about for whom you wish to vote but felt it necessary to join the discussion because you wanted to express your feelings on how informed you believe you may be. 
Another poster earlier in this thread used the phrase, "what I find frightening"....Ya know what I find frightening? When someone is uninformed but believe that they are not uninformed, heads to the polls to vote. That is scary. 
You have some homework to do. Take your time and consider your answers to the above questions carefully. Of course, think of your daughter while considering those replies.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> IGetItAlready said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...


Why are you so anxious to live in a nation where government either does things for you or gives you things?
Do you believe that it is the job of government to do these things for you?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The point is, spoon, and you can't debate as has proven time and time again.
> 
> You have made an affirmative statement.  Posting a link is not evidence.  Give us the argument with stats, facts, analysis, and so forth.
> 
> Otherwise, yeah, you are a loony.



I have you pegged. 
And posting the link is just part of the job. The link is for YOU to read. 
I did my part. Made a statement and supported it with the facts.
If you wish to dismiss the facts by labeling it "posting a link" so be it. 
I am not here to do your work for you. Don't read the information. Fine.
To which argument do you refer?


----------



## jillian (Sep 3, 2012)

beretta304 said:


> Why I am voting for Obama again...
> 
> Because you're not too bright?



people like you really shouldn't comment on others' intelligence.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You know what I don't like? Someone who makes a whole host of assumptions based on nothing. I have done plenty of research on all the issues and the candidates. I don't need you to tell me what I know and what I don't know.

I'm not going to write a novel so I'll start with healthcare. Research what they do in Taiwan right now as an idea or research expanding Medicare for all based on income. 

Here, I'll start you out with some links. And no, this is not the only place I've researched this. I work in the healthcare field at a large VA hospital and have worked for health insurance companies.

Medicare for All: Home

Health Care in Taiwan | Health Beat by Maggie Mahar


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > IGetItAlready said:
> ...



No, I do not believe that it is the job of Government to do things for me or give me things. I  do believe in a strong Government for a strong, functional society. Things like infrastructure, education, help for those in need-the poor, elderly, disabled, children, etc. basic services like fire, police, the military, etc. And yes, I believe healthcare is a right not a privledge. These things I don't believe should be privatized.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > *WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: *
> ...



I don't know if it applies but there seems as though any expression of optimism is met with cynicism and insults.  The GOP posters on this board are sad and angry people.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



And now Spoon, you know why I didn't bother to respond. Not to mention the earlier statement, "I don't hold much stock in videos...". Not sure what else could be more convincing short of being there,...everywhere...always.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...



I made no assumptions. Your post told me the story of you. 
Typically when people rattle off lists of things it is because they lack knowledge of specifics or they are attempting to deflect attention away from the fact that the one doing the listing has no interest in a discussion. The equivalent would be to shine a bright light in a person's eyes then run away and hide while the person is temporarily blinded.
Ok. It is very nice that these other places have their version of what you believe is universal healthcare. The bottom line is this: The cost is always there. Whether the privately insured pay for care as part of their premiums or the taxpayers via a government system fund it, the costs continue to rise because the cost of the labor to do the research, perform the care and develop the technology always rises. 
The only way to control the market is for government to FIX the market. In other words, create a monopoly. When that happens, rationing of the product follows. 
Now, these other countries have less than 10% of the population of the US. It is impossible for a country to insure and administer a health program for 315 million people without the cost of administration reaching stratospheric levels. 
Newsflash. Health care will NEVER be "free".. To anyone. 
Now I asked YOU to answer those questions. Not plan an escape by posting links.
You made your statement regarding the issues on which you would vote for Obama. 
I ask you again to answer those simple questions. I am not letting this go. You put it out there on a public message board. Just feel free to back it up.
Worked in the healthcare field doing what?...Worked for insurance companies doing what?
My father and father in law have been patients at VA hospitals. They offer their observations. You worked in one. Who is better qualified to offer an unbiased observation of the system as they saw it? One who got the care or one who sees the government system as the best type and is committed to that end?...
Forget the links. Just answer the questions. This is important. This is why you have made up your mind to vote for Obama.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...


Hmm. Ok...What about education? The federal government in 2009 spent $40 billion or 10% of the total spent on public education. What else would you like to do?
Infrastructure...What about it? The federal government spends roughly $87 billion on transportation and water infrastructure( 2009) budget. This represents roughly 10% of the total federal budget for that year. That accounts for about 25% of the total including state and local expenditures. CBO | Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure
So what is it you wish the federal government to do? 
Define "strong functional society"....See you and I differ in that government should not be involved in social engineering. Society( what ever that is) will function whether government exists or not. See history on the the earliest European settlers. There was no government only a command hierarchy aboard the ships that carried the settlers.
Right now the federal government spends almost 50% of the total budget on help for the poor, the needy, elderly, disabled children and of course the old "can we increase the budget for "et cetera"....What more do you want? Social spending as it stands is no longer sustainable. Not in the current form. There are far too many people gaming the system and there are far too many federal employees costing us taxpayers billions each year. 
You can "believe" all you like. Does not make it true. 
What do you mean when you state "health care is a right"?....In which part of the US or any State Constitution does is state "health care is a right"?
Why do you trust government which has ZERO incentive to control costs and perform tasks within budget, efficiently and on time more than you do the private sector which MUST work within a budget, perform better and more efficiently and complete it's task with the highest quality and complete the task on time?...


----------



## mamooth (Sep 3, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> No, you'd rather vote for Obama and live in a socialist centrally planned state where government is the answer to everything.
> See Communism and Socialism under the heading of FAILED SYSTEMS.



What is it with these right-wing bleaters who have no clue what "socialism" means? 

Spoon, no one is stopping you from sending all your cash to your local oligarch. Just stop demanding that I do the same. If you want to be a loyal lapdog and live off table scraps, so be it. I'm sure your master tosses you only the finest table scraps, and in return you yip when you're told to yip. Try to understand that free men won't live like you.

Now me, I'm a capitalist, the direct opposite of a Republican. I believe what Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson believed. And according to the modern GOP, those men were socialists. As was Ronald Reagan. I used to be Republican. My positions haven't changed, yet I've magically become a "liberal".


----------



## oreo (Sep 3, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



LET ME GUESS--you've run out of your birth control devices and want someone else to pay for them---  That's the democrat platform--along with endorsement of GAY MARRIAGE--and who's going to pay for someone else's birth control pills--LOL.

You're obviously NOT concerned about 8.3% unemployment--11% real unemployment if you count those who have run out of unemployment benefits.  You're not concerned about 26 million Americans in this country that are unemployed or underemployed.  You're not concerned about 46 million Americans on food stamps.  You're not concerned about 1 in 5 families living beneath the poverty level.  You're not concerned about 16 trillion in red ink, or the additional 5 trillion that will be added to this tab over the next 10 years just in INTEREST.  And you're certainly not concerned about your children and grand children's future when they're paying $224,000 just in interest on this bill.

Nope you're all about birth control devices--and what's in it for YOU--and how much free junk you can get paid for by others.






*Typical liberal ideology--someone ELSE owes you something.*


----------



## expatriate (Sep 3, 2012)

oreo said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



fyi.  I am a retired naval officer with 25 years in uniform... and I am the father of three adult children - all with post graduate education- and all successful.  I had a vasectomy 20 years ago so birth control is not an issue for me.  WHy do you feel compelled to be so fucking insulting right out of the gate?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

Yeah, you have me pegged because you can't debate a point other than post a link.  Try that in college and you will be back to flipping burgers and the King.



thereisnospoon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The point is, spoon, and you can't debate as has proven time and time again.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.

Things always change.

Their way of life for many of them is coming to an end.

So be it, they can't change it, but they can whine about it.  And why not?  They will soon be gone.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> 
> Things always change.
> 
> ...



OMG...speaking of being embittered, what do you call THIS POST?
good grief jakeie...lol:


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



why not, you were


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> 
> Things always change.
> 
> ...



Another check mark goes into the *Death Panel* column.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



only to old friends who richly deserve it Staph.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

tjvh said:


> If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?



I disagree completely with your partisan misrepresentation of liberal ideology.  I guess that answers it.


----------



## Artevelde (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



A reasonable choice from your perspective. And i believe that Obama will indeed try to keep all those advocates of the niche-issues you enumerate on board.

That being said, I believe a very large and crucial segment of the US electorate (also of the Democrat leining part) doesn't care about the niche issues you listed but cares about jobs, economic growth, and the overal social and economic direction of the country. Therein lies the risk for Obama.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?
> ...



Partisan misrepresentation? What exactly did Obama's statement "You didn't build that" mean to you?


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 4, 2012)

.

Just heard on KHOW/Denver:

*Caller:* I've had it. I'm gonna vote Libertarian.

*Host:* Yeah, but that's like kissing your sister, you know that.

*Caller: * I realize that, but at least my sister has _principles._


.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

Honey, recognizing your bitterness does not make me bitter, Steph.  Your way is coming to an end, so instead of being bitter that you can't change it, embrace it.



Stephanie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

tjvh said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Sep 4, 2012)

Class warfare, identity politics and collectivism ..............A proven path to prosperity !!!     lol


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


 
Listen, I have a life and only so much time to type out every little detail of every little thing I believe in politically. I'm a busy person with a full time job and a family. I will answer you but it is gonna take time and I'm coming to this board to discuss/debate these issues but I'm not gonna tolerate someone telling me exactly what I have to say and how I have to say it. That doesn't fly with me and it'll never work. I use links only if they are informative and a good place to get more details I don't want to type out here in their entirety. I know many people who have gotten care at the VA and I currently work there. See my bio in my profile for my job title. I used to work as a claims examiner for United Health Care among others. I think that's enough about me right now. 

Regarding your first statement. Who the hell said it would be free? I didn't and I offered you ideas in those links how to pay for it. We pay for it right now. We pay for the uninsured who go to the ER to get care. We pay massive insurance premiums-or at least the copays and deductibles. We pay for Medicare and Medicaid with our taxes. We pay plenty right now. And we have millions who get no care, and only get seen when they are so sick it is going to cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more money than if they had free preventative care which is what the ACA mandates. Heck, look at all the people who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills. Who pays for that? What happens when they have to foreclose on their house and what does that do to the market value of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. I could go on and on. I hope you get the point.

We can pay for universal health care so easily with the money already being spent on health care, that we could cover everyone and even pay less than we do now.  Premiums, and even those on Medicare pay premiums, could be pegged to income so that families could pay far less than the average 25% of their income that they are paying now to get covered.  Doctors could put their resources into delivering medical care instead of personnel to deal with the endless reams of paperwork and fight for coverage for their patients from the insurance companies, which would bring down medical costs without reducing medical service.  The uninsured and the underinsured could get the treatment they need and preventative care, like physical examinations could catch illnesses while it is less expensive to treat. Your doctor could make the medical decisions about your treatment instead of some clerk in an insurance office.

I do believe healthcare is a right in this country. It's called life. We have a right to life. All of us. Everyone. This is my personal opinion of which I am entiteled to.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


 
I'm one of those Federal Employees you are talking about. I answered your health care is a right in my last post. If you think the infrastructure is o.k. in this country, you are dead wrong. More money spent on fixing roads, bridges, etc. will create jobs and help the economy. We most definitely DO need a Government to survive. And please, the poor are suffering greatly and so is the middle class. All you have to do is open your eyes and look.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



How does Obama's ass taste?


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> fyi.  I am a retired naval officer with 25 years in uniform...



"Retired Naval Officer"

Code words for "Couldn't Make 0-5"


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Jefferson agrees with me



on what exactly? My guess is he would agree with just about everyone else on the board about your absurd positions.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Say it out loud.
> 
> Do you claim we are NOT a democracy?



We are a Republic. I dont know why you have a hard time with this. I dont know why it's difficult for you to admit it.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



Because you support blatant corruption and love Organized crime.

This admin is the most corrupt in our history,.  And you cant suck his dick fast enough....


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> 
> Things always change.
> 
> ...



And so will you, not seeing the point here, other than you are bitter and you are going to die.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> anyone notice most elected Democrats call us a Democracy?
> 
> why do you think that is



Because for the past 100 years progressives have been trying to change our form of government away from a Republic. It's easier to overthrow a Democracy than it is a Republic.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > No, you'd rather vote for Obama and live in a socialist centrally planned state where government is the answer to everything.
> ...


No self respecting capitalist would ever support central planning. You do and that makes you a non -capitalist.
I send my cash to no one. No one from your mysterious oligarchy comes knocking for their dowery either. This notion of the wealthy making collections is a figment of your radically charged imagination.
I am the worst nightmare for your assumptions. Go for it.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 4, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



No the conversation turned to Mitt Romney so I as addressing his  qualifications  for the  job and  it'an  I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney  has changed positions on just about every stance  since  his  time as Gov. of Mass.  and  has  surrounded himself with former  members of President Bush's staff  so thats a pretty good indication of how he will govern as President.  Take that along with his  clear  indication to support  the same economic positions  that  the former President  supported and there is not much daylight there.  As for the current President  this does not excuse his responsibilty for  the economic condition the nation is  since  his time in  Office  nor have I ever said otherwise.   One can look at Mitt Romeny's time  as Gov. all they wish and be hopeful that his  more moderate  positions that he held then and often times  even positions to the left of some more radical Democrats are not the ones he holds now.  So while I do believe that at his core Mitt Romney himself is more moderate than those around him , it remains to be seen how he will govern given his  stances lately and those he surrounds himself with to help do that  job.   Now as for the President,  I see him as a well meaning man but  having said that in my humble opinion lacks the leadership skills to do the nations business and make tough choices needed to right this nations ship.  I see this same issue with Mitt Romney as well, so again not much has changed.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

Why is Douglas Band, aide to Hillary Clinton not voting for obama, but voting for Romney?     Why is Douglas Band asking democrats to vote for Romney?

In order for democrats to restore the leadership they had under Clinton, which was their last successful leadership, obama has to lose this time.
Report: Bill Clinton aide voting Romney - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > ... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... .
> ...



The problem is Obama has been extreme successful with his policies. The problem is the policies he advocates make our nation worse.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...





> I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney  has changed positions on just about every stance  since  his  time as Gov. of Mass.


OK, could it be possible since Massachusetts is a more liberal state that Romney did what the state wanted him to do?  Now he's moving in the direction of what the country would want him to do. Yes that's flip flopping but I do find it justifiable.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > fyi.  I am a retired naval officer with 25 years in uniform...
> ...



really?  wanna bet?  I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.

How does that work for ya?  

or are you all sack and no nuts?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?



I oppose none of those things.  I do, however, oppose the majority of the  platform of the GOP.


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?
> ...



That's the entire decision on this election.  Not who you like the best, or who is the cutest, or who has the nicest background or the most favorable tax returns.  Unlike past elections where both parties intended the same goals, but differed only on how to get there, this election is for the very direction of the nation.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> really?  wanna bet?  I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.
> 
> How does that work for ya?
> 
> or are you all sack and no nuts?



Sorry asswipe, I don't take wagers from Food Stamp recipients. 

Go fuck yourself, assbag.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



If that were the case then that is an indication of a man who adjusts his positions based on what he is running for  rather than stating those of his own.  Forgive me , but in my humble opinion thats not leadership,  thats  someone  in a  perpetual state of running for office.  While it's true a person can and should be able  grow  in their beliefs over time , the fact that  Mass. is a liberal state and the nation as a whole is a Center Right to Moderate nation should have no bearing on his beliefs at all.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Sure right got it.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 4, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...


You answered your own idea. You did not answer MY questions. I asked you who will pay for your dream of universal healthcare. You evaded the question. I also asked how a system covering 315 million people could be administered. You evaded that question as well. 
I never said the infrastructure was "ok"....In fact I gave a strong illustration of the problems not with funding but how the money is spent. You wrote "infrastructure"...What about it? Explain. 
I neither stated not implied there should be no government. That is the typical liberal all or nothing straw man argument. We are passed that now. The public is demanding results. No more excuses. 
"The poor are suffering"..Another generic blanket statement to please yourself. 
We have spent trillions on social programs which came with the promise to end poverty. Social spending is HALF if the federal budget. How much more do you people think is needed? How about some accountability in the system? The rules need to be enforced, administrative costs must be lowered and those gaming the system need to be cut off.

Look, there is no hope for you. You are pot committed to Obama because number one he is a friend to public employment. Two you are a liberal. 
Your very existence as a federal employee is predicated on an administration which has a goal of increasing not only the number of federal workers but their compensation as well. 
Government needs to shrink. Not grow. 
May I suggest you start your search in the private sector now because in 6 months with the right people in office, the cuts will begin.
Government is bloated and inefficient. 
 A public employee's worst nightmare is fiscal responsibility.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?
> ...



Of course you do. Liberalism has been exposed for what it actually is. And your side hates that.
Your pat response is " you right wingers( negative connotation code for conservative) mis characterize liberals". No...We have your number. 
It is amusing how liberals will at the first sign of challenge will run from the label of "liberal".


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > really?  wanna bet?  I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.
> ...



talk is cheap.... you'd think if you were so fucking sure of yourself, you'd jump at the chance to make ten grand.  Why wouldn't you?  I am sure we can work out a way to verify the validity of my ID card for that sort of money.  Where are you located in the states?  I am coming back to my 40th reunion at USNA later this month, and then spending a week in NYC... if you're on the east coast, we could meet.  I'll bring my checkbook... you bring yours.    

I knew you were an empty bag of wind... one of those chickenhawks who claims to love the military but perfectly willing to insult veterans who don't share your political philosophy.  What a joke... a sad pathetic joke.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



I am proud to be a liberal.  and I completely embrace personal responsibility, and individual achievement.  

I love the latest uproar about the "debt" and how republicans claim that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and that democrats are the only ones who borrow any money.  But every time I ask a republican which republican president's administration ever LOWERED the national debt, they are strangely silent.  You have NEVER lowered the debt in over a half a century but you want Americans to trust you this time...cuz even though you promised to lower it during Dubya term, but didn't... and his daddy's term, but didn't... and Ronnie's term, but didn't... and Tricky Dick's term, but didn't... you promise you'll be good this time.  Fiscal responsibility my ass.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Where are you located in the states?  I am coming back to my 40th reunion at USNA later this month, and then spending a week in NYC... if you're on the east coast, we could meet.



Trawl for anus some other place, nut sack. 

Faggot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...





> I am proud to be a liberal.  and I completely embrace personal responsibility, and individual achievement.



You're a confused liberal


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Where are you located in the states?  I am coming back to my 40th reunion at USNA later this month, and then spending a week in NYC... if you're on the east coast, we could meet.
> ...



you're the douchebag who needlessly insulted a navy veteran.  ready to walk that back or are you ready to shut your piehole?  You claim I didn't make O-5... I am willing to write you a check for ten thousand dollars if you are right.... if you are willing to write me a check for the same amount if you are wrong.  Put up or shut the fuck up.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



sorry.  I am not confused about anything.  say...can YOU tell me what GOP president since WWII has ever lowered the national debt?  just curious.


----------



## jillian (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?



say that again while you're trying to interfere with my right to exercise dominion over my own body.

your idea of 'liberty, fiscal sanity and basic human rights" is perverse.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



If you believe in  personal responsibility and individual achievement and claim to be a liberal you are confused or to stupid to understand what they mean.

Since 1946 Democrats have controlled the government in part or whole for 60+ years.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



so...what you are telling me is that Ike and Dick Nixon and Gerry Ford and Ronnie Reagan and Bush I and Dubya ALL vigorously vetoed any and every bill that increased the national debt by any amount and those vetoes were all overridden?  They ALL submitted balanced budgets that did not raise the debt one penny and those nasty democrats filled their fiscally responsible debt reducing budgets with pork year after year, and, even though they vetoed them, the democrats still rammed them through?  Is that your story?  Is that the GOP's retelling of history to prove what a fiscally responsible party they have been.. and what fiscally responsible leaders they have sent to the White House?  Have I got that about right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


No I'm telling you that you're to stupid to see that you are confused, about being a proud liberal and what liberals stand for.


----------



## jillian (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No I'm telling you that you're to stupid to see that you are confused, about being a proud liberal and what liberals stand for.



i think you're the one who has a bit of confusion in that regard.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Sep 4, 2012)

Hope , Change and Progress can be even more seductive the second time around..........Yes it Can children !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > No I'm telling you that you're to stupid to see that you are confused, about being a proud liberal and what liberals stand for.
> ...


 Being part of the collective does not have anything to do with personal responsibility, and individual achievement


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



and again... I am not confused about a thing. Well... I AM confused about how you said - erroneously, by the way - that the democrats controlled all or part of the government for the last 60 years as a dodge to avoid answering the question:  What republican president since WWII has NOT raised the national debt during his presidency?  And if you want to claim that the congress did so against the president's wishes, show me the long line of overridden vetoes where fiscally responsible GOP presidents did all they could to keep the debt from rising.  Can you answer that, or can you simply tapdance?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



and the cowardly snake crawls back in his hole   Why am I not surprised?


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 4, 2012)

I cannot even imagine the sort of judges and lawyers a Ryan / Romney presidency would select. If you think Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are corporate ideologues, imagine corporate added to social ideologue. Actually let's not imagine, let's vote Obama / Biden. I have to update below. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/63125-a-martian-votes-on-tuesday.html

"My claim is that it is people&#8217;s ideas, for instance about what they are owed, what matters, what it is worth fighting for, that determine who gets the food, land, guns, or money. The criticism and testing of those ideas is philosophy. It doesn&#8217;t have to be done by professionals calling themselves philosophers, but that is what it is. Practical people who think of themselves as &#8216;having no time for&#8217; ideas are inevitably in the grip of all kinds of ideas, and if those are never brought out into the open, they can do untold damage. Just think of the &#8216;idea&#8217; that greed is good, or that everybody is economically rational, and the damage it has done in the last forty years as deregulated free markets gradually went out of control." Simon Blackburn.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


Being part of the collective would  over shadow  Individualism and personal responsibility. Liberal  completely embrace collectivism


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I am willing to write you a check for ten thousand dollars if you are right.....



What in the fuck am I going to do with $10,000 in Food Stamps, asswipe?


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

Navy1960 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



For me, that describes Obama to a 'T', and everything in his background shows him to have not been honest with the American people about what his idealogies are and what he believes in.  It's not the American consitution.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

jillian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?
> ...



You're child is not your body. No one is stopping you from concieving or not concieving at your leisure, but when you have a child growing, that's a unique individual. They are entitled to the same right to life as anyone else.

Considering the right to life is the absolute foundation of human rights, I don't see how protecting innocent life is perverse. In fact, it seems completely fundamental.

And if you are soooo outraged about government exercising dominion over your body, i presume you oppose all government health care initiatives. Or does your body not really matter to you then?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



nice tap dancing! 

do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again?  I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.

now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



When you introduce another person into the equation it no longer becomes and individual right


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


That's why I say he's confused.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I am willing to write you a check for ten thousand dollars if you are right.....
> ...



more baseless insults... all hat and no cattle.  why am I not surprised?  pussy.

what a fucking loser.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 4, 2012)

Wolfsister77 said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Wolfsister77 said:
> ...


You're just pissed because I called you on your post. Now you don't want to stoop so low as to defend your position. Hey, I get it. Lazy and uninformed. So be it.
I never demanded HOW to answer. Just asked some questions and you got aggravated. 
On your point about doctors pooling resources. It is being done now. Google "doctors hospitals"..Also there are medical associations to which patients pay a fee to join. There is no insurance accepted. The problem is ACA makes these things illegal. 
"Easily afford"? Stop it. 
With universal care the taxpayers pay not only for care through taxation, but administrative costs which government has no incentive in keeping control. The answer as always is with government "increase taxes"...That will not fly.
Health insurance is expensive for many reasons...Federal mandates on types of coverage. The inability of insurance companies to sell policies across state lines which eliminates competition and thus drives up the price. And finally there are no catastrophic loss policies available. These are high deductible policies designed to cover serious illness or injury and long term care. 
The most glaring issue with medical insurance is the belief that first dollar coverage is a right or should be universally available. In other words, medicine should be free. That is nonsense. 
I would much rather have a system where I go to my family doctor for minor things and pay out of pocket. For those who cannot pay, we have medicaid and medicare. 
A captive government run system where no one pays is not realistic.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

> I oppose none of those things. I do, however, oppose the majority of the platform of the GOP.



Liberty, sane fiscal policy, and basic human rights are the platform


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???



I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt.  Or is that concept too complex for ya?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

> I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?



We will in 4 months. That's one of Romney's biggest selling points. He can balance a budget. He understands the importance of cutting waste. 

Obama cant even present a budget.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> > I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



isn't that what every republican president since WWII has also promised to do?  Why IS it that you all actually expect anyone to believe you when you have promoted yourselves as being the fiscally responsible party for over a half a century and have yet to exercise one iota of fiscal responsibility?  Oh...trust us... this time we really WILL do it???? Honestly?  If your children offered up that excuse, would you believe them?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...





> nice tap dancing!


That is not a tap dance that is a fact being a liberal you would not believe in Individualism and personal responsibility, being part of the collective does over shadow those two human traits 



> do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again?  *I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything*, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.


Why did you lie and say you do?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5926503-post238.html



> now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?



You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???
> ...



Okay, but you're talking about Obama here, who's run up the national debt more than any other president in history.  And you're defending that and your assinine decision to vote for him again based on the fact that none of the republicans have lowered it either?  I could see maybe abstaining from voting, or writing in, or going third party, but your argument to vote Democrat again when set up against your supposed reasons is not based in logic at all. You could give a rat's ass about the national debt, that's what I think. 

By the way, in case you didn't notice, your house is made of glass too.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???
> ...



Bush did run up the debt - $1 trillion in eight years. 

In four years, Obama has added $16 trillion to that! 

Put your mouth back on Obama's ass and STFU, asswipe.


----------



## kaz (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN



A tip, when you touch the hot stove and get burned, next time, don't touch the hot stove...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.



and if you could show me the long line of overridden vetoes by GOP presidents who were attempting to exercise fiscal responsibility, you might have a point.  Again.... why in the world should America believe that we will have fiscal responsibility once again and our national debt will begin decreasing if we only put a republican back in the white house, when the last six republicans in the white house ALL INCREASED the debt during their term of office?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

kaz said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN
> ...



The collective will save him


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Talk about tap dancing when a person quotes just a portion of a response it shows they are tap dancing around everything.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

Not bitter at all, and well aware that things change without being bitter about it.

That is not the case with many of my older peers in the GOP: that's a shame.


Papageorgio said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



My decision to vote for Obama, as stated in the OP has nothing to do with the debt whatsoever.  It has to do with the basic beliefs of the democratic party versus the republican party.  the DEBT is the big issue that the GOP has latched onto this season and I only point out how funny that is, given the fact that the last six GOP presidents have ALL raised the debt.... I guess raising the debt is OK when you guys do it?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > > I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?
> ...



Considering that it was the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich that did balance the budget the only time in the latter half of the 20th century, i think that gives them some credibility on the matter.

And Romney has several decades of history balancing books, eliminating waste and corruption from organizations. His track record speaks for itself.


----------



## CandySlice (Sep 4, 2012)

Freewill said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



That's called magical thinking. It helps these poor beknighted people to overlook reality. If you can twist it around in your mind to where it suits your philosophy you don't have to think at all. And that's what keeps these people together. Any new thought coming in or any effort to make them see what's really going on makes them tremble at the idea the earth might not really be flat.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

kaz said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN
> ...



Some people learn slowly


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



oh...it's the little yappy dog with no nuts... the douchebag who is all internet tough guy insulting everyone but doesn't have the stones to back it up... I thought I heard some whining !    run away little doggie... come back when you grow a set.


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not bitter at all, and well aware that things change without being bitter about it.
> 
> That is not the case with many of my older peers in the GOP: that's a shame.
> 
> ...



Still pretending to be a conservative repulican, Jake?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> My decision to vote for Obama, as stated in the OP has nothing to do with the debt whatsoever.  It has to do with the basic beliefs of the democratic party versus the republican party.  the DEBT is the big issue that the GOP has latched onto this season and I only point out how funny that is, given the fact that the last six GOP presidents have ALL raised the debt.... I guess raising the debt is OK when you guys do it?



So you're not even going to factor into your decision the most important issue our nation is facing nowadays?


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Yeah, funny, but Obama used the national debt to run on in 2008, something about how 'unpatriotic' it was to run up the national debt.  Guess it wasn't as important as he thought, huh?  Which 'basic beliefs' are you referring too?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



so... Romney will magically do what Ike and Nixon and Ford and Reagan and Bush I and his chimpy little son were ALL incapable of doing?  Is that your final answer?

and will you go on record as opposing a second term for Mittens if he fails to reduce the national debt during his first term?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Like I said.. the debt is not my issue... it is YOUR issue.  If your party had a track record of actually reducing the national debt - EVER - then maybe you'd have a bit more credibility.  As to my basic beliefs, if you don't care to read the OP, I certainly am not inclined to spoon feed it to you now.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> oh...it's the little yappy dog with no nuts... the douchebag who is all internet tough guy insulting everyone but doesn't have the stones to back it up... I thought I heard some whining !    run away little doggie... come back when you grow a set.



Shit, I doubt if you made LT(jg) with this brilliance... ^^^^^


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > My decision to vote for Obama, as stated in the OP has nothing to do with the debt whatsoever.  It has to do with the basic beliefs of the democratic party versus the republican party.  the DEBT is the big issue that the GOP has latched onto this season and I only point out how funny that is, given the fact that the last six GOP presidents have ALL raised the debt.... I guess raising the debt is OK when you guys do it?
> ...



it's the most important issue to you... not to me.

do you honestly think that everyone in the country should have the exact same set of priorities?  would you want us to be stepford citizens?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby pretends to be a conservative when in fact he is a far right reactionary christian wack.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > oh...it's the little yappy dog with no nuts... the douchebag who is all internet tough guy insulting everyone but doesn't have the stones to back it up... I thought I heard some whining !    run away little doggie... come back when you grow a set.
> ...



are you ready to turn those doubts into some real money then pal?  I am offering you the chance to make ten grand if you just put your money where your mouth is.  

all sack and no nuts.

what a loser.


----------



## CandySlice (Sep 4, 2012)

I didn't vote for him the first time because I did my homework. The guy was an empty suit 4 years ago and he's an empty suit now. And if you can't see that you deserve 4  more years of the same. Only this time he'll have NO restraints and he'll be free to run roughshod over the budget and everything else. You should think about that. By the time he's done there could very well be nothing left of this country. I know that sounds dramatic but it isn't like it hasn't happened before.
You've seen what he's like and what he has in mind and you still uphold his ideas? Shame on you for your ignorance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


What a great retort for a retired officer and gentleman


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Newby pretends to be a conservative when in fact he is a far right reactionary christian wack.



Coming from you, my dear, that's a compliment...  I guess you're not pretending to be a Christian anymore either?  And it's 'her' for the 100th time.   You might get more respect around here if you ever answered a question put to you, but I've never seen it happen.  Just some friendly advise.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Sure - you first. Go ahead and post a PDF of your DD-214, ya nutless wonder.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Newby pretends to be a conservative when in fact he is a far right reactionary christian wack.
> ...



He can't do that and play his facade


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



he needlessly insulted my service.  I made him a gentlemanly wager, and he has continued the insults.  I merely am returning the favor.  Interesting how manners are something you call democrats on, but not republicans.  We see who your pals are.  Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I made him a gentlemanly wager...



And I accepted. Post away faggot... 

A PDF of your DD-214. 

You have no problem sending it to a perfect stranger on the Internet for a $10,000 bet - post it here, nutless.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



This is not the conduct becoming of an officer, so what's next you were a fighter pilot?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



are you saying that, if my documentation shows that I achieved the rank of O-5, you agree to pay me ten thousand dollars?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



surface warfare... my eyes weren't good enough for flight school.  But, like I said... we see who you lie down with.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I know how to read a DD-214, asswipe. It will show your brilliant career from your commission 40 years ago to your retirement as an 0-4 (or in your case, an 0-2). 

Post away, fudgepacker !!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




Nope I just see you for what you are, I can read liberal


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



you didn't answer my question.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I can read liberal



I can read fake vet ....


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I read the op, some vague references.  I was asking for details.



> ...vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on.



What about foreign affairs?  What is Obama doing right?  What will Romney do that you would disagree with?

Women's rights?  Which 'rights' are you referring too, and how does Obama promote them and Romney take them away?

Environmental 'protection'?  Whatever that means... What has Obama done that Romney would not?  Drill for oil?

Global warming?  Don't you mean 'climate change'??    So you believe in global socialism, which is of course what we all know global warming is promoting?  Get in line for those carbon credits, which the industrialized world will pay dearly for in order to enrich the 3rd world countries.

Energy policy?  You liked Obama handing out millions/billions to 'green' companies that go bankrupt?  Are you a 'kill the oil industry and send us all back to the dark ages' believer?

Family Planing?     How do Obama's policies differ from Romneys?  Or is that part of 'womens rights' as well, i.e. free abortion and free birth control?  You said you believed in 'individual responsibility', so someone who holds that as a value would oppose both free abortion and free birth control on that principle alone.

Gay rights?  I assume you're an advocate of gay 'marriage'? I'm for a legal civil union, but that's never good enough for some reason.  Can't imagine why???

Gun Control?  What is your stance there? Get rid of the 2nd amendment?  What is it with Romney's stance on gun control that you disagree with?  How does it differ from Obama's?

Social Justice?  How do you bring that about?  Our constitution and rule of law isn't enough?  That's just code word for socialism or communism, depending on how far left you really are.

Tax Policy... now that one I can see a distince difference.  But isn't it funny after four years of Obama and two years of a complete Dem majority that we are still under the Bush tax cuts?  Why is that???


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You didn't post your DD-214, nutless. 

Having one that meets your credentials on Google?? 

What a pantload....


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


 
I answered your question on healthcare in detail. I gave you detailed information on a universal health care plan and how it can be paid for. You don't like my answer so you come back with all this other garbage. I've worked many years in the private sector too so I don't need your patronizing comments about researching it. I really wish you would stick to straight facts and not anything personal and I'd be more willing to elaborate. But since you insist on talking about me and my employment and my political beliefs, I'm going to come back and say I also think there is no hope for you either.

Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



again... you didn't answer my question.  Will you pay me $10,000 if I can show you I achieved the rank of O-5?  yes or no?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

You are the pretender, Ms. Newby, to Christianity and American political virtue.  

I am not worried about the respect of heretic or those who hold non-mainstream America values.  Keep that in mind.

We are a heretic to the former and confused to the later.





Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Newby pretends to be a conservative when in fact he is a far right reactionary christian wack.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

You hold neither mainstream Christian or American values, bigrebnc, so I will give the time you deserve here . . . next to none.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Sure - post away.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You hold neither mainstream Christian or American values, bigrebnc, so I will give the time you deserve here . . . next to none.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a fake facade.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Sep 4, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Wolfsister77 said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


 
Excuse me but it takes a lot more than your demaning, personal posts to aggravate me. I'm the kind of person that does not resort to personal insults to get my message accross. As soon as I see that, I know the person doing it isn't really interested in a discussion or they have no argument to refute what I have to say. 

So, go ahead and think what you want. It matters very little to me. But I ignored the rest of what you said after lazy and uninformed.

Your loss on a good political discussion, not mine.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the pretender, Ms. Newby, to Christianity and American political virtue.
> 
> I am not worried about the respect of heretic or those who hold non-mainstream America values.  Keep that in mind.
> 
> ...



Okay, Jake, put your money where your mouth is.  Let us all hear how you define 'conservative' values?

What are 'mainstream values'?  How do they differ from mine (You know, since you're so well acquainted with them.  )

Heretic is a pretty strong accusation.  You have examples to back that up of course?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> What about foreign affairs?  What is Obama doing right?  What will Romney do that you would disagree with?



Obama is reaching out to the islamic people.  Romney would take a much more bellicose approach to Islam in general than I would approve of. Romney would bend over for Israel, Obama does not.



> Women's rights?  Which 'rights' are you referring too, and how does Obama promote them and Romney take them away?


  reproductive choice.  equal pay for equal work.  the republican platform supports neither.



> Environmental 'protection'?  Whatever that means... What has Obama done that Romney would not?  Drill for oil?


  from the OP... it is not about Romney or Obama , it is about democrat versus republican.  My party is one that is more protective of the environment and less beholden to big oil.



> Global warming?  Don't you mean 'climate change'??    So you believe in global socialism, which is of course what we all know global warming is promoting?  Get in line for those carbon credits, which the industrialized world will pay dearly for in order to enrich the 3rd world countries.


  Yes... I do mean climate change, and believing it instead of denying it is a first step.  I think that our country needs to take steps to act responsibly on this front and the GOP platform does not address it.



> Energy policy?  You liked Obama handing out millions/billions to 'green' companies that go bankrupt?  Are you a 'kill the oil industry and send us all back to the dark ages' believer?



I applaud government support for alternatives to oil.  I see no need to "kill" the oil industry, but I would love to see us move towards making it obsolete.



> Family Planing?     How do Obama's policies differ from Romneys?  Or is that part of 'womens rights' as well, i.e. free abortion and free birth control?  You said you believed in 'individual responsibility', so someone who holds that as a value would oppose both free abortion and free birth control on that principle alone.



I do believe in a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, and if those choices require medical treatment, it ought to be provided through insurance plans like other medical treatments.



> Gay rights?  I assume you're an advocate of gay 'marriage'? I'm for a legal civil union, but that's never good enough for some reason.  Can't imagine why???



I am an advocate of gay marriage.  the republican party platform stands firmly against it.



> Gun Control?  What is your stance there? Get rid of the 2nd amendment?  What is it with Romney's stance on gun control that you disagree with?  How does it differ from Obama's?



more Romney versus Obama rhetoric.  My beef is with the GOP party platform.  Romney runs on that platform.  My stance on the 2nd amendment is that it was written to provide for a citizen militia, not unlimited firearms possession without  organized civil defense responsibilities.  I personally think that assault rifles should be banned.



> Social Justice?  How do you bring that about?  Our constitution and rule of law isn't enough?


  Maintaining Affirmative Action would be a start.  Passing the ERA would be a start. The GOP is against both of those issues.



> Tax Policy... now that one I can see a distince difference.  But isn't it funny after four years of Obama and two years of a complete Dem majority that we are still under the Bush tax cuts?  Why is that???


  DINOS.  Nelson, Landrieux, Lieberman, Pryor, Lincoln... that's why.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

Can't find your DD-214, eh fudgepacker?


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > What about foreign affairs?  What is Obama doing right?  What will Romney do that you would disagree with?
> ...



Why are you concerned about Islamic people?  Are you Islamic?

How does the republican platform go against 'reproductive choice'?  Or equal pay for women?  Please be specific.   

How much more protective of the environment?  Be specific.  You make too many generalizations.  What would you like to see the feds enforce that's not currently being done?

What kinds of steps does our country need to take to act more responsibly?  How can the government achieve that?

What do you propose as a realistic alternative to oil that would sustain human life as we know it today?

Medical treatment?  I.e abortion?  But, if the woman was 'responsible' and used freely and widely available birth control, there would be no need of it. So, do you or do you not believe in personal responsibility?  You also advocate that the American taxpayer be responsible for paying for other's birth control?  Getting pregnant isn't a 'medical condition', it is a chioce.  There are many different ways to choose to not get pregnant.  Seems you advocate for a nanny state.

So a civil legal union is not enough?  Why?

You hold very extreme views with regards to the 2nd amendment.  It says nothing about a militia.  And here I also question your claims to being in the US military for 25 years. You swore an oath to pretect the Constitution, how did you do so whenever you disagree with it on basic principles?   I wonder if you're even a US citizen at all. 

I don't see AA going away?  Not sure what your point is there.  In any case, it's a discriminatory policy.    And as far as I know, every American citizen is protected the same under the constitution, so you just do not believe in the constitution as it stands then?

Sounds like excuses and rationalization to the extreme.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



Stupidity, a common occurrence with those that lean left.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...





I don't believe you... 

and I realize that you don't believe me.  

My DD214 is in my safe deposit box in Maine along with my will... So... I look here at my DD Form 2 and there is really no way to redact what I don't want you to know (name and SSN) and still give you the proof that you would need.  In any case, I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that you would send me that kind of money.  ah well... it was fun imagining buying a year's worth of Yucatan Country Club membership on your nickel... such is not to be, I guess.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



so... it is your belief that everyone who professes to be a liberal in America is stupid?  that's sad.  I, for example, have a kid brother who is a staunch republican... I don't think he is stupid and he doesn't think I am either... we both just agree to disagree about our political philosophy.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> My DD214 is in my safe deposit box in Maine along with my will... So... I look here at my DD Form 2 and there is really no way to redact what I don't want you to know (name and SSN) and still give you the proof that you would need.  In any case, I don't believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that you would send me that kind of money.  ah well... it was fun imagining buying a year's worth of Yucatan Country Club membership on your nickel... such is not to be, I guess.



Yawn.


----------



## Newby (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



There's this thing called a copy machine, and then there's this stuff called whiteout, very easy to make a copy, white out what you don't want seen, recopy or scan, etc...  You made the big challenge, and then when called on it, back away.  Doesn't look too good.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



The idea that a retired Naval Officer would enter into a bet to prove what rank he obtained seems extremely laughable, and quite childish... Way beneath how I'd expect an Officer who respected the Uniform to behave. And the profanity. You sound like a BTSN the way you are going at it with Warrior. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a wannabe who never served, or someone who claims to be more than what they were. I cannot fathom anyone who served in the Navy during the years that Bill Clinton literally dismantled the Navy, and cut our Naval forces to pieces actually siding with Democrats and their ideologies... It just doesn't add up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Here's how you do it

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEoFq3911yY&feature=related]If you make an accusation you better have proof! Pack sand! to those who doubt my service. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



In politics absolutely yes.


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Why is your party LYING about the definitions of words so you can trash the label democracy?



Stop *LAIRING*.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

tjvh said:


> The idea that a retired Naval Officer would enter into a bet to prove what rank he obtained seems extremely laughable, and quite childish... Way beneath how I'd expect an Officer who respected the Uniform to behave. And the profanity. You sound like a BTSN the way you are going at it with Warrior. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a wannabe who never served, or someone who claims to be more than what they were. I cannot fathom anyone who served in the Navy during the years that Bill Clinton literally dismantled the Navy, and cut our Naval forces to pieces actually siding with Democrats and their ideologies... It just doesn't add up.



It's obvious the guy (if he's a guy) is a fake. For example, the idea that this "retired Naval Officer" would have his DD-214 locked thousands of miles away from where he is, is idiotic. As it's needed FREQUENTLY, one is taught to make numerous copies of it and have it available anytime it's requested.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that a retired Naval Officer would enter into a bet to prove what rank he obtained seems extremely laughable, and quite childish... Way beneath how I'd expect an Officer who respected the Uniform to behave. And the profanity. You sound like a BTSN the way you are going at it with Warrior. This is the sort of thing I'd expect from a wannabe who never served, or someone who claims to be more than what they were. I cannot fathom anyone who served in the Navy during the years that Bill Clinton literally dismantled the Navy, and cut our Naval forces to pieces actually siding with Democrats and their ideologies... It just doesn't add up.
> ...



I'm not an officer but I have copies of mine, had to requested a few more copies a while back.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If you make an accusation you better have proof! Pack sand! to those who doubt my service. - YouTube



Awesome !!!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > If you make an accusation you better have proof! Pack sand! to those who doubt my service. - YouTube
> ...



Those who have one would know what he';s talking about just by pointing at the appropriate areas without revealing their name or SSN


----------



## tjvh (Sep 4, 2012)

My DD-214 is in my house, and I keep a photocopy of it in my wallet, along with my VA card. You never know when a Federal entity might ask for it, even from us *lowly enlisted guys* who weren't Admirals, and Captains, and don't profess to have been.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

tjvh said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



I am sorry that I disappoint you.  The fact of the matter is that I did serve and that I did attain the rank of commander (O-5).  Like the guy in bigreb's video, I dislike people who don't know me claiming that I did not serve... I merely stated that I was a retired naval officer and did not feel the need to post my rank... and warrior jumped in and, without provocation, insulted me and it hit me the wrong way.  I will try, in the next day or so, to post a video of me and my ID card and then we shall see if I get a check from warrior.  I did serve during the Clinton years, but only briefly... I retired in September of '93.  I stayed out of politics altogether during my active duty years.  I am sorry you cannot fathom my political ideology, but I offer up Wesley Clark as an example of a career military man who is also a democrat... not all service members are republicans.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

tjvh said:


> My DD-214 is in my house, and I keep a photocopy of it in my wallet, along with my VA card. You never know when a Federal entity might ask for it, even from us *lowly enlisted guys* who weren't Admirals, and Captains, and don't profess to have been.



My DD Form 2 is all I need to carry.  As I stated, my DD214 is in a safe deposit box in the states along with my will.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Like I said... there is zero need for a DD214 here in Mexico.  I have my blue DD Form 2.  I have never made a video but I will try to do so in the next few days to show me holding my ID card and then showing the rank section for you all to see.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



A DD214 can be used as an ID and would be very appropriate outside the US.


----------



## CandySlice (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...




What do you have to do to get in on that $10,000??


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 4, 2012)

Those who are voting for obama just don't like Hillary.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I have never made a video but I will try to do so in the next few days to show me holding my ID card and then showing the rank section for you all to see.



We'll all be sitting on the edge of our seats until the video's airtime, nutsack.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> A DD214 can be used as an ID and would be very appropriate outside the US.



For example, a surviving spouse who needs it for SGLI to kick in... 

Hell retirees in Japan I know have immediate access to theirs. 

The guy's a lying sack of shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

CandySlice said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I don't  know that bet is between them


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



passport, driver's license, FM-3, and DD Form 2 not enough ID?  I can't imagine how many giggles I'd get at a police checkpoint in Mexico if I hauled out a copy of my DD214 as my form of ID.  They would be CLUELESS.

But... I like your idea about the video and I will try to make one that shows me AND my ID card to put this all to rest.  Thanks for the idea.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 4, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



Sounds like like a bunch of typical liberal talking points to me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 4, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




Very well it's settled glad I could contribute to this disagreement.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 4, 2012)

Put my money in place of my mouth.  What, you bet?    You make all sorts of assertions without proof about me, then you demand I prove what I said about you.  I will tell you what I think.

First, you are not a conservative, only an extremist religious reactionary.

Second, your religious arguments are evidence enough.

Ms. Newby, we are not going back to the days of the Puritans, not going to happen.

Yeah, you are a heretic.  Your religious remarks wreak of heresy.



Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are the pretender, Ms. Newby, to Christianity and American political virtue.
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 4, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I have never made a video but I will try to do so in the next few days to show me holding my ID card and then showing the rank section for you all to see.
> ...



I bet you will.  I'd be sweating bullets if I were about to lose ten grand.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Put my money in place of my mouth.  What, you bet?    You make all sorts of assertions without proof about me, then you demand I prove what I said about you.  I will tell you what I think.
> 
> First, you are not a conservative, only an extremist religious reactionary.
> 
> ...



I think I asked for specifics Jake, and as usual, you don't deliver.  The 'accusation' that I make is that you are not a conservative, which is based on almost all of your posts.  They're all liberal thought, defending liberal positions.  Pretty much everyone laughs at your claim to be a 'conservative'.  One just wonders why you bother to make the conservative claim at all, and at this point it's pretty much a joke.  

Please, by all means, you can show one post of mine that is 'puritan' in thought right here, provide a link. 

Also, please feel free to provide a link to one of my posts that 'wreaks of heresey'.  It should be very easy since you say they're are so many.  I'll be waiting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

You attacked me first, I knock you down, and now you want specifics?

That is not how it works.  If you have a problem with me, spell it out with specifics.

That's how it works.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You attacked me first, I knock you down, and now you want specifics?
> 
> That is not how it works.  If you have a problem with me, spell it out with specifics.
> 
> That's how it works.



You're so predicatable... 

I 'attacked' you?? By saying that you're not conservative as you claim? 

Which part of the replican platform do you agree with, if any?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

You made the claim that I am not "conservative", by your standards, I gather.

Go ahead.  Give specifics.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 5, 2012)

I've used my DD-214 a grand total of once. To apply for a VA loan. Which I did not use, because the VA loan people were such assmunches. And even then, I only needed a photocopy.

So, I'm wondering why these guys need their original DD-214 so often. They must be suckling off the government teat on a truly epic scale. Oh wait, it's Warrior. That explains it.

Oh, you know how you can tell the whiny little bitches from the men? The whiny little bitches blame all their own fuckups on Carter or Clinton.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You made the claim that I am not "conservative", by your standards, I gather.
> 
> Go ahead.  Give specifics.



Which parts of the republican platform do you agree with?  Simple question.


----------



## healthmyths (Sep 5, 2012)

FOOL the voters ONCE Shame on Obama...
FOOL the voters TWICE shame on the FOOL VOTERS!!

SHAME ON YOU!!

Really..
you think Obama was just joking when he wrote this???

Dreams of My Father"
    "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
     People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
    They were more than satisfied.  They were revealed. Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered
    young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."


----------



## 007 (Sep 5, 2012)

healthmyths said:


> FOOL the voters ONCE Shame on Obama...
> FOOL the voters TWICE shame on the FOOL VOTERS!!
> 
> SHAME ON YOU!!
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

That's not how adults to do this, Ms. Newby.

You made the charge, so now support it.

That's how adults do this.



Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You made the claim that I am not "conservative", by your standards, I gather.
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> That's not how adults to do this, Ms. Newby.
> 
> You made the charge, so now support it.
> 
> ...



A pro-abortion 'conservative', but not only that, also a self professed 'Christian' using the Bible to back abortion? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244587-dems-kill-god-15.html#post5934276



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> I, unlike you, are a born again in the blood saved Christian.  Your fantasies of the far right are just that, fantasies.
> 
> Jehovah, according to the the Bible, ordered entire peoples to be eliminated, including babies and the unborn.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

Against voter id... pro abortion... put down your own party because they are 'mostly white'.  I can find a point where you counter pretty much every conservative poster and view point on this board.  I can keep going with the links if you'd like?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/243643-judge-strikes-down-voter-id-law-10.html#post5932109



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> Well, those are your opinions, and they are wrong.
> 
> But you can give us credible, supportable sources, hmmm?
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

I guess this was your way of defending your fellow republican/conservative on an issue that he was absolutely correct on? 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244371-2012-election-7.html#post5932081



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> Rotdoggy does not like sarcasm used against him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## oreo (Sep 5, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.




Could it be because you're an *Expatriate *--like your screen name says--and you haven't had to put up with Obama's B.S. over the last 4 years because you no longer live in this country---  So with your vote from somewhere else in the world--you impose on us --those who still live in this country another 4 years of the WORST President in U.S history.


----------



## amrchaos (Sep 5, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Jefferson said we were a democracy.
> 
> why are you calling him a liar?



Actually--would it not depend on your definition of Democracy?

Literally, we are a constitutional Republic with many local and state republics and democracies all over the place.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

You believe in Darwinism, another true trait of a conservative christian. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/242173-darwin-vs-dna-17.html#post5932077



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> You prove the point that you are engaged in philosophy not science.  And your questions have nothing to do with the testing of evolution.
> 
> The real Christian has no trouble with the co-existence of deity and evolution, none at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

Now tell us all Starkey, what exactly do you support on the Republican platform?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 5, 2012)

amrchaos said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Jefferson said we were a democracy.
> ...



Constitutional Republic some tend to forget that part


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

You apparently just love Fox News...    And your fellow lib, NoNukes 'thanked' you for this kind post. Even bettter!!! 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244618-romney-receives-lowest-score-for-convention-speech.html#post5929498



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> FNN  Fox Nazi News


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

True Christians believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord as well as evolution and science.

The heretic Christian does not.



Newby said:


> You believe in Darwinism, another true trait of a conservative christian.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/242173-darwin-vs-dna-17.html#post5932077
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

Improper format, generally used by a heretic such as your sort.

Make your case based on what I have said before.  

Now do it correctly, or fail.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

You describe your own supposed party the exact same way a lib would... imagine that???  Not only that, every post of yours that I looked up, you're countering or arguing with a fellow conservative.  I guess every conservative on this board is 'radical right'.  Can you name one conservative poster on this board that you agree with, that isn't 'radical right'?  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244291-why-i-am-voting-for-obama-again-14.html#post5925428



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.
> 
> Things always change.
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Improper format, generally used by a heretic such as your sort.
> 
> Make your case based on what I have said before.
> 
> Now do it correctly, or fail.



  Fail is right, Jake, you fail at passing yourself off as a 'conservative christian'.   Horribly I might add.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

I describe my GOP as it is trying to become: pushed by embittered old white folks who are still pissed off they lost the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s.  Those days are over.  They are not coming back.

But this country is becoming darker, more feminist, younger, and forward looking.

Either we in the GOP learned to serve those constituencies or will be in the minority.

Absolute truth.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

Newby is merely a a far right extreme heretic Christian reactionary pretending to be a conservative.



Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Improper format, generally used by a heretic such as your sort.
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 5, 2012)

oreo said:


> Could it be because you're an *Expatriate *--like your screen name says--and you haven't had to put up with Obama's B.S. over the last 4 years because you no longer live in this country---  So with your vote from somewhere else in the world--you impose on us --those who still live in this country another 4 years of the WORST President in U.S history.



Actually, this week marks my first year in Mexico.  I was there for the near meltdown at the end of the Bush administration and I was there to watch Obama try to dig us out of that deep hole while republicans kept shoveling feces on top of him in order to achieve their number one priority - the failure of President Obama.... even if it meant the failure of the country. Now, I may LIVE in Mexico, but all of my income is generated in - and taxed in - the United States.  I have already ordered my absentee ballot and my wife and I will be proudly and enthusiastically casting our votes for Obama and sending them back to the states in the diplomatic pouch from the local consulate.  We lived through eight years of George W. Bush whom I rank as the worst president in our history, so suck it up and get ready to live through another four years of Barack Obama.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

Here's you defending Obama bypassing Congress, and once again on the opposite side of the issue of almost all conservatives.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/236585-der-fuher-obama-signs-another-executive-order-16.html#post5925415



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> And we watch an entire group of ignorant white folk post here.
> 
> My goodness, what a bunch of loons.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I describe my GOP as it is trying to become: pushed by embittered old white folks who are still pissed off they lost the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s.  Those days are over.  They are not coming back.
> 
> But this country is becoming darker, more feminist, younger, and forward looking.
> 
> ...



What conservative values do you agree with Jake?  Actually, you're wrong, there's more elderly people now than ever before, and they will be a strong voting block in the years to come.  But, keep picking on the whites, and the 'old people', and the 'feminists'.  Seriously, dude, go register democrat, it's where you belong.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

Typical far right reactionary mindless chattering by Newby.

Executive Orders are legal, have been since 1789.

All presidents, including Republicans, have the right to issue them.

I am defending the American system, while you attack it.



Newby said:


> Here's you defending Obama bypassing Congress, and once again on the opposite side of the issue of almost all conservatives.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/236585-der-fuher-obama-signs-another-executive-order-16.html#post5925415
> 
> ...


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Newby is merely a a far right extreme heretic Christian reactionary pretending to be a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Poor Jake... nothing of substance, as usual.  Put up or shut up, dearie.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

The older voters will be dying in increasing numbers in years to come with very few to replace them.  Do you not understand that?

When the party leadership and mainstream, like me, come to their senses as a whole, you guys will be kicked to the curb if you won't heel, as all poorly trained dogs.  Don't worry, those masters who trained you guys will go into the curb as well.



Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I describe my GOP as it is trying to become: pushed by embittered old white folks who are still pissed off they lost the culture wars of the 1960s and 1970s.  Those days are over.  They are not coming back.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 5, 2012)

And we all witness a Newby fail.


----------



## oreo (Sep 5, 2012)

expatriate said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be because you're an *Expatriate *--like your screen name says--and you haven't had to put up with Obama's B.S. over the last 4 years because you no longer live in this country---  So with your vote from somewhere else in the world--you impose on us --those who still live in this country another 4 years of the WORST President in U.S history.
> ...



Figures---why on earth would you care about 8.3% unemployment in the states--with real unemployment at 11% (23 Million Americans either unemployed or underemployed)--or 46 million Americans on food stamps--1 in 5 families living beneath the poverty level--16 trillion dollars in red ink with another 5 trillion just in interest to be added to OUR tab within the next decade.  Gas prices are up--food prices are up--and consumer confidence is in the tank.
National debt: Washington's $5 trillion interest bill - Mar. 5, 2012
SNAP/Food Stamp Participation « Food Research & Action Center
Consumer confidence - Aug. 28, 2012

YOU LIVE IN MEXICO.  If something is not done in this country now--it will be Mexico building fences to keep us out.


----------



## Newby (Sep 5, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> And we all witness a Newby fail.



Really?  What did I 'fail' at Jake?  Are you capable of answering even one question?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 5, 2012)

Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And we all witness a Newby fail.
> ...



No he is not


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

oreo said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



I care very deeply about all of those issues.  I have adult children who are living and thriving in America.  My investments are thriving in America.  I want our country to continue to improve and I happen to believe that the path that Barack Obama and the democratic party has charted is the best one for the long term success of America.  We obviously have a difference of opinion.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...





Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

Fox is every bit as poor as MSNBC.

It is what it is, and the true American Christian, like me, has to tread carefully among the fallen and heretics ot the far right and the far left.



Newby said:


> You apparently just love Fox News...    And your fellow lib, NoNukes 'thanked' you for this kind post. Even bettter!!!
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/244618-romney-receives-lowest-score-for-convention-speech.html#post5929498
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nice video



Thank you. And thank you for giving me the idea on how to resolve this issue.  I truly appreciate it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice video
> ...



That's just who I am I like to help resolve problems.


----------



## Pasco08 (Sep 6, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> ok then great, you have a Socialist-Communist-vision for this country than vote for Obama again..then he can FINISH Transforming the country he supposedly says HE LOVES



When you don't have something credible to say about him you call him a socialist-communiest?  Bush was more of a dictator with his polices. after 9/11.


----------



## Newby (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Newby said:


> Kudos to you, altho you certainly had nothing to lose by making it either.
> 
> You appear to be fairly well off, showing off your 'rental home' while year long remodeling is done to your own, so how you can side with the left regarding redistribution, along with big government control in the personal lives of its citizens, I have no idea.  I always wonder why those on the left with money aren't giving it to all of the poor and down trodden, and living within meager means, i.e. practicing what they preach.  Is it a sense of guilt over what you do have that you feel the need to use everyone else's money to help those you deem as 'needy'?  If you yourself have been successful at life, what makes you feel you have the right to take what success has been earned by others and distribute it as you see fit?  Or didn't you earn what you have via capitalism and your own effort, and you therefore take it for granted?  It's certainly something I will never understand or relate too whatsoever.



I have prospered.  After I retired from the service, I had another successful career or two before finally fully retiring.  I tithe to the church.  That is a significant amount of money each year... and I willingly and happily pay income tax on all my earnings and would not be upset in the least if the marginal rate increased to pre-Bush days even though that will undoubtedly mean a greater tax burden for me.  I have been fortunate in life... I am blessed with a good intellect and was given strong values from my parents.  I have known a great many Americans who did not have those blessings and for whom, making change for a dollar is hard, and computers are incomprehensible... not through any fault of their own, but because they were NOT blessed with gifts like you and me have.  They are good enough to go fight and die for their country, however, and even if they are NOT veterans, they are deserving of a safety net that protects them.  I believe it does take a village, even if the village has to take care of a few village idiots from time to time.

By the way, do you think that Warrior102 will take the time to view that youtube clip?  ANd I tell you what... I will donate half of it to charity if he ever does pay up.


----------



## Pasco08 (Sep 6, 2012)

I will probably be voting for Obama.


----------



## Newby (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Kudos to you, altho you certainly had nothing to lose by making it either.
> ...



A saftey net is a far different thing than where we've come in this country and where the democrat party wants to take us.  I believe in freedom and the ability to acheive if you so desire.  To take away a good percentage of what anyone achieves via government fiat only kills ambition.  Like I said, I don't see you living in meager means and giving most of what you have to all of those people who haven't been as 'blessed' as you have been.  You're implying that you got where you are via no control of your own, it was all just happenstance and you didn't have anything to do with how your life turned out?  In other words, 'you didn't build that'?  You just were 'blessed', so we should take from those that are 'blessed' and give to those who are not via government force, because it's through no fault of their own choices in life that they aren't 'blessed'?  It sounds more like guilt to me.  I will never understand that train of thought, I just can't relate to it.  Most people work very hard for what they have, and you shouldn't be punished because others choose not to do the same.  The safety net that you speak of is for those who cannot, not those that willnot.  That should be a very small number.

Well, if he does and he pays you, you should donate all of it, shouldn't you?  Many people out there not as 'blessed' as you are, especially in Mexico.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

Ms. Newby, you hit it right on the nail.  You simply cannot comprehend different ways of doing things.  Obama has been less a dictator than Bush, and I am hoping that Romney will be less of one than Obama.  And I hope that you realize your are an individual within and, eventually, dependent on the community.

We are a collection of individuals and community, hopefully working for the better.

You seem to resent that reality.



Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


----------



## Liability (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



No.  You are voting for The ONE because you are a dopey lemming.


----------



## Newby (Sep 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ms. Newby, you hit it right on the nail.  You simply cannot comprehend different ways of doing things.  Obama has been less a dictator than Bush, and I am hoping that Romney will be less of one than Obama.  And I hope that you realize your are an individual within and, eventually, dependent on the community.
> 
> We are a collection of individuals and community, hopefully working for the better.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

Then you condemn yourself, Ms. Newby, for you don't know me.

All of those pioneers had friendship and kinship framerworks within which they worked, by the way.  Yeah, individual and community, Ms. Newby.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Newby said:


> Yeah, all those pioneers who forged west and lived on their own without anyone for miles, no laws, no civilization, no nothing..  really needed 'big brother' to help them along. Those people built this country.  Are you seriously implying that no one could survive without society to help them along?  You know, prior to several hundred years ago, people did exist without 'society' helping them. There was no welfare, grocery store, doctor, etc.. People grew their own food, hunted for it, made their own clothes, all without government help!!  Brush up on history.



and we have advanced as a society, haven't we?  when the pioneers forged west, blacks weren't allowed to marry whites.  Children worked in factories and didn't go to school, much less get to be kids.  Women couldn't vote.  This country has gotten better and has advanced along progressive pathways on a host of issues, and things that were once considered wacky far left ideas are now part of the political mainstream.  A sign at a teaparty rally succinctly illustrates that point:  "Keep your socialist hands off my Medicare!", the sign said.  Go back and read the quotes from Reagan and other politicians back in the day that called Medicare the first step towards socialism and communism and an end to the American dream... Medicare is now cherished by the oldtime teabaggers and they don't want "socialists" to mess with it.  You have to admit that is funny stuff.

How are you, by the way, at making your own clothes?  Hunting for subsistence, are you?  Foresaking the supermarket to go out into the forest and kill wild beasts to feed you family?  How's the backyard garden doing?  Or do you, instead, go to the market and buy the cheap vegetables brought to you by immigrant farm labor?


----------



## Newby (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, all those pioneers who forged west and lived on their own without anyone for miles, no laws, no civilization, no nothing..  really needed 'big brother' to help them along. Those people built this country.  Are you seriously implying that no one could survive without society to help them along?  You know, prior to several hundred years ago, people did exist without 'society' helping them. There was no welfare, grocery store, doctor, etc.. People grew their own food, hunted for it, made their own clothes, all without government help!!  Brush up on history.
> ...



Medicare is cherished?  Tell you what, give everyone the opportunity to opt out of Medicare and Social Security and invest on their own terms knowing that they'd receive a much better return on their investment, and see how many people you have left.  At the rate we're currently going, there will be no medicare or social security by the time I retire.  Let people be responsible for themselves, and for the most part, they will be.  You act like we are not capable of making our own decisions and thriving on our own without your opinion on how we should conduct our lives.  

People lived and survived in that way for thousands of years, apparently you missed the point.  Does it really need explained to you?  I actually have a very nice garden.   Perhaps you and your kind need to rely on others to subsist, but if all modern comforts should go away and I needed to survive on my own, I'd certainly find a way. To use that as an excuse to rob others of what they have worked hard for is immoral, and not the principle that this country was founded on.


----------



## kaz (Sep 6, 2012)

Newby said:


> Medicare is cherished?



Hmm...it's popular to send your bills to someone else.  That surprises you?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



progressive income tax has been supported by every single president since Wilson.  get OVER it.  And your opinions as to what the average American would want to do with his or her social security and medicare trust fund cash is just that... an opinion unsupported by facts.  Good luck with the veggies this year!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

Sending society back to the days of kaz and Newby would to go back a 100 years.

No, thanks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sending society back to the days of kaz and Newby would to go back a 100 years.
> 
> No, thanks.



Jakes agreeing with someone who admits he's a liberal. What is not right about this, and someone who claims to be a Republican?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

bigreb would take us back to cave days.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigreb would take us back to cave days.



agreeing with a liberal does not make you more of a Republican.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???
> ...



It is a matter of proportion.  Bush took 8 years to increase the National Debt from 5.7 T to 10.6T.  Obama managed to increase it from 10.6 T to over 16T in 3yrs, 9 months.

Since 1964, the U.S. debt had accelerated fastest under President Ronald Reagan, at an annualized growth rate of 14.18% -- a record held until Jan. 20, 2009. Following the inauguration of President Obama, the national debt has grown at an annualized rate of 15.21%. 

Is proportion too complex for you?

On edit:  
GW Bush had a compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.
> ...



1981: President Reagan vetoed a continuing resolution and 400,000 Federal employees were sent home at lunch and told not to come back. A few hours later, President Reagan signed a new version of the continuing resolution and the workers were back at work the next morning.

 1984: With no approved budget, 500,000 federal workers were sent home. An emergency spending bill has them all back at work the next day.

The press crucified Reagan for shutting down the government.

Clinton shut down the government in 1995-1996 and Newt Gingrich and the Republican House were crucified by the media.  Clinton wanted MORE money, not less.

See how that veto stuff works.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



It won't be magic and Romney can and will get the fiscal house in order. It took Clinton seven years and a Republican House to get to a semi-balanced budget and he didn't have a sub-prime collapse of the housing market to deal with.  If Romney could do that well it would possibly save the US from becoming a third world country.  

Using "chimpy little son" to describe Bush 43 just erased all of the respect I afforded you as a Naval Officer.  You really need to suck on a dead donkey's dick until his head caves in sailor.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



i DO see how it works... I am just wondering where is this long line of overridden GOP presidential vetoes that showed the republican president's unwavering commitment to lessening the debt?  Which was the last GOP president that lessened the national debt?  None in MY lifetime, that's for sure, and I'm a pretty old guy.

and let me get this straight... are you suggesting that Ronnie WOULD have done better but he got scared because he was "crucified by the press"??? hahahahahahahahahahhaa


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



OK.  I think I have it.  If you are a republican president and you grow the debt at 14% a year, you are a demigod and we name airports after you and folks actually talk about adding your face to Mount Rushmore.  If you are a democrat, and you grow the debt at 15% a year, you are the worst president ever.  DId I get that right?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Paygrade issue - YouTube



Gosh... it seems like warrior102 isn't quite as interested in watching this video as he claimed he was!  I guess I would be reticent too, if I had MY foot down my throat up to the kneecap and stood to lose ten grand for my foolishness.  He'd better hurry up... my country club fee is due pretty soon and Momma loves her golf and tennis!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

Warrior102 is a coward?


----------



## asterism (Sep 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Then you condemn yourself, Ms. Newby, for you don't know me.
> 
> All of those pioneers had friendship and kinship framerworks within which they worked, by the way.  Yeah, individual and community, Ms. Newby.



None of that forced on them from Washington (or London) though.

The ideals of community are fully in line with Republicans wanting less government interference.  No Republicans and few Libertarians want no government.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 6, 2012)

What are you talking about.  After Texas became a state, the feds got right behind forcing and protecting and directing the settlement west.  Government involvement (not interference, for heaven's sake) was absolutely critical for protecting expansion, building railroads and other infrastructure, mapping and surveying.  In what imaginary world do you live?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Warrior102 is a coward?



Well.. I wouldn't know about that, but it clearly looks like he is a little bit frightened to put his money where his mouth is.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 6, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I have never made a video but I will try to do so in the next few days to show me holding my ID card and then showing the rank section for you all to see.
> ...



you've been online a couple of times since the video aired, so it seems as if you have slipped back slightly from the edge of your seat.... more like furtively scurried out of the theater altogether with your yellow tail tucked in under your yellow belly.

I suppose it's because you realize that you totally fucked up, and now look like a complete moron who is not only a WELCHER, but most likely a FELCHER as well.  

How does it feel, Warrior102, to have your face rubbed in your own excrement?  Sniff it in... enjoy the aroma. You owe me ten thousand dollars and until you cough it up, you will be a dishonorable pathetic excuse for a man.  

Why am I not surprised?

I wasn't sure, but, deep in the back of my mind, I entertained the possibility that you really were a man devoid of honor.  It seems now that my worst suspicions of you were fully justified.

I only wonder if any of your fellow conservatives, who might actually HAVE some sense of honor and dignity, will publicly castigate you for your lack of those same qualities?

Who knows, they might surprise me where you certainly did not.


----------



## IGetItAlready (Sep 6, 2012)

Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Ms. Newby, you hit it right on the nail.  You simply cannot comprehend different ways of doing things.  Obama has been less a dictator than Bush, and I am hoping that Romney will be less of one than Obama.  And I hope that you realize your are an individual within and, eventually, dependent on the community.
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Have you ever thought those Republican presidents were good ones and got the job done? It hasn't always been one party trying to kill the other party, until Pelosi became speaker of the house.,


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



Holy shit, now you teabilly fucksticks are blaming Pelosi.  Damn, that's funny...


----------



## candycorn (Sep 7, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You get the feeling that the Romney supporters are running out of things to be pissed off about?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 7, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Your side went all in on the attack when you lost the House and Senate in 1994.
Your side created the divisiveness in Washington we see now. 
Obama has intensified it even further. 
Barack Obama is the most divisive figure ever to occupy the Oval office.
He claimed he would unify the nation, make friends with unfriendly nations, bring our allies closer, etc. Obama has done the opposite.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 7, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



We're not pissed off. We're concentrating on removing the current occupant in the White House.
Obama had his chance to accomplish what he promised to do. He failed.
And the blame goes nowhere else. It's not Bush's fault. It is not obstruction from the GOP. None of that stuff. Obama had two years of friendly politicians in the House and Senate. Crickets.
Obama's problem was he tried to drag the country to the left too fast and much too far.
Once again, this nation is and always will be socially moderate and fiscally conservative.
There is no way one can get people to work with them if their ideas are diametrically opposed to the people with whom they are trying to work.
Obama let his enormous ego guide him. 
"God dammit!!! I am the President of the United States. Why won't these people just do what I tell them to do?!!!!"
That about sums up Obama.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



While I agree that Warrior should come back and apologize to you, your words here are not the words of a gentleman either. No reason to be as nasty as you felt he was being towards you.  Who's the better man really if you get down into the mud with him?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



When you moved out of the US , you lost your right to an opinion.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> While I agree that Warrior should come back and apologize to you, your words here are not the words of a gentleman either. No reason to be as nasty as you felt he was being towards you.  Who's the better man really if you get down into the mud with him?



I could give a damn whether he "apologizes" to me.  He made a bet.  He owes me money.  If he doesn't pay up he's a welcher.  If I had lost a bet with him, I would have honored my debts.  Because being a true gentleman has much less to do with words than it does actions.  As  a gentleman, if I say I am going to do something, I do it.  If I tell someone I am going to be somewhere at a certain time, I'm there, and on time.  If I make an agreement to purchase something, I buy it.  If I agree to loan someone money, I loan it.  If I enter into a wager with someone and I lose, I pay the agreed upon amount.  I wonder how many times Warrior102 could go to Atlantic City and gamble at casinos there and then blithely walk away without paying before he had his knees broken?  Until he pays me what he owes me, he's a welcher and deserves the scorn of EVERYONE on here.  I wonder if he'll get any?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> When you moved out of the US , you lost your right to an opinion.



That's interesting that you would say that.  There are plenty of expatriates living in Mexico... a large portion of them retired military, and a significant portion of them are republicans.  Most all of the expats I know still do have strong opinions about our homeland and most all of them - myself included - are quite glad that the USA does not see it as you do.  I will be casting my vote via absentee ballot, as will most expats here, and sending it back to the states via diplomatic pouch.  I not only have a right to an opinion, I have a right to express that opinion in the most meaningful way - by voting.
I bet that just pisses you off, doesn't it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Exactly and to the point. Keeps me from having to respond to the dumb ass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > When you moved out of the US , you lost your right to an opinion.
> ...




In your video you gave some information on yourself  about being some what well off. How can you support a president who wants to destroy the system that helped you achieve the wealth you have? If obama was president 20 years ago you would not have the wealth you have now.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Have you ever thought those Republican presidents were good ones and got the job done? It hasn't always been one party trying to kill the other party, until Pelosi became speaker of the house.,



As a matter of fact, I had a great deal of admiration for Eisenhower, and Ford, and Bush Senior.  I begrudgingly developed a little for Reagan even though I disagreed completely with him on nearly every issue.  And I would agree with you that it hasn't always been one party trying to kill the other. but I would disagree that it started with Pelosi.  I think you can trace the beginnings of that uber-patisanship all the way back to Watergate.  Even though Reagan was indeed able to work with Tip O'Neil, the two parties were already gunning for one another... and the Clinton whitewater witch hunt impeachment debacle just kicked the whole grudge match into high gear where it has been ever since.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



He has his, he's not parting with it to 'help' those not as 'blessed' either, so screw anyone else who wants the freedom and liberty to achieve.  That's how I see it.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In your video you gave some information on yourself  about being some what well off. How can you support a president who wants to destroy the system that helped you achieve the wealth you have? If obama was president 20 years ago you would not have the wealth you have now.


  I don't think I said anything about my net worth.  I said I was renting a home in Mexico and that I was remodeling another.  And I disagree with your assessment. I retired from the military nearly 20 years ago.  that income is untouchable.  My post military careers would have been similar as well and the retirement income from them would be there regardless.  The stock market, as you know, has historically done much better during democratic administrations than it has in republican ones, so, maybe my investment portfolio would be even larger now.   I also don't believe that Obama wants to destroy anything.  I think that is just the red meat phraseology that the right feeds its members to get them riled up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Yes  he's a self proclaimed ex patriot living in another country and boasting about casting his absentee ballot. He may have served his country but now he's doing it a dis-service.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> He has his, he's not parting with it to 'help' those not as 'blessed' either, so screw anyone else who wants the freedom and liberty to achieve.  That's how I see it.



your envy is showing.  As I said earlier, I tithe to my church and I donate heavily to charity and I would not be upset if my tax rates were increased.  I certainly don't want to screw anyone else... I highly encourage you or anyone else who wants to achieve what I have achieved to indeed go down to your Navy recruiter and sign up. Earn a retirement.  Go get another job after you hang up your uniform and work long enough to retire from that one as well.  Save every penny you can... just like I did.  Go for it.  Move to Mexico... have a glass of tequila.  relax.  you will have earned it.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes  he's a self proclaimed ex patriot living in another country and boasting about casting his absentee ballot. He may have served his country but now he's doing it a dis-service.



that is not true.  there are many expatriates living in Mexico... many of them retired military... most of THEM republicans.  They served their country.  They earn their income in the US.  They pay taxes to the US.  How is that doing it a disservice?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > In your video you gave some information on yourself  about being some what well off. How can you support a president who wants to destroy the system that helped you achieve the wealth you have? If obama was president 20 years ago you would not have the wealth you have now.
> ...





> I don't think I said anything about my net worth.



Nor did I, I just repeated what you said from memory 



> And I disagree with your assessment. I retired from the military nearly 20 years ago.  that income is untouchable.



Can you be so sure that if obama had been president that it would be untouchable? Rules can be changed. The rules in placed before obama now would not have been in place to protect your wealth, if obama would have been president 20 years ago.




> The stock market, as you know, has historically done much better during democratic administrations than it has in republican ones, so, maybe my investment portfolio would be even larger now.



OH the stock market is not a good gage to to show a healthy economy.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > He has his, he's not parting with it to 'help' those not as 'blessed' either, so screw anyone else who wants the freedom and liberty to achieve.  That's how I see it.
> ...



Envy?     I don't think so.  I can have no respect for someone that holds the political views that you do while you sit in luxury in a different, much poorer country.  You support heavy taxation and Marxist principles, yet like all of the other scum in the democrat party, who've all made their wealth off of capitalism and corporate profits, you sit there and demagogue the basic American principles of a small government and a free people.

Right, you earned it.  You were free to earn it, it wasn't stolen from you by a montrous government in so much debt that it brinks on the verge of collapse.  You just admited that anyone can achieve the "American dream", so quit making excuses about how people are 'held back' to support your policy of looting everyone else.  All the looting does is give government more and more power over certain sections of hte population while they sit there and convince all those with money are 'evil'.  Your own party thinks you're 'evil', but I guess you're only evil if you're a successful and wealthy conservative, huh?   How anyone can live with such hypocrisy in their life is sad.  So, no, I don't envy you your existence, you can keep it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes  he's a self proclaimed ex patriot living in another country and boasting about casting his absentee ballot. He may have served his country but now he's doing it a dis-service.
> ...



It's a dis service that you can't live in a country but will cast your vote for a system and not live in that system yourself. And yes you did say their are ex patriots living in Mexico, and you are supposed to one yourself.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yeah, it's much cheaper to live in a poor country like Mexico, Americans can live like kings down there.  Why live up here with the mess that his party has made and pay out the ass for food and gas??  They daily demonize corporations and profits, they move further left with every speech they make.  Yet those corporations and profits are what keep us all employed and allow us to have a 401K for retirement in future years.  Do you support the government banning corporate profit, ex?  Is it 'evil'?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



The market is only evil tp some who are not reaping the benefits from the profits it makes.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



there is a difference between being an expatriate and being an ex-patriot.  I am the former, I will never be the latter.  And of course I COULD live in America... I just happen to enjoy the climate here.  My income is all earned in America and I pay taxes on every penny of it... that alone gives me the right to continue to exercise my right to vote on how that tax money is spent.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



of course I do not support the government banning corporate profit.  I know of no one who does. That is a ridiculous statement.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Nowhere in my video did I ever claim to be "well off".  I am a military retiree with other earned retirement income sources and, after my heart attack in '06, my wife and I decided it was not wise to put off living an adventurous life.  And I can't be sure about anything.... and neither can you.  But I would suggest that if the country reneged in its agreement with career servicemen and women, we really wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

Hey Ex - After viewing your video today, I must give you the benefit of the doubt that you are possibly a retired 0-5.  In today&#8217;s world, it&#8217;s amazing what one what can do with Photoshop, lamination, and duct tape. Not knowing you personally, I don&#8217;t know if this is the case with you or not, but you put a lot of effort into it, so I apologize for challenging your original assertion that you had achieved the rank you claim. You may have. So, in the future, I will respect you for that alleged accomplishment.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...





> there is a difference between being an expatriate and being an ex-patriot.


I don't see any difference, you vote but will not live in the system you vote for



> I will never be the latter.  And of course I COULD live in America... I just happen to enjoy the climate here.


Right it's the climate. 



> My income is all earned in America and I pay taxes on every penny of it



And the man you say you support would destroy the system you achieved your wealth under, you support him will vote for him but will not live in the country he's president of, and expect others Americans do live under the conditions obama will make.? I call that a dis service


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Hey Ex - After viewing your video today, I must give you the benefit of the doubt that you are possibly a retired 0-5.  In todays world, its amazing what one what can do with Photoshop, lamination, and duct tape. Not knowing you personally, I dont know if this is the case with you or not, but you put a lot of effort into it, so I apologize for challenging your original assertion that you had achieved the rank you claim. You may have. So, in the future, I will respect you for that alleged accomplishment.



Warrior, In my opinion for what it's worth, he's legit but I don't care to much for his ex-patriot views.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I support taxation at a MUCH lower level for wealthy folks than existed under Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I.  I do not support "marxist principles" in any way shape or form.  Lie I said, I am not a "I got mine, screw you" sort of guy.  I tithe and I give extensively to charity both in the US and in Mexico... AND I pay my taxes and would willingly pay more if Uncle Sam asked me to.  ANd please show me where I ever made excuses about how people are held back to support anything.  Quit putting words in my mouth.  Marxist principles!  HA  I doubt you've ever read a word written by Marx.  I, on the other hand, read them all in college and am quite sure I espouse none of his principles whatsoever.  With the exception of, possibly, progressive income tax, which every president since Wilson has supported, and free public education... which I think is a fairly commonly held belief throughout America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Maybe the country club membership comment was made in jest?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Hey Ex - After viewing your video today, I must give you the benefit of the doubt that you are possibly a retired 0-5.  In todays world, its amazing what one what can do with Photoshop, lamination, and duct tape. Not knowing you personally, I dont know if this is the case with you or not, but you put a lot of effort into it, so I apologize for challenging your original assertion that you had achieved the rank you claim. You may have. So, in the future, I will respect you for that alleged accomplishment.



You apology means absolutely nothing to me.  Pay me the money you owe me.  welcher.  If you didn't intend to honor your wager, you ought not to have made it.  period.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


If all of this is true take those political blinders off open your eyes and see obama for what he is, get past that D letter next to his political affiliation


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If all of this is true take those political blinders off open your eyes and see obama for what he is, get past that D letter next to his political affiliation



I refer you to the OP.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > If all of this is true take those political blinders off open your eyes and see obama for what he is, get past that D letter next to his political affiliation
> ...



And I will refer you to my dis service post too you that I had made.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> And the man you say you support would destroy the system you achieved your wealth under, you support him will vote for him but will not live in the country he's president of, and expect others Americans do live under the conditions obama will make.? I call that a dis service



your views of what Obama would do or wants to do are not shared by me... sorry.  I served my country.  I have earned the right to live anywhere I choose, and I certainly reserve the right to live in America at any point in the future.  I pay my taxes.  I have a right to say how those taxes are spent.  You can call it anything you damned well please.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> You apology means absolutely nothing to me.  Pay me the money you owe me.  welcher.  If you didn't intend to honor your wager, you ought not to have made it.  period.



Apology has been issued. Whether you choose to accept it, thats your choice. You didnt prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt who you claim to be, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt for the effort you put into your vignette. Since this is the case, it would seem you lost any bets made. So pay up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > And the man you say you support would destroy the system you achieved your wealth under, you support him will vote for him but will not live in the country he's president of, and expect others Americans do live under the conditions obama will make.? I call that a dis service
> ...


Take those blinders off listen to what obama has said  and you will see he's not what you think he is.
You must listen to what he says not just hear what he says


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



believing in the platform and goals of the democratic party is not synonymous with doing a disservice to the country, regardless of your opinion of that party.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > You apology means absolutely nothing to me.  Pay me the money you owe me.  welcher.  If you didn't intend to honor your wager, you ought not to have made it.  period.
> ...



I showed you my ID card on a video.  You claimed that you would pay if I did so.  welcher.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Would you be kind enough to tell us how supporting the most corrupt admin in our history is good for the country?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



When the platform of the democratic party will destroy the venue that caused you to gain your wealth and you will vote for that abut will not live in the system you vote for is a dis service to those who do live in that system


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> again... you didn't answer my question.  Will you pay me $10,000 if I can show you I achieved the rank of O-5?  yes or no?





> Sure - post away.



pay up, welcher


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



and if ever the democratic party platform set out to destroy America, I would change parties.  We disagree about that, I am afraid.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I disagree with your premise.  sorry.  I think that Grant, Harding, and Nixon ALL had very corrupt administrations.  Obama's? not so much.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



please.  I don't need instructions on how to listen from you.  I would never even think of telling YOU how to listen.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 7, 2012)

You vote for Obamination because you're stupid or you're evil (you either don't care or don't know):

Obamination is a black racist.
Obamination supports any term of abortion.
Obamination supports illegals undermining our society.
Obamination is spending us into oblivion on purpose.
Obamination wants to even the playing field for all with socialism.
Obamination doesn't care if high taxes costs you your job.
Obamination plays more golf than working with his jobs team.
Obamination has broken Federal laws with F&F, classified leaks, Solyndra, etc.
Obamination wants the US military to be gutted. 
Obamination doesn't give a crap if Iran gets nukes.
Obamination has islamic tendencies/biases from his childhood religion.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

Hey - if I post a video of me sitting pool side in the Hotel Del Coronado&#8217;s garden flashing an ID card claiming to be a retired four-star living in France who&#8217;s ski-chalet is undergoing renovation, would that be proof enough for you that I am who I say I am?  

Pay up, welcher.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Hey - if I post a video of me sitting pool side in the Hotel Del Coronados garden flashing an ID card claiming to be a retired four-star living in France whos ski-chalet is undergoing renovation, would that be proof enough for you that I am who I say I am?


  I have no idea.  I never heard you claim to be a four-star living in France.  I probably would have doubted it.  But then, I never made a bet with you where you asked if you showed such an ID card, would I pay you 10 grand.  You did, however, make such a bet with me.  I asked you if I showed you a video of my ID card if you would honor your bet and you reply was, "SURE. POST AWAY".  I did.  I took my macbook out by the pool and I made a simple little youtube video that clearly showed my ID card with MY picture clearly on it and MY rank of CDR/O-5 clearly displayed just as you asked me to.  I had no reason to expect you were not an honorable gentleman and I had every reason to expect you would honor your gambling losses... just like if we were sitting at a poker table and you went all in on trip aces only to have me turn up with a straight flush and beat your hand.  It's time to pay up.


----------



## GoneBezerk (Sep 7, 2012)

You made it to O-5 in the Navy? You must've been the ship fluffer to get good annual fintness reports as you say in the Navy. 

Let me guess, you're a Democrap since you like men, maybe boys too. You are white and feel guilty minorities aren't as well off in life, you want to even the playing field now that you have a retirement. 

Throw in you're an idiot on national security, economic and foreign policy issues. 



expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey - if I post a video of me sitting pool side in the Hotel Del Coronado&#8217;s garden flashing an ID card claiming to be a retired four-star living in France who&#8217;s ski-chalet is undergoing renovation, would that be proof enough for you that I am who I say I am?
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You aren't listening to what obama is saying if what you said about yourself is true.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey - if I post a video of me sitting pool side in the Hotel Del Coronados garden flashing an ID card claiming to be a retired four-star living in France whos ski-chalet is undergoing renovation, would that be proof enough for you that I am who I say I am?
> ...



(God, it's like talking to an idiot) I used the term sure as in yeah sure, you are what you claim to be.  How you construed that to mean I accepted your idiotic challenge is beyond comprehensible.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I disagree.

Drug smuggling, gun running for the sole intent of further restrictions on rights. Denying those rights. Money laundering, loan fraud etc.....Lets not forget murder.

Name one admin that racked up over ten thousand felonies like this one.....

The count is elusive.  But it easily tops 10k felonies.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey - if I post a video of me sitting pool side in the Hotel Del Coronados garden flashing an ID card claiming to be a retired four-star living in France whos ski-chalet is undergoing renovation, would that be proof enough for you that I am who I say I am?
> ...



It took you a while to come up with that video for someone as tech savvy as you seem to be, so that adds a little to the pessimism I think.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> It took you a while to come up with that video for someone as tech savvy as you seem to be, so that adds a little to the pessimism I think.



I am wondering if I should upload his link/vignette to the USNA Facebook alum webpage for comment.

Thoughts??


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > It took you a while to come up with that video for someone as tech savvy as you seem to be, so that adds a little to the pessimism I think.
> ...



Dont................On another board I looked up another posters link.


I had no idea that people were that sexually freaky.

I dont want to know..........


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Listen NOT to what a democrat says. Pay close attention to what he does.
Usually two different things. The doing always worse than the saying.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



what have I ever done that would give you the idea that I was "tech savvy"?  I had a PGA tour event down here I attended one day.. and then, the next, I opened up my youtube account and the next, I finally figured out how to use iMovie to make a video.  Are you REALLY suggesting that I somehow FORGED a US Military Retired ID card, had my picture added to it... clearly a picture where I weighed more than I do today... and then showed it to you all?  Really?  Can you honestly say that with a straight face?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...




(god... it's like talking to a cheap welcher who makes a bet and then doesn't pay up)  I asked the following question:

*"Will you pay me $10,000 if I can show you I achieved the rank of O-5? yes or no?"*

your reply to that question was: * "Sure - Post away"*

The waiter at the fancy restaurant asks you, "Will you pay the price as shown on the menu if I bring you this expensive bottle of wine?" and you reply, "Sure - bring it on".  Most honorable and honest people would suggest that you have obligated yourself to pay the price for the wine.  I guess "warriors" like you don't really operate with any sense of honor or honesty.  Who knew?

So... I DID show you that I had achieved the rank of O-5.  Pay up.  Your father should have taught you that it is not very manly to make a bet and then not pay up when you lose. If you had no intention of paying, you should never have entered into the wager to begin with.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

I think I will cruise over to Facebook later


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> I think I will cruise over to Facebook later



maybe cruising over to your bank and moving 10Gs from your savings account to your checking account would be more appropriate at this moment, doncha think?  welcher?

"Will you pay me $10,000 if I can show you I achieved the rank of O-5? yes or no?"

 "Sure - Post away"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2012)

Somebody messed up the quotes so let's get them right.

Newby wants to pretend that community and individualism did not go hand in hand.  Families and friends did the settlement thing in parnter with kinship and friendship frameworks.

They brought government with them to Jamestown, Plymouth, Salem, and so on.

Government followed them into the frontier.  After the Republic of Texas entered the Union, the federal government was very involved with trail making, security, mapping, surveying, defeating Mexicans and Indians, financing the building of railroads, embracing and help with the building of telegraph and telephone networks, hydro enginering and water deveopment and irrigantion networks, and so forth and so on.

Newby is displaying the ignorance of someone at the 6th grade level about how this country developed.



> Me: Ms. Newby, you hit it right on the nail. You simply cannot comprehend different ways of doing things. Obama has been less a dictator than Bush, and I am hoping that Romney will be less of one than Obama. And I hope that you realize your are an individual within and, eventually, dependent on the community.  We are a collection of individuals and community, hopefully working for the better.






> Newby:  Yeah, all those pioneers who forged west and lived on their own without anyone for miles, no laws, no civilization, no nothing.. really needed 'big brother' to help them along. Those people built this country. Are you seriously implying that no one could survive without society to help them along? You know, prior to several hundred years ago, people did exist without 'society' helping them. There was no welfare, grocery store, doctor, etc.. People grew their own food, hunted for it, made their own clothes, all without government help!! Brush up on history.
> 
> By the way, you really don't know anything about me, Jakey, so your presumptions about what I think are just a bit off the mark.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Somebody messed up the quotes so let's get them right.
> 
> Newby wants to pretend that community and individualism did not go hand in hand.  Families and friends did the settlement thing in parnter with kinship and friendship frameworks.
> 
> ...



Individualism and an overbearing, morally bankrupted, intrusive, and corrupt government do not go together.  I'd be damn happy to go back to the government that our founders started, I'm all for it.  Would you be?  I'm guessing not.  

But, you notice how I ask you questions and give you a chance to give your view, questions which you never, ever answer.  Only morally bankrupt people have to go around assigning others views to them while never ever taking a stance on one damn thing they open their mouths to espouse about.  Get a life, Jakey.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You appeared rather tech savvy in your video, just an observation.   Forged ID in Mexico?  If you research what one looks like, I'm guessing it's probably not that hard to come by if you know the right people.  I give you the benefit of the doubt tho, not that it matters one way or the other for me.  Your political views are certainly not alligned with 99% of your military peers, and that's all that really matters.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I am going to make a wager on a Tuesday, research what a retired military ID looks like... have one forged ... get an old picture of myself and have the whole thing laminated and posted on Youtube on Thursday?  whatever.

I somehow knew that all warrior102's butt buddies would rally around him.  No big surprise  there.  Yuur cohort is a welcher... how do folks on your side of the aisle view THEM?  Obviously, with high regard.  

pathetic.

And I'd like a link from you that confirms the 99% of the military not being democratic... or admit that you pulled that number out of your oft explored ass.


----------



## Newby (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



An officer and a gentleman, right?  Hopefully you don't talk to the women in your family this way.  Leftists always show their true colors eventually.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You can do anything on a computer hooked up to the internet in minutes if your computer smart. Hell you can even make a functioning firearm with a 3D copier


----------



## ecinicola (Sep 7, 2012)

those of you that would vote for this Muslim again, are going to cause all of us to suffer, and you will also suffer.    I can't understand anyone wanting to reelect this Muslim who never should have been elected the first time.  Haven't you people got the picture yet????????

Obama Admits He Is A Muslim - YouTube


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> "Sure - Post away"



Glad you approve - 

Thanks !!


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I am going to make a wager on a Tuesday, research what a retired military ID looks like... have one forged ....



Sure ya are...

Go for it dicksucker. 

Between shots of Tequila.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



gosh...from the guy who showed me the youtube video and suggested that I use that method to prove my case... and from the same guy whose first response was "nice video", I certainly didn't expect THAT.  I guess I am not surprised that warrior102 reneged on his bet... or that others have come to his defense... I guess I just didn't think YOU would be one of them.  Wow.  The guy makes a straight up bet.  I show him the evidence, and he backs out... and you are sitting there justifying and rationalizing that sort of behavior.  wow.  just wow.


----------



## Liability (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Stop wetting yourself.

Yeah yeah.  It LOOKED to you like a wager had been accepted.

But he says it wasn't.  And there is a view of what he posted that is consistent with sarcasm.

So stop braying and crying over a miscommunication on the interwebz.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I just pointed you in the right direction you did however do a great job on the video. Just like an expert would do.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Liability said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


  So... if I say, "hey, if I mow your lawn, will you pay me $5" and you reply : "sure. go for it"... that isn't a verbal contract?

Look... I had a pretty good idea going into this bet that this guy was going to welch on it.  I was, however, hoping that, regardless of party affiliation on here, that people would see that for what it was and castigate him for it.  silly me.  

now wipe that warrior jizz off your chin and move on.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



wow.  just wow.  I never thought you would approve of that sort of welching behavior.  that surprises me.


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Wow, just wow!

What are you ?

A fucking cheerleader?

Is Knarley in your vocabulary too ?

Dude -- you are creepy and odd. 

Seriously.

Have a nice night.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I've done my part I told warrior you were legit or appeared so, now there is a second issue here. But as I said things do look like you're what you said you were,

However, the second issue is was there an actual bet? I haven't been following the discussion between you two just came in it between the he said he said basic discussion board post. If there was a bet then yes warrior should hold to his word.

I will say this when warrior said he will wait for the video was not accepting the bet.
Was there an actual agreement between you both?


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > It took you a while to come up with that video for someone as tech savvy as you seem to be, so that adds a little to the pessimism I think.
> ...



So I take it no objections to forwarding this to the Class of '72 for their Opening General Session breakfast video??

Last chance for comments

Thanks.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



my question to him posed in post #306... his answer to that question is in post #309.

You tell me.


----------



## NLT (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Just make a PDF of your DD214 and white out the name and SSN. You want everyone here to believe your a retired o-what?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

NLT said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Warrior102 said:
> ...



you obviously have not been following along.  if you really want to contribute, go back and read the thread and then respond.  thank you.


----------



## LilOlLady (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



WE just do the simple arithmatic that right wing supporter cannot do.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



exactly.  wasn't Clinton awesome the other night? Biden and Obama too!


----------



## Liability (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Willing useful idiots tend to lap up their own special self-serving propaganda.

So, yeah.  They were just great.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 7, 2012)

You, who are truly in love with America and who is not morally bankrupt, still have no clue at all, do you?  You want to return to a government that allowed slavery, forbid female voting, let men keep their wives' or daughters' wages, that permitted child labor?

I have been ever clear on what I think.  Elect Romney.  Clear out the neo-con pricks who led us into Iraq, who sold our troops and the Afghanis and the American people, who allow businesses to rape and pillage the economy and the workers.  Elect a businessman, kick the far right out of the party, force the Dem minority to work with us -- correct the errors of the last twelve years.





Newby said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody messed up the quotes so let's get them right.
> ...


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 7, 2012)

Done.


How do I download or save a YouTube video to my computer?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

Warrior102 said:


> Done.
> 
> 
> How do I download or save a YouTube video to my computer?



when will you be stopping by your bank?  I wouldn't imagine you'd be stupid enough to keep 10 grand in your checking account, but then, I wouldn't have imagined you'd be stupid enough to make such a ridiculous wager.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> again... you didn't answer my question.  Will you pay me $10,000 if I can show you I achieved the rank of O-5?  yes or no?





Warrior102 said:


> Sure - post away.



pretty cut and dried.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

and it's kind of creepy to download a video of a guy sitting next to a pool handing your ass to you.  DIfferent strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 7, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



Liberals cannot do even the simplest arithmetic. True story.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

look.  after a glass of Herradura Anejo, and a nice dinner cooked on the grill with my wife, I am feeling fairly mellow.  And even though I know you did enter into a bet with me that I won, I realize that...it's the freakin' internet, and it's a message board and maybe we should just shake hands and put this behind us.  You know I made O-5... I know I made O-5.  You disagree with my politics, and I disagree with yours.  I got a lot of stuff on my plate trying to learn a new language and build a home at the same time.  I don't have a lot of time to flail around with this.  Let's put this behind us. I will refrain from insulting you going forward if you refrain from insulting me.  Deal?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

and just so you know...there is no opening general session breakfast... and really no place for a video of anything.  We've got a mixer on Friday night, a tailgater on Saturday before the game, and a memorial service on Sunday where we honor our classmates who have passed away. That's about it.  My company-mates and our spouses are getting together on Saturday morning for breakfast, but it is very informal and there will not be any video equipment available, but, knowing those guys, they'd get a big hoot out of my first youtube foray.  If there was a way to get a projector, I'd actually think about showing it to them myself.  It would make for great breakfast giggles.


----------



## PixieStix (Sep 7, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



If agreeing philosophically with someone gets one a job, I would be concerned for the business, what about a resume'?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 7, 2012)

PixieStix said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> ...



if the resume of the only other candidate for the job, and the PHILOSOPHY of the only other candidate for the job was against everything you believed in, those concerns would be relatively meaningless, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## tjvh (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> look.  after a glass of Herradura Anejo, and a nice dinner cooked on the grill with my wife, I am feeling fairly mellow.  And even though I know you did enter into a bet with me that I won, I realize that...it's the freakin' internet, and it's a message board and maybe we should just shake hands and put this behind us.  You know I made O-5... I know I made O-5.  You disagree with my politics, and I disagree with yours.  I got a lot of stuff on my plate trying to learn a new language and build a home at the same time.  I don't have a lot of time to flail around with this.  Let's put this behind us. I will refrain from insulting you going forward if you refrain from insulting me.  Deal?



Well expatriate... I must admit your video was *a bit over the top*.  But in all fairness I accept that you were what you claimed to be, even though your political affiliation has me completely *baffled*... I know it has been quite some time since you left the Navy... My question is, did you have the same ideologies you have *now* when you left the Military, or was your Liberal lunacy something that just sort of grew upon you over time? Not trying to be an ass, but most of the O-5/O-6 crowd I have had the honor to know over the years seemed much more in tune with individual achievement, and personal responsibility (see *my* previous post -many posts back) than you seem to demonstrate here on USMB. Whatever the rationale for your Liberal mindset I have to say you are one seriously puzzling SOB.


----------



## P@triot (Sep 8, 2012)

Because the Communist Dictator Hugo Chavez is?!? 

*Hugo Chavez Endorses Obama*

Hugo Chavez Endorses Obama: Will the White House Strike Back?

This says it all folks. This man has alienated our allies and while aligning himself with the worst dictators in the world. If Hugo Chavez supports you (like he does Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), you know you are one communist dirt-bag.


----------



## MikeK (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.


I voted for Obama and he's been a continuing disappointment.  Lots of spoken and implied promises but little fulfillment.  But he's been a major improvement over the malicious plutocrat he replaced and compared with Romney he is by far the lesser of two evils.  So I'll vote for him again -- mainly to avoid a Romney presidency, which would be a disaster for what is left of the middle class.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

tjvh said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > look.  after a glass of Herradura Anejo, and a nice dinner cooked on the grill with my wife, I am feeling fairly mellow.  And even though I know you did enter into a bet with me that I won, I realize that...it's the freakin' internet, and it's a message board and maybe we should just shake hands and put this behind us.  You know I made O-5... I know I made O-5.  You disagree with my politics, and I disagree with yours.  I got a lot of stuff on my plate trying to learn a new language and build a home at the same time.  I don't have a lot of time to flail around with this.  Let's put this behind us. I will refrain from insulting you going forward if you refrain from insulting me.  Deal?
> ...



I don't know where I have ever expressed anything that would suggest that I do not highly value personal responsibility and individual achievement because I certainly do.  I just happen to believe that there are many people out there who are not blessed with the intellect or ability to do much in our society.  I served with a good number of honest, hardworking sailors for whom tasks that you and I can do with one half of our brain tied behind our backs were insurmountable.  They were hard workers.  They just didn't have the mental horsepower to do hard things.  They could chip paint or maintain a windlass if you showed them how, but correctly updating the month maintenance schedule and doing any sort of paperwork was absolutely beyond them.  While my wife went to school, she was a waitress, and worked with lots and lots of waitresses and busboys and career dishwashers and fry cooks that were much the same way.  They worked hard... harder work and longer work than most of us have ever had to do for minimum wage, or in the case of the waitresses, for half of minimum wage.  The list goes on and on.  I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system.  I don't believe that any mother should die or bankrupt her family simply because she gets ill.  I realize that many on the right do not share those beliefs, and that is what our political dialog is all about.

In answer to your question, I grew up in a family of liberal democrats.  My grandfather was a democrat even as he was on the board of directors of a fortune 500 company.  My father was a successful lawyer, lifelong democrat, and, for a time, an Illinois state legislator and a friend and compatriot of Adlai Stevenson.  I came by my liberal outlook from the values that my parents instilled in me.  They also set very high standards for all four of their children, and we all have gone to college, and graduate school.  Three of the four of us are just as liberal as our parents, but, much like Michael J. Fox in Family Ties, my kid brother is the only conservative republican in the family.  We still love him dearly, however, and, as a father, he is my role model on how to be a great dad.

While in the service, I knew many democrats among the officer corps.  We were certainly outnumbered by republicans, but not overwhelmingly so.  And, in life, I am a much more moderate democrat on lots of issues than this forum affords me the opportunity to show.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



* I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *

That's an excellent point. The best thing we can do for them is to stop importing millions of low skilled workers every year to compete with them and drive down their wages. 
I don't know if President Romney will seal the borders, but I know President Obama wants to increase the number of low skilled immigrants and give them citizenship. I don't know how voting for that will improve their situation, maybe you could explain it?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *
> 
> That's an excellent point. The best thing we can do for them is to stop importing millions of low skilled workers every year to compete with them and drive down their wages.
> I don't know if President Romney will seal the borders, but I know President Obama wants to increase the number of low skilled immigrants and give them citizenship. I don't know how voting for that will improve their situation, maybe you could explain it?



I happen to think it is silly to suggest that there are people in America standing in line at the farms in California wanting jobs picking vegetables but they are turned away by the owners because they would rather hire illegal immigrants instead.  And I wonder who the right would blame for the exploding food costs if all the illegal immigrant pickers went away and the farmers were forced to pay US minimum wage to US citizens to to harvest those crops?  My guess is: Obama.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *
> ...



*I happen to think it is silly to suggest that there are people in America standing in line at the farms in California wanting jobs picking vegetables *

Yeah, that is silly. Who suggested that?

*And I wonder who the right would blame for the exploding food costs if all the illegal immigrant pickers went away and the farmers were forced to pay US minimum wage to US citizens to to harvest those crops?*

If the illegals went away, the right would vote for Obama in huge numbers.
So are you in favor of sealing the borders to help the less skilled American worker?


----------



## tjvh (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *
> ...



It's called Ethanol... You know, the Liberal idea that making *fuel out of food* is sensible, and then requiring percentages of that fuel be mixed with the fuel we get from the ground.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 8, 2012)

tjvh said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ethanol mandates have caused corn prices to skyrocket. That was before the drought now affecting the Midwest.
Once again, the federal government in it's infinite wisdom has conceived an idea that they thought would ease a problem without considering the fact that they would create another one.
Liberals cannot grasp the concept of the law of unintended consequences.
The answer is NOT to do nothing. 
The answer is to plan and choose with all the facts in place.
AND to ignore the politics.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

> *I happen to think it is silly to suggest that there are people in America standing in line at the farms in California wanting jobs picking vegetables *





> Yeah, that is silly. Who suggested that?



*Why... I think that was YOU:*



> That's an excellent point. The best thing we can do for them is to stop importing millions of low skilled workers every year to *compete with them* and drive down their wages.



How is it that American workers are supposed to be "competing" with illegal immigrants if they don't even show up to actually do the competing part?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

The weirdos also ignore this part of the issue.



expatriate said:


> > *I happen to think it is silly to suggest that there are people in America standing in line at the farms in California wanting jobs picking vegetables *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You, who are truly in love with America and who is not morally bankrupt, still have no clue at all, do you?  You want to return to a government that allowed slavery, forbid female voting, let men keep their wives' or daughters' wages, that permitted child labor?
> 
> I have been ever clear on what I think.  Elect Romney.  Clear out the neo-con pricks who led us into Iraq, who sold our troops and the Afghanis and the American people, who allow businesses to rape and pillage the economy and the workers.  Elect a businessman, kick the far right out of the party, force the Dem minority to work with us -- correct the errors of the last twelve years.
> 
> ...



kick the far right out of the party, if they beg enough would you the dear brownshirt let them stay, how bout if they said, pretty please?
good grief jakie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

You are the brown shirt fascists, Stephanie, the few trying to control the many.  No, once out, out for good.

The GOP does not need your nonsense.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the brown shirt fascists, Stephanie, the few trying to control the many.  No, once out, out for good.
> 
> The GOP does not need your nonsense.



lol, then you should stay in the Democrat party..leave the Republican alone


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

No, you fascists can go and create your own brown shirt party.  You don't deserve to be Republicans.



Stephanie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You are the brown shirt fascists, Stephanie, the few trying to control the many.  No, once out, out for good.
> ...


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you fascists can go and create your own brown shirt party.  You don't deserve to be Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you aren't a Republican, so what you say matters not..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

I am a Republican, we are going to win this fall, and you fascists in the Tea Party are getting booted in the ass out of the GOP. You think Romney will spend a second's time on you once he is elected.  Why do you think the mainstream, in part, selected him.  Both Obama and you get thrown out.


----------



## westwall (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.








'Cause you have brain damage?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am a Republican, we are going to win this fall, and you fascists in the Tea Party are getting booted in the ass out of the GOP. You think Romney will spend a second's time on you once he is elected.  Why do you think the mainstream, in part, selected him.  Both Obama and you get thrown out.




you have your crystal ball out again..funny stuff


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


Liberals abhor the concept of personal responsibility.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

I know you don't want Romney to win.



Stephanie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am a Republican, we are going to win this fall, and you fascists in the Tea Party are getting booted in the ass out of the GOP. You think Romney will spend a second's time on you once he is elected.  Why do you think the mainstream, in part, selected him.  Both Obama and you get thrown out.
> ...


----------



## Warrior102 (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Let's put this behind us. I will refrain from insulting you going forward if you refrain from insulting me.  Deal?



"Sure"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

Warrior102 is such a poor loser.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *
> ...


I really think this example of farm labor is a bunch of crap.
Illegals are taking jobs in construction, in hospitality, landscaping..Heck, there are landscape companies in this area that are now hiring only bi-lingual crew foremen.
Although most have backed off on that due to anti discrimination laws. 
But the bottom line is Latinos are not just picking crops.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

Really?  Go talk to the grape growers in Georgia who would hire a cripple to come out and work, and can't get American to work at $12 per hour.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> > *I happen to think it is silly to suggest that there are people in America standing in line at the farms in California wanting jobs picking vegetables *
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Why... I think that was YOU:*

Looks like you weren't thinking at all.
Do you feel that the only illegals who work in the US are farmworkers? Really?

So, to support the low skilled American workers, are you in favor of sealing the border?
In support of sending back illegals now? Or do you want the illegals to continue moving in and depressing low skilled wages?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



and are you saying that there are American workers lining up every day next to latinos asking for those jobs in construction, hospitality, and landscaping, but business owners are putting their businesses at risk of legal action by choosing to hire illegal latinos rather than American citizens who are there asking for that same work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Are you saying that no American worker is displaced by an illegal? Seriously?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



why not avoid answering a question with a question.  Try answering mine.  That would be appropriate.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

Are you a 4th grade girl answering a question with asking a question?  Are you saying, seriously, that Americans will take these jobs?  Really?  You really have taken the kool aid.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Yes, if we sealed the border and deported millions of illegals, low skilled Americans would be lining up to take those jobs. Your turn.

To support the low skilled American workers, are you in favor of sealing the border?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Are you a 4th grade girl answering a question with asking a question?  Are you saying, seriously, that Americans will take these jobs?  Really?  You really have taken the kool aid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you claiming no low-skilled American worker is displaced by an illegal?
Talk about 4th grade thinking. LOL!


----------



## Pinocchio (Sep 8, 2012)

making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result.

Dereg is the quick way to make money but it also causes nasty boom/bust economics.

That is what bringing back the Repubs would do.

Also not facing up to problems like they don't exist is short term and really bad government.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

Pinocchio said:


> making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result.
> 
> Dereg is the quick way to make money but it also causes nasty boom/bust economics.
> 
> ...



What deregulation are you complaining about?


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * I happen to believe that our nation needs to be able - as a nation - to take care of the people who work for us but who do not have the abilities to advance very high up the ladder of our socio-economic system. *
> ...



Do you know what a green card is and for what purpose it is issued?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

I am making no claim.  You are, without any quantified evidence, Todd.

The point is you have no point at this point.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Are you a 4th grade girl answering a question with asking a question?  Are you saying, seriously, that Americans will take these jobs?  Really?  You really have taken the kool aid.
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 8, 2012)

You _are _a 4th grade girl.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pinocchio said:
> 
> 
> > making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result.
> ...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



of course I do. That doesn't change the fact that American businesses are hiring folks, and if American workers are not lining up to get those jobs at those wages, then they have no reason to bitch about some latino getting them.  And if America were REALLY serious about this issue, all they would have to do is to put some real teeth into the laws about EMPLOYING illegal immigrants and throw the CEO's of Tyson and Perdue and other employers who hire them into jail, and then you'd see the flow of illegal immigrants from south of the border dry up fast.  But NO... nobody has the stones to do THAT because the chamber of commerce doesn't WANT the flow of cheap labor to stop.  If you want to make it stop, dry up the demand, and until you do, all the fences in the world will not keep them out.  And doing THAT, instead of running around looking for the laborers and deporting them, would be a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective than the way we are approaching this today.

Ask yourself why we don't do that now.  You know the answer.  The folks who bankroll the government machine don't want us to.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



As I said in my last post, I doubt such an approach would be cost effective.  Are YOU in favor of throwing the owners and CEOs of businesses that employ illegal aliens in jail for significant jail terms?  And if not, why not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



*As I said in my last post, I doubt such an approach would be cost effective.*

Cost effective? You said we need to support lower skilled American workers.
Sealing the border and getting rid of millions of illegal will help but you don't think it's cost effective? LOL! Nice to see you were lying about your support for the workers. 

*Are YOU in favor of throwing the owners and CEOs of businesses that employ illegal aliens in jail for significant jail terms? *

Sure. Let's make E-Verify mandatory. Let's stop suing employers who fire illegals and let's seal the borders. Then if a business hires someone they know is illegal, punish them.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure. Let's make E-Verify mandatory. Let's stop suing employers who fire illegals and let's seal the borders. Then if a business hires someone they know is illegal, punish them.



now...take a guess what bigtime business group whose initials are CofC will NOT support that?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and again... my suggestion is to start throwing the CEO's of every company that INS finds illegals working at in JAIL.  NOW.  You wouldn't need to build a fence.  The demand would cease and so wold the flow of immigrants across our borders.  If there isn't work, they don't stay here. It's the reason they come in the first place.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. Let's make E-Verify mandatory. Let's stop suing employers who fire illegals and let's seal the borders. Then if a business hires someone they know is illegal, punish them.
> ...



To support the low skilled American workers, are you in favor of sealing the border?


----------



## Lakhota (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



I totally agree!  I would also add that the Republican Party is NOT the same party it used to be.  It has moved radical right and become very selfish.  I used to vote Republican as much or more than Democrat - but no more.


----------



## Listening (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies.



News Flash.....

A new discovery !!!!



expatriate said:


> The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on.



Correct again.

Except.

The GOP does not have a monolithic approach to foreign affairs.

There is no such thing as "group rights".   If they go to a group (i.e. women), they are privaleges.  BTW: noticed you guys figured out that after 40 years, women still make less than men.  And suddenly, this is an issue ?  What say we call it what it is: grandstanding.

Environmental Protection is bunk.

Combine that with Energy Policy:  Just what is yours ?  Wind & Solyndra.  Do you even understand how much energy we consume in this country ?

Social Justice => Liberal Wet Dream.



expatriate said:


> It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues.



Great.

But our moron-in-chief ran on a host of promises that he couldn't keep.  And did such a lousy job that the American People took the house away from him in historic fashion.



expatriate said:


> Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.



It's the economy stupid.

Women care less about abortion priveldeges than they do about having a job and feeding the kids they already have.



expatriate said:


> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



Yes, if your vision is a 310,000,000 people all living the same life totally dependent upon the government and really not motivated at all because that....then by all means.

Vote for Obama.

In the meantime, we will keep the house, possibly win the senate, starve Obamacare, and kill off anything else he tries to do.

Have a good time.


----------



## grunt11b (Sep 8, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



 I think people would vote for him because they are misinformed dumbasses that cannot for the life of them see the damage the man has done to the economy, the constitution and freedoms in this country. 20 years down the road alot of his voters are going to look back and think "What the fuck was I thinking?". Some of them may even kill themselves.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 8, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



no.  I am in favor of imprisoning every business owner who hires illegal immigrants.  Once you do that, you won't HAVE to seal any border, because the only reason they come here in the first place will have been eliminated.  Why won't YOU support THAT?


----------



## westwall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...







Yes, they would be except for the fact that the illegals provide a convenient permanent underclass that the employers can exploit.  Take away the illegals and the employers have to raise the wage up to an acceptable level, i.e. that minimum wage that you all are so proud of.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



and again... if you take away the work, the immigrants won't come, and if there is no work, the ones who are here will go back.  It seems like it would be much less cumbersome to simply throw business owners in jail for HIRING illegal immigrants than it would to build a wall all along our southern border.  If we were serious about this, we would do that, but we're not.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Why don't we do that now?  Don't ask me, ask Obama, since he has the exclusive power to do that and has not done it during his almost 4 years in office.  

The green card is an official card issued by the U.S. government to foreign nationals permitting them to work in the U.S.  A green card is the difference between a legal worker and an illegal worker.  Closing the borders to illegal entry is the first step. Then we can discuss how to handle those already here.

On edit:  Why doesn't  Obama require employers to use the e-verify system?  E-Verify allows businessmen to consult databases of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to check whether job applicants have the legal authorization to be hired. Could it be that the Unions and Latinos don't want it to be a federal mandate?  Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee have e-verify obligatory in their states.  There are a lot of chicken processing plants located in these states.

This:  





> Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) warned President Barack Obama on Tuesday that Latinos will not regard as &#8220;acceptable&#8221; a move to make the E-Verify system of checking prospective employees&#8217; immigration status mandatory for all U.S. firms, as urged by Republicans.



http://www.mariowire.com/2011/06/15/latinos-won’t-accept-e-verify/


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



and as  said, if the market for cheap labor dries up because employers and CEO's KNOW they will go to prison for hiring them, you wouldn't need to worry about the borders.  The illegal immigrants would stop coming and those that were here already would return.  The reason we don't do that is because American business interests do NOT want the pool of cheap labor to dry up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Why are you afraid to seal the border? Even if you throw employers in jail, an open border allows criminals and terrorists to enter freely.

Why are you afraid to seal the border, is it because you'll sound like a conservative?


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 9, 2012)

If we mechanized our fields and orchards we wouldn't need illegals to work.  But, if we mechanized, there would be no excuse for importing them.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants from flooding the labor pool with cheap labor, building a wall is not the best or most cost effective way.  Why are you so fixated on a wall and not on solving the root cause of the problem?  The problem is not criminals or terrorists, it's cheap labor.  "Terrorists and criminals" is a red herring.  If terrorists entering America is really your issue, are you proposing that we build a giant wall all along our northern border as well, or do you think that terrorists can magically only enter from the south?  And... do you think that terrorists do not know how to operate a boat???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I want to build a wall and make E-Verify mandatory.
No illegal can get a job if they can't get in the country. 
How about we give a 10 year prison term to every illegal who uses a fake ID or stolen SS number? 

So why are you afraid to seal the border?
Don't you want to help unskilled American workers?


----------



## Liability (Sep 9, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



HARSH!

How could an illegal alien VOTE if he can't have easy access to fake ID's?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



where did you ever get the idea that I am AFRAID to seal the border?  I just think it is a waste of money if stopping cheap labor is your goal.  And I notice that you continue to give a free pass to employers and you completely avoid talking about our NORTHERN border which needs a wall to keep out terrorists every bit as the southern border does.  

We KNOW that we'll never punish employers, even though that is a sure fire way to stop cheap labor, because big business funds GOP political campaigns, and republicans don't really WANT to deprive their meal tickets of the cheap labor that they devour as they maximize their profits... just like they'll never really pass anything substantive about gays or abortion for that matter... the GOP leadership just likes to talk all tough and macho about these issues to keep their gullible followers in line... oh... and since you're not a GOP leader, I guess that makes you one of their gullible followers, doesn't it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



*where did you ever get the idea that I am AFRAID to seal the border? *

From your refusal to say you support sealing the border.

Waste of money? Won't it stop criminals and terrorists too?
Free pass to employers? You must have missed my earlier post.
Yes, we should build a northern wall too.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



On edit: Why doesn't Obama require employers to use the e-verify system? E-Verify allows businessmen to consult databases of the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to check whether job applicants have the legal authorization to be hired. 

Could it be that the Unions and Latinos don't want it to be a federal mandate? Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee have e-verify obligatory in their states. There are a lot of chicken processing plants located in these states.

I guess you missed the above edit to my post.  Then again, you probably don't have a reasonable answer.  

The Obama Justice Department is responsible for the prosecution of CEO's for violating US immigration law.  Eric Holder has been too busy selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, suing several US States on behalf of the Mexican government and blocking the incorporation of e-verify to get around to doing that.

Only a fool would want four more years of this gross malfeasance.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thinking that the wall is an ineffective means of stopping cheap labor does not mean that I am AFRAID of it.  Is english your second language?

So... you think we should build the great wall of America stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the north, and from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico in the south to keep terrorists and criminals out of America when they can fly into any airport, and then can certainly board any seaworthy small craft on either the southern or northern side of our border and just cruise into our waters and come ashore at any point?

are you fucking crazy?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



do you really NOT know why the government has NOT gone after employers of illegal immigrants?  

call me a fool?  sticks and stones.... you know the rest.    looks like the latest polls show that Obama's lead is growing... my guess is that most of those folks who are still supporting him would laugh at you just like I am.


----------



## Liability (Sep 9, 2012)

expat is voting for The ONE again because 4 years of nearly unrelenting fail is not enough for some libs.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Liability said:


> expat is voting for The ONE again because 4 years of nearly unrelenting fail is not enough for some libs.



no.  because I cannot imagine R&R at the helm... because I cannot imagine the SCOTUS picks  Mittens would make, if for no other reason.

Hey, fat fuck... did you read the OP.  I laid out my reasons fairly succinctly, if you can't fucking read.... maybe you shouldn't enter into discussions like this.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



What are you talking about Republicans for?  They only control the House and have NOTHING to do with the Justice Department or Homeland Security.  Protecting our borders is the responsibility of the Executive branch, and arresting CEO's is the job of the Obama Justice Department.

Are you really that stupid or is it your blind partisan adoration of the dear leader?


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



No, I really don't know why the Obama Justice Department hasn't gone after employers of illegal immigrants.  Why don't you explain it to me, and keep in mind the Republicans only control the House of Representatives and can't arrest anyone.

Jimmy Carter was leading Ronald Reagan by 4 points in September of '80.  We all know how that turned out.


----------



## Too Tall (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Reagan inherited a far worse economy than Obama and had a nuclear USSR to defeat without firing a shot.  Why not compare Bush and Obama and see that Obama has more than doubled down on Bush's overspending.


GW Bush had a compounded Annual Growth Rate: 8.03%

Obama had a compounded Annual Growth Rate of 15.21%

National Debt by President: LBJ to Obama - TheStreet


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



what?  Reagan inherited a far worse economy than Obama?  what planet were you living on in 2008?  Better yet, were you even alive in 1980?

I think using your own data to compare presidents is completely reasonable.  Reagan at 14%... a demigod.  Obama at 15%... worst president ever?  

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



I was under the impression that the current law does not allow for hard time incarceration for business owners who employ illegal immigrants.

and keep in mind that the republicans have more than 40 senators... you do know what that means, don't you?  Do they still teach you about filibusters in high school civics class? The reason the current law does NOT allow for hard time in a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for CEO's of companies that hire illegal immigrants is that they OWN all of Washington for the most part, and one party in total.

and Mittens is no Ron "the demigod" Reagan.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

PolitiFact | Palin claims Reagan faced a worse recession than Obama


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



*So... you think we should build the great wall of America stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the north, and from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico*

Yes, because I have a problem when 20 million or more illegals just stroll into America.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > expat is voting for The ONE again because 4 years of nearly unrelenting fail is not enough for some libs.
> ...



What a douchebag...
Liberalism SUCKS. It is horrible for the country. 
Liberalism is a FAILURE of ideas.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


Where you get this shit from is a mystery.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



what are you referring to?  Is there a law where the sentencing guidelines for a conviction for hiring an illegal immigrant includes jail time?  a simple yes or no will suffice.

and if you don't think that the Chamber of Commerce is keeping it that way, you're naive.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

thereisnospoon said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



your opinion.  feel free to express it.  just don't try to pass if off as anything more than that.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



how many stroll in from Canada every year?  What would you estimate the cost of replicating the great wall of china on our northern border might be?  and then consider the cost-benefit analysis for that project!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



We don't need the Great Wall of China.
A double fence with a road between. 
Cameras and sensors.
And hey, the construction could employ American workers and improve 
the job situation for those Americans who compete with illegals for jobs.
Sounds like a win-win.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 9, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Except one did turn it around.

Fail........


----------



## expatriate (Sep 9, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



and grew the national debt by 14% per year doing it... and you guys think HE'S a god.

hahahahahahahahahahahahha


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2012)

Liability said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


So the Democrat machine has a vested interest in voting on demand without the use of ID! I'm gonna faint!


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 9, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...


Not only are Obama administration partners suing several states over passing state laws to deal with immigration in their own sovereign way, I think they went one too far when they set down a fiat against Arizona lawmen from using Homeland Security tracking on files when they need to find a criminal who is registered there. No other state has had theirs revoked, and it's not Obama's call to withhold Federal information shared with all the states from one state because he lost a lawsuit to Joe Arpaio's department.

It's sour grapes, and he's a sour president to anyone who doesn't care for his criminal use of illegal immigrants to get illegal votes for himself and the DNC.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...






No, we don't think he's a God.  And if you wish to compare debt, Obama increased the debt by how much????  Oh yeah, MORE THAN ALL THE PREVIOUS 43 COMBINED.

But hey, keep on keepin on with your complete ignoring of the facts.  You make a good expat.  Unfortunately you still get to vote.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



the fact remains... Reagan increased the debt at 14%/year and NO republican ever had a problem with that.  Obama does it at 15% and, now, republicans think that is the primary reason to condemn HIS presidency as the worst ever.  Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y???

and you're right... I do get to vote, and so do all the expats down here... and in my neck of Mexico, I don't know a single US expat who is voting for Romney.


----------



## westwall (Sep 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...








The fact remains that Obama has generated more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined.  In other words, for the historically impaired (such as you), in 4 years Obama has generated more debt than was generated in the previous 232 YEARS!

You sir, are a moron.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



so your fact is a fact and my fact is NOT a fact?  Is that what you're trying to say?
And no... I am most certainly not a moron.  I am a very smart guy and a very successful guy and I have forgotten more about politics in my life than you have ever known... but, regardless... moron?  really?  that's funny.  I am laughing all the way to the bank.  really.  I am.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 10, 2012)

and as a matter of fact, your "fact" is not a fact, but total bullshit.

PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

and westwall crawls away, having been exposed as a total liar.  

amf


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 11, 2012)

.

This reminds me of the "hate" thread, in which both "sides" are doing a lovely job of pointing out the hateful behavior of the other.

"YOUR guy increased the debt by *15%*, MY guy only increased the debt by *14%*."

Holy crap.   My cynicism is justified.

.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> This reminds me of the "hate" thread, in which both "sides" are doing a lovely job of pointing out the hateful behavior of the other.
> 
> ...



absolutely.  I think that the OP was reasonable, yet nearly every reply thereto was along the lines of "your mother wears combat boots".  

That, or pure fabrication like westwall's #591.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

Because you're a Zombie, an idiot with no common sense? Obama's 2013 budget- 1.3 trillion more to the deficit-- for a total of 7.3 billion by this President alone which is nearly HALF of the entire federal deficit, more than any President and all President's combined throughout the history of our entire country and you're voting for this limp dicked Socialist again. Pat yourself on the back.. when this economy collapses and it will, there will be a run on the banks.. Pat yourself on the back for that too lemming... you liberals hold the responsiblity.. Fools.

Obama&#8217;s Budget Forecasts $1.3 Trillion Deficit - ABC News


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Absolutely.. to the tune if re-elected after this year, 7.3 TRILLION DOLLARS.. NEARLY HALF OF THE ENTIRE DEFICIT.. These fools would follow Obama if he jumped off of a bridge.. They're Zombies, braindead fools.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



so... I guess the fact that westwall's post #591 is a complete lie means little to you?


----------



## freedombecki (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...


It is thorough idiot math omission to justify borrowing 6 trillion dollars you couldn't possibly pay back for blaming anybody for the doings of 30 years ago.

Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by this time before the election. After the election, he did precisely what his Senate voting record showed us he would do--spend the nation into oblivion without so much as a glance toward the Constitution that outlines presidential responsibilities.

By turning a strong nation into such a weak sister financially, Obama has provided for the common slaughter, and not the common defense.

Keep being a partisan idiot and you'll get us all killed, mofo.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I posted the link with the FACT of Obama's forecasted 1.3 TRILLION in added deficit for this year ALONE.. Add that to his already 6 TRILLION and you have a total fucking disaster.. You're pathetic and so are your cohorts.. YOU and your party alone, the party that Boo'd and kicked God away... deserve what you get.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



I say again:

so... I guess the fact that westwall's post #591 is a complete lie means little to you?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



What lie??? What fact?? I don't give a rat's damn about your psycho-babble whining.. What I do care about is the solvency of America's economy which is well on it's way to collapse, FACT. Your hero , who you're going to vote for once again, spends like a whore in port without any care or concern-- breaking promises he made to ALL Americans and all you can do is sit here and cry over something West said??!!! GROW THE HELL UP and own your responsibility FOOL.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



you applauded this comment:

"Obama has generated more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined. In other words, for the historically impaired (such as you), in 4 years Obama has generated more debt than was generated in the previous 232 YEARS!"

that's nowhere near accurate, but, it is clear that when Obama haters get on a roll, it's the intensity of their passion that is important, and the factual nature of their "arguments" are really not.  

Why not just make stuff up and say, "Obama has created more debt in his four years as president, than all the presidents of the United States and all the rulers of all the empires to ever grace the face of the earth or this galaxy since the very dawn of time."  That's not true either, but it really works even better with your rant, doncha think?

and again... if you really were interested in FACTS, you would know that Reagan increased the national debt by about the same annual percentage rate as Obama has... and NO republican has EVER vilified Ronnie the demigod of the GOP for spending like a *sailor* in port (whores, by the way, are always in port and aren't really known for spending all that much... sailors are - thought I'd ungarble your simile for ya!)  Why IS that?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Do you look as STOOPID as you represent yourself on here to be? It's a FACT. Obama with his proposed 2013 budget claims 7.3 TRILLION in deficit spending of the entire 17.3  (PROJECTED by his own 2013 budget ) TRILLION owed.. DO THE MATH DUMMY.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



you do the math and tell me:  is this statement, that you applauded, accurate or not:

"Obama has generated more debt than the previous 43 presidents combined. In other words, for the historically impaired (such as you), in 4 years Obama has generated more debt than was generated in the previous 232 YEARS!"

yes or no?  either answer the fucking question or not... but puhleese don't do any more of your idiotic, simile garbling, tap dancing, mmmkay?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...





I could literally list HUNDREDS of links showing that Obama has increased the deficit more than all Presidents combined but this You Tube video outlines it perfectly..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt3ac-7pNW8]Obama Has Increased US Debt More Than All Other Presidents Combined - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

I guess math really IS too hard for you.  Who knew???


PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

To add insult to injury.. MORE FACTS:

When Boooooooooosh left office, unemployment was 4.7%, gas cost $2.26 a gallon and 17 million Americans were on food stamps. Almost 4 years later under Obama, unemployment is at a record 8.3%, gas costs $4.00 a gallon and 43 million Americans are on food stamps.

Obama's 2013 deficit is projected to add another 1.3 TRILLION to the debt!!!!


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I guess math really IS too hard for you.  Who knew???
> 
> 
> PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term



From your own link and chart:

6/30/2012 OBAMA $15,856,367,214,324  4.8%     $15,595,000,000,000  101.7% <*1st time: Exceeds 100% of GDP *

Lastly, the chart is incomplete.. It only goes through June.. The deficit is now over 16 TRILLION.. Obama and his magical printing machine!


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> To add insult to injury.. MORE FACTS:
> 
> When Boooooooooosh left office, unemployment was 4.7%, gas cost $2.26 a gallon and 17 million Americans were on food stamps. Almost 4 years later under Obama, unemployment is at a record 8.3%, gas costs $4.00 a gallon and 43 million Americans are on food stamps.
> 
> Obama's 2013 deficit is projected to add another 1.3 TRILLION to the debt!!!!


http://www.usmessageboard.com/signaturepics/sigpic27958_50.gif

Hey... If that's a pic of you...  Nice...  You're pretty.

Not very bright... But pretty.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

From your own chart once more..

Boooosh's last term.. the debt was  130% of GDP-- As of 12/2011-- no where near COMPLETE data, Obama's debt to GDP - 183%!!!!!!!!!!

AMAZING chart. Thanks!


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

Shelzin said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > To add insult to injury.. MORE FACTS:
> ...





I quoted FACTS.. Facts = Not very bright? Why? Because you don't like the truth? Can you dispute any of those facts? Thanks for the compliment, I think.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I guess math really IS too hard for you.  Who knew???
> ...



so...you admit that westwall's statement, that you enthusiastically applauded, was a lie?

You admit that when you start out at 11 trillion and increase it to 16, that is NOT increasing it by more than all the other presidents combined?

thank you.


----------



## Newby (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



You're more concerned about being 'right' on a message board than you are about your country's future and how that future affects the generations to come.  Pathetic.  Why don't you address what's actually being talked about and Obama's depolorable numbers, regardless of whether or not they're 'more than all presidents combined', they're still deplorable.  You have nothing, nothing but the strawmen that you keep desperately propping up.


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...


Oh no I like truth...  Unfortunately truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I really think that we should be fighting AGAINST something right now.  And you are obviously.  However I think you have chosen the wrong target.  Obama or Willard, doesn't matter... Both are status quo.



> Thanks for the compliment, I think.


Attractiveness doesn't mean a whole lot to a message board.  However I have noticed that the best way to make others uncomfortable is to actually be uncomfortable myself.   In a open social setting such as this I let my eyes and my mind relax to do what they will.

I thought it, I said it...  Moving on... *shrugs*


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I said nothing of the sort.. Quite the opposite. West is correct. Your chart is incomplete, not accounting for over a year in deficit spending on some of the charts. NONE of the charts go through Sept 2012, the current state of the economy and even leaving those months off,  Obama fails MISERABLY still adding more debt to the deficit with record consumption of Debt to GDP than all President combined.. that's not even accounting for his 2013 projected budget of 1.3 TRILLION dollars more in deficit spending.

By Mary Bruce
@marykbruce

Ann Compton
@AnnCompton

Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Feb 10, 2012 7:39pm

Obama&#8217;s Budget Forecasts $1.3 Trillion Deficit - ABC News


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

Shelzin said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Shelzin said:
> ...



Once more, I'd ask you to dispute and back it up with FACTS any of the numbers and statements in my posts.


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...


Oh your facts are true so far as I can see.   However how you are applying them seems silly to me.  I mean you are knocking Obama for something that both parties have neglected for...  Well...  For as long as either of us have been capable of voting.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

Shelzin said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Shelzin said:
> ...



That's not the case. I hold George W Bush responsible for running up a massive debt also. I didn't vote for him nor would I EVER vote for any Bush.  It's called intellectual integrity. Barack Obama has almost doubled Booosh's out of control spending in half the time.. Any objective person who looks at the FACTS KNOWS that BOTH men were and are not the solution to this Nation's financial crisis and eventual economic collapse and yet Liberals will vote party over country.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



so... if westwall is indeed correct, since Bush left Obama with an $11T debt, you are saying that Obama has already increased the debt to over $22T?  That is the only way that the statement is accurate.  You DO understand basic arithmetic, don't you?


----------



## Shelzin (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Shelzin said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...


Ahh...   Ok then...  Well met.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Articles: Spend It Like Bush

Read it and weep.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

you avoided my question.  Why IS that?  

Westwall said that Obama has created more debt than all the rest of the presidents combined.  You say that is accurate.  Bush left with an $11T debt.  For Westwall to be accurate, Obama would have to now have a debt of over $22T and we know that the debt clock just rolled over $16T and is nowhere near $22T yet.

So... do the fucking math, moron, and then admit that he AND you were wrong.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

::crickets chirping::

why am I not surprised?  when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them.  why should this one be any exception?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> ::crickets chirping::
> 
> why am I not surprised?  when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them.  why should this one be any exception?



What makes me an air-headed bimbo? That I countered your BULLSHIT propaganda with facts?? Bill Clinton did not leave a surplus behind thus your entire premise is WRONG. George W walked in to a recession himself.

Bloomberg.com: News

and this:

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almosteliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus

The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary

The chart from the US TREASURY itself.

Liberals use propaganda, lies, distortions, Smoke-N-Mirrors.. it all washes out dirty with the same filth as always.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > ::crickets chirping::
> ...


Do the math sweetheart.  We aren't talking about Clinton... we are talking about the LIE that you have continued to refuse to retract, that Obama has increased the debt more than all the other presidents combined.  He started with $11T and it certainly has not reached $22T so you were wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to simply admit that.

When you find some, and admit your error, then we'll talk some more.  Until then you're an air-headed bimbo who is devoid of character in my book.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




LOL!!!!  Do you think you've actually said anything that makes a damn to me in regard to my intellect?!!  Booooooooosh was left a deficit and recessiion...

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected the 2009 deficit as $1.2 trillion on January 7, 2009. This was the last estimate they did while Bush was president. These estimates depend on many variables of course, so they are really rough estimates, but clearly the current year deficit was running somewhere above $1trillion when Obama took office. 



Read more: What was the total deficit when Obama took office

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion  a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year  or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt : NPR

Boooosh came in with a 5 trillion dollar deficit.. Did you hear him screaming, whining, blaming Clinton??????????????????????  All of your BULLSHIT and LIES can't change NUMERICAL history and fact..


----------



## Newby (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> ::crickets chirping::
> 
> why am I not surprised?  when air-headed bimbos try to act like political pundits, they usually get their asses handed to them.  why should this one be any exception?



Still shadow boxing with one post made several pages back and ignoring everything else in between, I see.  What an idiot you are.  You have no intellectual integrity, you're a blowhard full of insults, and a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## Newby (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Bullshit, you'll continue to ignore the rest of the facts posted here, just as you've done all the way thru this thread, it's your standard MO.  You're selective responses are quite amusing.


----------



## Newby (Sep 11, 2012)

I see you removed your video now... how ironic.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I guess math really IS too hard for you.  Who knew???
> 
> 
> PresidentialDebt.org - U.S. National Deby by Presidential Term



was it your intention to look very stupid........

Just curious....................Considering Congress controls the purse strings.......


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > ::crickets chirping::
> ...



why does everybody applaud liars around here?  I fail to understand that.  Somebody posts something that is total bullshit... others agree wholeheartedly and when I toss up the bullshit flag and ask people to show a little integrity and speak truthfully, and now I am the one without intellectual integrity?  Now THAT is funny.  THe "everything else in between" has been nothing but smoke blown to avoid answering the very simple question I asked.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Newby said:


> I see you removed your video now... how ironic.



I didn't post that video to entertain you.  I am sorry if you thought I did.  I posted the video at the suggestion of bigrebnc1775 as a means of proving my military pay grade in answer to a specific wager made by another poster.  When it became clear that the discussions about the wager had reached their conclusion, I removed the video.  Why would you find that "ironic", I wonder?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Full-Auto said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I guess math really IS too hard for you.  Who knew???
> ...



oh...so it is your assertion that the debt crisis we are currently facing has nothing to do with President Obama but falls squarely on Senator Reid and Speaker Boehner?  Why all this whining by the republicans about the debt this presidential election season when Obama's got nothing to do with it?  Just curious.


----------



## Newby (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > I see you removed your video now... how ironic.
> ...



Seems more like you wouldn't want it viewed by certain people, but that's understandable.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Newby said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...



I posted it here with a link for one specific poster to see... and about thirty other folks also took the opportunity to watch it.  I had no problem with that.  What other people would I be at all concerned about if they watched it or not?


----------



## westwall (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...







You whine and snivel about billions that were added when the country could afford to do so.  Now your god is running up TRILLION's when we can't, and you still wish to blather on about a president who is long dead, and who enacted policies that increased the amount of money government took in.

Yes he increased the debt.....but it is a pittance compared to your precious little godling.
Were you honest you would see the difference.  However, as we all know liberals are very loose with their ethics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Reagan added $1.5 trillion over 8 years and won the Cold War.
Obama added $5.3 trillion over 3.5 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.
Reagan's addition to the debt was less than 20% of GDP over 8 years and won the Cold War.
Obama's addition to the debt is over 35% of GDP in 4 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.

Yeah, I wonder why the comparison makes Obama look bad? LOL!


----------



## ecinicola (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> why i am voting for obama again: I think the reason that most obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: Foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are thrilled with the performance of obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the gop's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing romney will certainly stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the gop wants them to advance.
> 
> It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.



            how do you figure he shares the democrats views, when he is a muslim and shares the views of his heritage and how he was brought up.  I believe the democrats have been fooled bigtime by this muslim.    Remember obama's remark, "if push comes to shove i will stand with the muslims"       didn't that tell you anything?
     Democrats are gullible and prone to be fooled by the power of words obama is using on them.    Obama is causing you the same hardships he is everyone, and his beliefs stand with the muslims, not the democrats.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



after posting the absolute LIE that you posted concerning Obama creating more debt than all the presidents before him, you really are in NO position to even discuss the veracity of anyone else's posts.  sorry.  You're a liar.  a proven liar.  go back under your rock.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Reagan added $1.5 trillion over 8 years and won the Cold War.
> Obama added $5.3 trillion over 3.5 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.
> Reagan's addition to the debt was less than 20% of GDP over 8 years and won the Cold War.
> Obama's addition to the debt is over 35% of GDP in 4 years and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.
> ...



And Obama got OBL - our biggest enemy since Hitler.

your point seems to be that raising the national debt by 14% per year 30 years ago when all the numbers were smaller is worthy of demigod status and a position on Mt. Rushmore for Ronnie, but raising the debt by 15% per year 30 years later when all the numbers are bigger is reason to call Obama the worst president ever.  

Got it.

Can you actually type that shit without chuckling?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Reagan added $1.5 trillion over 8 years and won the Cold War.
> ...



Smaller numbers? I know math is hard for liberals, I'll try to make you understand again.

Reagan's addition to the debt was* less than 20% of GDP over 8 years *and won the Cold War.
Obama's addition to the debt is *over 35% of GDP in 4 years *and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.


----------



## daphillenium (Sep 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...




Completely different situations for Obama than Reagan. Reagan had it better. His situation he inherited was one of runaway inflation. The fed countered this by raising interest rates until inflation was under control which resulted in an economic boom. Obama's was due to a banking crisis and a housing bubble explosion caused by the republican policies! Did we forget this?

 Another thing many fail to mention is that Reagan was a bigger spender than Obama! His recovery was partly due to his MASSIVE increase in government spending. From 82-85 Reagan had an increase of spending rate of about 8.4%, the largest we've seen in a long time. From 86-89 it was 4.7% Bush's growth in spending rates were just as high. 

However, what you fail to recognize is President Obama's growth in spending rate is only 1.4% THE LOWEST IN 30 YEARS. All economist agree that Obama's mess he inherited was the biggest crisis since the great depression. In 2008 they didn't talk about it as much as they should have. But, the banks were crapping their pants. They did everything they could to prevent a run on the banks and an impending COLLAPSE of our economy as we know it!  Add to that two of our longest wars ever.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2012)

daphillenium said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



*However, what you fail to recognize is President Obama's growth in spending rate is only 1.4% THE LOWEST IN 30 YEARS.*

Get some real math. This claim just makes you look ridiculous.


----------



## daphillenium (Sep 11, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> daphillenium said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How so? We're not talking the amount he spent. We're talking the growth rate of spending.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 12, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



how hard is it for you to comprehend that Reagan increased the debt by 14% per year and Obama has done so by 15% per year?  Republicans deify one and vilify the other.  go figure.

"and Reagan won the cold war"  the more I read that, the more I start to chuckle.  Here's the truth about that:  EVERY president from Truman to Bush the First "won" the cold war.  Every single one of them did their part....took the threat seriously... maintained a national defense strategy aimed at containing and defeating the Soviet Union... developed and maintained weapons systems that would facilitate that strategy... and raised the deficit in doing so.... every one of them.


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...







Untrue, all the presidents before Reagan perpetuated the Cold War.  Thei policies were one of maintenance.  Had we continued on with their policies the Cold War would still be continuing.

Reagan most certainly won it.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Sep 12, 2012)

Don't waste your time or breath on Expatriate.. I posted FACTS with links, too numerous to count and yet he still continues to lie, distort, babble like a slobbering fool.. Let him talk to the voices in his head.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 12, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Don't waste your time or breath on Expatriate.. I posted FACTS with links, too numerous to count and yet he still continues to lie, distort, babble like a slobbering fool.. Let him talk to the voices in his head.



It is a FACT that Obama did NOT, as you and westwall have claimed, raise the debt more than all the other presidents combined.  It is also a FACT that Reagan increased the debt at a rate of 14% per year and Obama has raised the debt at a rate of 15% per year. It is a FACT that republicans deify Reagan for his fiscal conservatism and vilify Obama for his supposed lack thereof.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As someone who served in uniform under every president from Johnson to Clinton, I can attest to the fact that all of them did indeed take the threat seriously... maintain a national defense strategy aimed at containing and defeating the Soviet Union... develop and maintain weapons systems that would facilitate that strategy... and raise the deficit in doing so.... every one of them.  The cold war was not won by any one of them, but by all of them  doing all of those things.


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN


----------



## expatriate (Sep 12, 2012)

16<(2*11)

yes or no?


----------



## Liability (Sep 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > expat is voting for The ONE again because 4 years of nearly unrelenting fail is not enough for some libs.
> ...



But face facts expat:

4 years of unrelenting fail clearly is just not enough for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Reagan's addition to the debt was *less than 20% of GDP over 8 years *and won the Cold War.
Obama's addition to the debt is *over 35% of GDP in 4 years *and we still have fewer jobs than the day he took office.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 14, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



and doesn't it just piss you off to know that he's STILL gonna beat the guy with the magic underwear????


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 14, 2012)

*Why I am voting for Obama again* 
When I first saw this thread, I ignored it, I really don't need to read  another thread by an idiot defending barack obama.
My first thought when I read the title was "Because you're stupid.
I've stayed out of if until tonight when I notice that it has 656 replies.
Hmmm. Maybe I should check it out and notice that the last post is by the OP. OK says me. I'll read the last post and if the guy has anything to say, I'll read the thread.
So what I see is a post blissfully unaware of reality talking about magic underwear.

My original assessment was correct.

Unsubscribe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 14, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



After adding more than $5 trillion to the deficit and losing jobs during his term, you think this joker is gonna get re-elected?
That's funny.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'd put money on it.  would YOU?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



We all have money on it.


----------



## Wroberson (Sep 15, 2012)

I'm sure many of you are aware of this already, but you are in violation of the law.

You are using speech and language that shows, American, the country, 
the government in negative light and here and there your words are 
causing others to have and show contempt for America, the country, the government.

In doing so, you are unknowingly or willingly advancing the communist agenda. 

The law being violated is the Sedition Act.

I'm not voting for Romney...


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/u...mneys-edge-on-economy-poll-finds.html?_r=1&hp

a majority of Americans think Obama can do better on the economy that the republicans can... a majority of Americans know that the economy was put into the toilet by Bush & Co. and that Obama has tried, faced with withering republican obstruction, to fix it.  

Mitt is losing ground in the key battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida... given all that, it seems like a steep uphill climb for him to get back into this.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/u...mneys-edge-on-economy-poll-finds.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> a majority of Americans think Obama can do better on the economy that the republicans can... a majority of Americans know that the economy was put into the toilet by Bush & Co. and that Obama has tried, faced with withering republican obstruction, to fix it.
> 
> Mitt is losing ground in the key battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida... given all that, it seems like a steep uphill climb for him to get back into this.



People lie to pollsters.
In this election more than most. 
Will you blame Obama's loss on Diebold?
Or just racists?


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 15, 2012)

Wroberson said:


> I'm sure many of you are aware of this already, but you are in violation of the law.
> 
> You are using speech and language that shows, American, the country,
> the government in negative light and here and there your words are
> ...



You *have* to be joking here. If not, you have just replaced Truthmatters as USMB idiot. I suggest you read the first amendment to the US Constitution.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/u...mneys-edge-on-economy-poll-finds.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> a majority of Americans think Obama can do better on the economy that the republicans can... a majority of Americans know that the economy was put into the toilet by Bush & Co. and that Obama has tried, faced with withering republican obstruction, to fix it.
> 
> Mitt is losing ground in the key battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Florida... given all that, it seems like a steep uphill climb for him to get back into this.



Looks like that poll sampled 35% Dems versus 29% Republicans.
And even then, Obama only holds a 3% lead.


----------



## Wroberson (Sep 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure many of you are aware of this already, but you are in violation of the law.
> ...



Your 1st amendment rights are not being effected.  Instead of rumor, conjecture and statements that are either flat false or just plain biased to make short of the government, try posting facts without name calling.

Your first amendment rights only go so far.  When you start in with hate speech and defamatory content, you are over-stepping your right.  Calling the government communist is very similar to yelling fire at the disco.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/u...mneys-edge-on-economy-poll-finds.html?_r=1&hp
> ...



the poll sample was determined by past voter behavior.  that's the way pollsters work.

Like I said before Todd... I'm a gambling kind of guy.  I'd be willing to put a little money on this election because I think the odds are good for Obama to repeat.  If you think differently, and it is clear that you do, why not enter into a friendly little wager to make it more interesting?  Pick a number... 3 or 4 digits maybe... whaddaya say?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/u...mneys-edge-on-economy-poll-finds.html?_r=1&hp
> ...



If Obama loses, I will not "blame" anyone.  Who will YOU blame when he wins? And do you have any link that would support your statement that people are "lying" to pollsters this year more than most, or is that something you just pulled out of your well travelled ass?


----------



## Wroberson (Sep 15, 2012)

It's like there's a room full of little McCartheys has run amuck calling everyone out as communists.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Wroberson said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure many of you are aware of this already, but you are in violation of the law.
> ...



why didn't you keep your word and stay unsubscribed from this thread?


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Wroberson said:
> ...



Why do people gawk at train wrecks?


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



wanna get in on a little election wager?  I'm feelin' lucky.


----------



## Ernie S. (Sep 15, 2012)

Why would I want to bet? You have nothing I want.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I avoid betting with idiots on the internet.
And I'm not going to give my address to a guy interested in my ass, so how can I get my winnings?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



It's the Bradley effect. After watching Obama blame every resistance to his huge government agenda on racism, people just smile, say they like him, say they'll vote for him and in November they'll vote him out.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



so... as I suspected, you got nothing but your own smelly opinion.  Re: the wager... we could do paypal.


----------



## expatriate (Sep 15, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Why would I want to bet? You have nothing I want.



got all the money you want?  good for you.  I do too, but I would never turn my nose up at some more.


----------

