Give to the Red Cross, unless your name is Romney

[Cecilie1200]

Obama Gave 1% to Charity

Romney charitable contributions
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%



SOURCE:

WHO'S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15

.

Romney is a multi millionaire. Obama is not. I imagine that is why.

Obama made more than $1 million every year since he has been in office. My definitions might be a little fuzzy hear, but I think that puts him into the multimillionaire category.

And he wasn't exactly struggling to live paycheck-to-paycheck before that. Noomi apparently "imagines" that Obama is poor and unable to spare the money to donate more than 1% of his income. Never mind the fact that everyday, middle-class Americans routinely donate more than 1% of THEIR income to charity.

Her ignorance of charitable habits tells us a lot about what a selfish, greedy lot people in Australia apparently are, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Red Cross isn't a religious organization.

Good grief. Can anyone possibly be as ignorant as noomi is on as many subjects?

It has never been a religious organization.

"

• The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian institution founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland, by Henry Dunant and Gustave Moynier. Its 25-member committee has a unique authority under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. The ICRC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on three occasions (in 1917, 1944 and 1963).[3]
• The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 and today it coordinates activities between the 188 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies within the Movement. On an international level, the Federation leads and organizes, in close cooperation with the National Societies, relief assistance missions responding to large-scale emergencies. The International Federation Secretariat is based in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1963, the Federation (then known as the League of Red Cross Societies) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the ICRC.[3]

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair enough then.

Unlike you, KG, I am willing to admit it when I am wrong.

Unlike KG, you have an AWFUL lot of practice at it.

 

[Noomi]

The Red Cross isn't a religious organization.

Good grief. Can anyone possibly be as ignorant as noomi is on as many subjects?

It has never been a religious organization.

"

• The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian institution founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland, by Henry Dunant and Gustave Moynier. Its 25-member committee has a unique authority under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. The ICRC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on three occasions (in 1917, 1944 and 1963).[3]
• The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) was founded in 1919 and today it coordinates activities between the 188 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies within the Movement. On an international level, the Federation leads and organizes, in close cooperation with the National Societies, relief assistance missions responding to large-scale emergencies. The International Federation Secretariat is based in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1963, the Federation (then known as the League of Red Cross Societies) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with the ICRC.[3]

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair enough then.

Unlike you, KG, I am willing to admit it when I am wrong.

Unlike KG, you have an AWFUL lot of practice at it.

Rack off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fair enough then.

Unlike you, KG, I am willing to admit it when I am wrong.

Unlike KG, you have an AWFUL lot of practice at it.

Rack off.

Wow, you even suck at being offensive. Is that just you, or is it a national thing inherent to an entire country of lazy liberal jag-offs?

 

[336thF15E]

Well, now, see if you can stay with me here on the logic train, dimwit.

You are supporting somebody who lies directly to your face and panders to you like you were a seven (7) year old child. He's been recently caught lying about Auto Jobs being shipped to China, and even the Auto Company CEO's came out and corrected those lies. Yet, you actually think that it is YOU who owns the "logic?"

The point that was made here, was the outright pretense that Romney, has shown since the storm hit. He goes out and spends a lousy $5,000 and then physically displays the good purchased in front of cameras and asks his supporters to walk by in single file to pick-up a display item as they shake his hand on their way to loading a truck.

That's the same kind of pretense and phony caring that Ryan, put on display when he showed up at Soup Kitchen after the soup had been served and after the kitchen had been cleaned, so that he could be seen on "display" in front of a camera, seemingly washing dishes that had already been washed. The Director of the Soup Kitchen said that they told Ryan, before he walked into the kitchen that there was nothing else to be done, because he was late on his arrival. Ryan, being the fake, phony, facade of a man that he is, bullied his way into the clean kitchen anyway, and proceeded to "clean" that which did not need cleaning.

Anybody that has ever worked in a Soup Kitchen to serve those truly in need, will look at that kitchen and KNOW without a shadow of any doubt, that the kitchen had already been cleaned. Soup Kitchens, when they are dirty, look like a total catastrophe before they are cleaned and anyone having seen a real Soup Kitchen will tell you that.

So, the issues here are:

- The genuineness of the candidates
- The believability of the candidates
- The authenticity of the candidates
- The sincerity of the candidates
- The ethics and character of the candidates
- The heart of the candidates

On all six (6) of these bulwarks both Romney, Mr. Food Display & Product Marketing Genius, and Ryan, Directory of Photography and Staging, have both FAILED miserably by there own disingenuous hands.

Try that for "logic train."

That is not a dirty soup kitchen in need of cleaning:


Unreal.

 

[Stephanie]

Well, now, see if you can stay with me here on the logic train, dimwit.

You are supporting somebody who lies directly to your face and panders to you like you were a seven (7) year old child. He's been recently caught lying about Auto Jobs being shipped to China, and even the Auto Company CEO's came out and corrected those lies. Yet, you actually think that it is YOU who owns the "logic?"

The point that was made here, was the outright pretense that Romney, has shown since the storm hit. He goes out and spends a lousy $5,000 and then physically displays the good purchased in front of cameras and asks his supporters to walk by in single file to pick-up a display item as they shake his hand on their way to loading a truck.

That's the same kind of pretense and phony caring that Ryan, put on display when he showed up at Soup Kitchen after the soup had been served and after the kitchen had been cleaned, so that he could be seen on "display" in front of a camera, seemingly washing dishes that had already been washed. The Director of the Soup Kitchen said that they told Ryan, before he walked into the kitchen that there was nothing else to be done, because he was late on his arrival. Ryan, being the fake, phony, facade of a man that he is, bullied his way into the clean kitchen anyway, and proceeded to "clean" that which did not need cleaning.

Anybody that has ever worked in a Soup Kitchen to serve those truly in need, will look at that kitchen and KNOW without a shadow of any doubt, that the kitchen had already been cleaned. Soup Kitchens, when they are dirty, look like a total catastrophe before they are cleaned and anyone having seen a real Soup Kitchen will tell you that.

So, the issues here are:

- The genuineness of the candidates
- The believability of the candidates
- The authenticity of the candidates
- The sincerity of the candidates
- The ethics and character of the candidates
- The heart of the candidates

On all six (6) of these bulwarks both Romney, Mr. Food Display & Product Marketing Genius, and Ryan, Directory of Photography and Staging, have both FAILED miserably by there own disingenuous hands.

Try that for "logic train."

That is not a dirty soup kitchen in need of cleaning:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M2WVJNxOpvY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Unreal.

Unreal is you coming here parroting every left wing talking point out there..
Just go vote for Obama and don't worry about who others might vote for

 

[336thF15E]

Unreal is you coming here parroting every left wing talking point out there.. Just go vote for Obama and don't worry about who others might vote for

Let me make sure I understand this correctly.

1) This is a non-linear dialectic medium for Political Discussion AND Debate
2) Facts about the 2012 Presidential Campaign are submitted to the Forum
3) You disagree with the facts as submitted
4) Because you disagree with the facts submitted, the submitter is by definition a Liberal
5) Talking Points are the same things as Facts and therefore carry the same weight

Could you possibly be more confused about where you are, what you are doing and WHY you are doing it?

Here's how incredibly circular you are:

According to your twisted logic, if I were here submitting facts that looked good for Romney/Ryan, I would be doing nothing more than spewing Right Wing talking points and should therefore, go away, the leave the forum and simply vote for Romney/Ryan on November 6th.

Do you realize what you just said? You just said that there is absolutely no reason and/or justification for the existence of this site, whatsoever. Ergo, this site cannot possibly exist as a forum for discussion and/or debate, because anyone who posts facts related to such discussions and/or debate, would not be here - according to your rules.

Extending your logic to its fullest conclusion this site cannot possibly exist, which is physically impossible because both of us are here, and therefore your logic (by definition) must be circular.

Do you enjoy being irrational? It is some kind of hobby? Or, do you make it a full-time job?

 

[Stephanie]

Unreal is you coming here parroting every left wing talking point out there.. Just go vote for Obama and don't worry about who others might vote for

Let me make sure I understand this correctly.

1) This is a non-linear dialectic medium for Political Discussion AND Debate
2) Facts about the 2012 Presidential Campaign are submitted to the Forum
3) You disagree with the facts as submitted
4) Because you disagree with the facts submitted, the submitter is by definition a Liberal
5) Talking Points are the same things as Facts and therefore carry the same weight

Could you possibly be more confused about where you are, what you are doing and WHY you are doing it?

Here's how incredibly circular you are:

According to your twisted logic, if I were here submitting facts that looked good for Romney/Ryan, I would be doing nothing more than spewing Right Wing talking points and should therefore, go away, the leave the forum and simply vote for Romney/Ryan on November 6th.

Do you realize what you just said? You just said that there is absolutely no reason and/or justification for the existence of this site, whatsoever. Ergo, this site cannot possibly exist as a forum for discussion and/or debate, because anyone who posts facts related to such discussions and/or debate, would not be here - according to your rules.

Extending your logic to its fullest conclusion this site cannot possibly exist, which is physically impossible because both of us are here, and therefore your logic (by definition) must be circular.

Do you enjoy being irrational? It is some kind of hobby? Or, do you make it a full-time job?

DAMN, you are long winded nuts

 

[336thF15E]

Furthermore, before issuing another blithering arrant statement about who you think I am, try reading my "Brief Profile" inside my Signature.

I was a Registered Republican at the age of 19. I left the party when it allowed it self to be abducted by extremists without a clue about what it means to be a Conservative. I became a registered Independent until that party lost its mind and re-elected a President who lied about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's "Continued Weapons of Mass Destruction."

I've been an unregistered Free Agent Voter ever since and have not looked back. I vote independent of the ideological garbage that prevent you from making clear, rational, intelligent, thoughtful decisions about who should be managing the nation's business.

They don't get more Free and Independent that I am, as it relates to politics. I have been truly set free from all political dogma, ideology and mindset. I look to the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence as my political guide. I then add Common Sense, Better Judgment, logic, reason and my faith, to make the best and most optimal decision humanly possible - given the candidates to choose from in our era.

If there were more voters like me out there, we would NOT (as a nation) have to climb out of a near $14 trillion hole in the ground, nor would we have an economy constantly in a state of perpetual flux - because there we be NO MORE Federal Reserve Bank and thus, NO MORE national debt handed off to our Greatest Grandchildren who have yet to be born.

And, you think you actually know something about Freedom? You don't know the half of what true Freedom is all about.

 

[336thF15E]

DAMN, you are long winded nuts

Go get Twitter account. Dialect mediums such as this should be for Adults with something to say.

Twits, Twit Tweets.

Intel is as Intel does, or does not. You decide.

 

[Stephanie]

DAMN, you are long winded nuts

Go get Twitter account.

Twits, Twit Tweets.

Intel is as Intel does, or does not. You decide.

Dialect mediums such as this should be for Adults with something to say.

lol, and I suppose that would be you?
You put people to sleep with the bull you post..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Furthermore, before issuing another blithering arrant statement about who you think I am, try reading my "Brief Profile" inside my Signature.

This brief profile?

Brief Profile: Political Centrist | Non-Ideological. Educated - Three (3) Technical College Degrees. Three (3) successful careers. Former USAF IP, Combat & Test Pilot. Former Enterprise Technologist. Current CEO & President of Proprietary Algo Currency Fund. Grossed $2.1 million more than Romney in 2011. Paid 4.1% less taxes than Romney in 2011. Proudly Supporting Obama 44 for Second Term as President & CINC.

Why should anyone believe that? Do you think typing something in a signature makes it true? Have you read mine?

I judge people on the way they post, and you post like a pseudo intellectual hack.

I was a Registered Republican at the age of 19. I left the party when it allowed it self to be abducted by extremists without a clue about what it means to be a Conservative. I became a registered Independent until that party lost its mind and re-elected a President who lied about the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's "Continued Weapons of Mass Destruction."

The proof is in the pudding.

When, exactly, did the Republican party allow itself to be taken over by extremists? Was it in 2010?

When did the Independent party re elect a president? In fact, when did the Independent party have a president elected?

I've been an unregistered Free Agent Voter ever since and have not looked back. I vote independent of the ideological garbage that prevent you from making clear, rational, intelligent, thoughtful decisions about who should be managing the nation's business.

Unregistered Free Agent voter, what the fuck does that mean? Keep in mind you are talking to a guy that has never had a party affiliation in his life, and has never voted for a major party candidate for president, even when I was 18.

They don't get more Free and Independent that I am, as it relates to politics. I have been truly set free from all political dogma, ideology and mindset. I look to the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence as my political guide. I then add Common Sense, Better Judgment, logic, reason and my faith, to make the best and most optimal decision humanly possible - given the candidates to choose from in our era.

I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history, How do you justify your support of Obama's redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps and defense of other Bush era polices that violate civil rights, his willingness to sign laws that allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, and his blatant disregard of the division of power in the Constitution?

Do you really think everyone is as ignorant and uninformed as you are?

If there were more voters like me out there, we would NOT (as a nation) have to climb out of a near $14 trillion hole in the ground, nor would we have an economy constantly in a state of perpetual flux - because there we be NO MORE Federal Reserve Bank and thus, NO MORE national debt handed off to our Greatest Grandchildren who have yet to be born.

Why do you support Obama if you think $14 trillion in debt is a problem? Are you aware that the national debt is currently north of $16 trillion? Does the fact that Obama has managed to dig us $5 trillion deeper into the hole in 4 years mean nothing to you?

And, you think you actually know something about Freedom? You don't know the half of what true Freedom is all about.

That is funny, considering you support the guy that thinks being free means the government has to control everything.

 

[336thF15E]

You put people to sleep with the bull you post..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If that were true, you would not be in such dyer need of beauty rest - would you? You see, if I truly wanted to major in sarcasm, I'd bury you in it. But, I'd rather discuss the substantive issues.

Now, if you sincerely believe in what you say, then simply step up to the plate and post a link to the "bull" that you see being authored.

Its easy to be sarcastic, when you never have to engage out of fear of getting your clock cleaned.

Speaking of clocks - better check your 6.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You put people to sleep with the bull you post..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If that were true, you would not be in such dyer need of beauty rest - would you? You see, if I truly wanted to major in sarcasm, I'd bury you in it. But, I'd rather discuss the substantive issues.

Now, if you sincerely believe in what you say, then simply step up to the plate and post a link to the "bull" that you see being authored.

Its easy to be sarcastic, when you never have to engage out of fear of getting your clock cleaned.

Speaking of clocks - better check your 6.

The word is dire. Iy you were &#8539; as smart as you think you are you wouldn't look so stupid.

 

[saveliberty]

You put people to sleep with the bull you post..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If that were true, you would not be in such dyer need of beauty rest - would you? You see, if I truly wanted to major in sarcasm, I'd bury you in it. But, I'd rather discuss the substantive issues.

Now, if you sincerely believe in what you say, then simply step up to the plate and post a link to the "bull" that you see being authored.

Its easy to be sarcastic, when you never have to engage out of fear of getting your clock cleaned.

Speaking of clocks - better check your 6.

Internet tough guy with a spelling problem. lol Why you checking out Stephanie's ass?

 

[336thF15E]

Why should anyone believe that? Do you think typing something in a signature makes it true? Have you read mine?

The question is not whether you believe it. Your beliefs about my reality are non-determinative about its existence. You can also write in your signature that Mitt Romney, will win the Presidency on November 6th, too - but that won't change the reality of that day.

Are you starting to see how this works?

I judge people on the way they post, and you post like a pseudo intellectual hack.

If you see pseudo intellectualism, then you should be able to counter it with fact. Else, you end up falling into the category of jealous blither and inconsequential swipes at that which you do not truly understand.

The proof is in the pudding.

Well, my dear friend. It has been some years since my Sophomore Year in College. Yet, I still remember that year vividly. It was the year I became POC Cadet and it was the year that I got the opportunity to fly the C-5B Galaxy for the first time in my life between Travis and Columbus. I was the year I won a regional Aerobatic Championship Award and it was the same year I obtained my first Jet Type Rating in a Lear 35A. It was a busy year, and one that I was proud of. However, school did suffer that last semester. I net a flat "B" for the year, which was somewhat disappointing because that was the first "B" I had earned since my Junior Year in High School, where I was straight "A" student for three (3) years in a row.

I registered on campus in Donahue Hall and the rest is now history.

What were you doing in your Sophomore Year in College?

When, exactly, did the Republican party allow itself to be taken over by extremists? Was it in 2010?

I clearly introduced that date into evidence as 2000, with the election of George aWol Bush. Sorry, I just don't like it when men walk around in Flight Suits that they did not earn and do not serve to wear. But, I digress.

Neocons, have been lurking in the background and tweaking policy through Washington think-tanks for quite some time, starting with Reagan's Administration. They could not get too far in the Reagan Regime, so they remained patient and continued to maintain, grow and develop their structural roots in Washington. By the time Bush 41, came to office, the Neocons had legitimate positions within and Administration where they could actually gain net effect from their efforts.

The Republican Party, in all honesty, was on the Neocon slippery slope during this same period and were actively engaged in deception that was delivered to Saddam, which made it clear to him that the United States was really not all that interested in his potential annexing of Kuwait. Of course, we lied to him and he took that lie and ran with it. We then launched DS1 and moved Saddam back to Baghdad. Neocons, wanted to go further, but similar to Reagan, Bush 41, would not desire to be responsible for that - citing the fact that - at that time, he saw no justification for going into Baghdad.

Neocons, then suffered a set-back in the 1992 Presidential election, when Bill Clinton, became the 42 President of the United States and began retooling for their next move. Paul Wolfowitz, wrote a document called the "Defense Planning Guidance," which pretty much outlined the PNAC manifesto that was to come some 7/8 years into the future. In the original Wolfowitz DPG, he set-up the United States Military as the "Preemptive" arm of diplomacy to deal with what Neocons called "States that sponsored terrorist acts." In that document, Paul, called for the preemptive use of our military in not just multi-lateral campaigns, but in unilateral moves that literally bring about "regime change" in nations that Neocons targeted as stumbling blocks to U.S. dominance as a world superpower.

The goal of the Neocons is the imperial domination of the world's natural resources, from both an Economic and Militaristic standpoint and to establish the United States of America, as the world's only unchallenged Superpower, by any means necessary. Of course, in order to use that 'preemptive" unilateral policy, you have to make an enemy. This is how the shift from the old cold war with the Russians, lost its focus in Washington Foreign Policy, to the new enemy of U.S. interest world wide called "Terrorists."

By the time 2000, rolled around and Bush 43 took office, the Paul Wolfowitz, DPG morphed into a watered down version of the Project for The New American Century (PNAC), where Neocon's in all of their boldness went as far as to actually predict 911, by instantiating the requirement that in order to get the ball of "transformation" rolling (speaking about their desire to dominate and control the world natural resources), there had to be some kind of "catalyzing event" on the order and the magnitude of "Pearl Harbor." Of course, intelligent people will want to know, how the heck they knew that in advance of 911. Of course, the people who are still asleep about 911, won't even understand the need for the question.

By now, Neocon's like Perl, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Weber, Tucker, Rove, Libby, Kristol and others, were either prominently featured as Bush 43 Administrative officials, or stood closely by in the wings behind the scenes, rigging the machinery and mastering the puppet - aka: shaping Foreign Policy with respect to the Middle East. Bogus, WMD charges were fabricated out of post DS1 CIA assessments and transfered over to the "new" pre-2003 NIE on Iraq, whereupon the Oval Office submitted its "version" to the Congress to seek its authorization. In the meantime, a WMD dog and pony powerpoint slide presentation coupled to the continuous use of the word "TERRORISTS!" was trotted out in front of the United Nations Security Counsel in an attempt to get resolution 1441 solidified and made actionable.

You know the rest of the story.

As for me, I flew 17 total combat sorties in DS2 (so-called "Operation Iraqi Freedom") which was nothing more than the continuation of what did not take place back in 1991, under Senior.

I trust that you've learned something here. Or, are at least willing to admit it. Most people think that Neocons simply popped into existence in 2000. Most people don't know that PNAC was derived from DPG and most people don't know that Saddam, felt he had a legitimate claim to the land betweeen Kuwait and Iraq, which had already been a multi-decade dispute between the two (2) nations.

When did the Independent party re elect a president? In fact, when did the Independent party have a president elected?

What you may not already know, is that sub-sequent to the 2000 election, a significant number of Republicans jumped ship and joined the Independent Party. Most of these people were old Reagan Democrats, and felt that their 2000 vote for Bush 43, was not properly placed and it is one of the primary reasons why Bush/Cheney lost the so-called Popular vote and many questioned the impact that had on the actual Electoral votes that were cast by the Electors.

These same people had no idea that 911, plus two (2) wars were on their way. By the 2004 vote, they coalesced their 2000 vote into a slightly stronger position in the Popular vote totals, as a direct result of the nation being at war on two fronts. It is my opinion that had there been on war in Iraq/Afghanistan, that John Kerry, would have won the 2004 Presidential Election. Therefore, it was Independents that "re-elected" George W. Bush.

40% of the nations voters are classified as Independent. That's why they are called the Swing Vote in national politics. Since there are statistically more Republican leaning Independents within that group, it stands to reason that in a time of War on two (2) fronts, that they would tend to lean more heavily. That theory was proven as fact, during the 2004 Presidential Election cycle.

Unregistered Free Agent voter, what the fuck does that mean? Keep in mind you are talking to a guy that has never had a party affiliation in his life, and has never voted for a major party candidate for president, even when I was 18.

Do you have to declare Party Affiliation in order to vote in your State? Do you have to be registered to a specific party in order vote in your State?

I think it is good to remain the "Free Agent" that you say you are. However, like you say - I tend to judge people based on what the write and language such as "what the fuck does that mean," tells me that I might want to see more posts from you before I'm sold on your "never voted for a major party candidate" rhetoric.

I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party.

It is clearly up to you as to whether or not you wish to suffer such a delusion of freedom. Merely because you intentionally lock yourself out of the house, does not make you free. For someone with your beliefs, there can only be two (2) possibilities:

1) You opted out of the voting process entirely and cast no ballot
2) You voted for someone who stood no statistical chance of ever being elected

In either case, you are forced to ask yourself the question: To what end? How does the nation benefit from the candidate that you supported, whose only instance of being in the White House, was on a White House Visitors Tour?

There is a massive distinction between attempting to expand the system to include other candidates with other ideas - something I strongly encourage people to do. However, at the end of the day, all altruism and all attempts to improve the system, have to actually have an opportunity to do so. Therefore, if you and other Third Party Supporters (which is something I willingly accept and appreciate) are genuinely serious about your efforts, then let me ask you several questions:

a) How many people have you made contact with over the past 365 days, where you began a conversation with them about the candidate that YOU support and WHY you support him/her?

b) How much of your personal time do you spend engaged in real efforts that will give the candidate that YOU support, the best opportunity to win enough votes to be elected the next President of the United States of America?

c) When was the last time that YOU took it upon yourself to author a White Paper and post it on-line, so that others may know what YOU stand for, and what YOUR candidate for office stands for, including WHY you believe that to be a better path for our nation to follow?

Those are things that you can being doing that cost you nothing but your time, energy, effort and writing skills. So, in light of these essential questions, when you tell me you are "free," just how free are you really - when you never get the opportunity to attend the Inauguration of the one you supported for President?

You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history,

Either you are attempting to convince yourself of something for which there is no evidence, or you are stupid enough to think I care.

- Does the candidate you support have a political platform upon which they stand?
- Does the candidate you support stand for anything, or nothing, or everything at the same time?


An ignorant political hack, is one who thinks that merely by opting out of the system, is some kind of rational proof that he's actually doing something valuable for the country. That type of individual is not only ignorant, but woefully incapable of understanding the fundamental purpose behind voting in the first place.

Merely because you support the guy that you believe to be outside the system, or somehow immune to the system, is proof positive of YOUR ignorance. Why? Because, this is a Representative Democracy, not a dictatorship. That means that whoever you support, will ultimately have to walk the plank with the United States Congress. And, doing so will immediately mean that your guy will have to start making compromises or your guy will get absolutely nothing done, whatsoever.

The ignorance comes when one fails to understand that salient point.

How do you justify your support of Obama's redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps

Apparently, ignorance is your forte.

What makes you think that I support a redefinition of either the 5th or the 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution?

Merely supporting the candidate that is most qualified to be President, out of the pool of candidates the system gives you, is not the signature of one who irrationally flushes a section of the constitution down the toilet. Second, I do not approve of the Patriot Act, nor do I approve of Obama's support of the Patriot Act, and further believe that the entire Patriot Act should be burned out of existence.

We already have Criminal Laws on the books that should be enough to deal with so-called "domestic terrorism," that we do not need to go off the deep end with "roving wiretaps." So, I am no fan of the Patriot Act.

However, single issue voting is the hallmark of ideological ineptitude. The pollyanna approach to engaging in politics within a Representative Democracy, by foolishly believing that your guy is going to be able to solve all problems for all constituencies, is yet another great sign of both immaturity as a voter and a woeful misunderstanding about the unique and highly diverse nature of the aggregate constituency that our great country yields.

This gets back to my support for Obama. He's not the Second Coming, as his detractors incorrectly believe his supporters put faith in. He is instead, the best alternative available, given the next candidate in line. That was the case in 2008, and based on what the Republicans AND the Alternate Candidates have provided me for study, that will be the clear case in 2012.

Example: I like Ron Paul's willingness to abolish the Federal Reserve. However, Ron's fiscal policies with respect to many other issues such as funding Education as just one example, are not a group of policies that place him in the category of being a better candidate than Obama. That's just one example of many that explains WHY I am supporting Obama.

and defense of other Bush era polices that violate civil rights, his willingness to sign laws that allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, and his blatant disregard of the division of power in the Constitution?

You make the same false assumption that many Republicans make.

You charge Obama and fault him for policies that got rooted under Bush 43. It is the same exact thing with the national debt relative to federal spending. Republicans love to say that Obama, is blowing up the debt and deficit, to the tune of $16 trillion. That's false, and it always was false.

The actual CBO numbers clearly show and report that under Obama, the actual deficit will SHRINK, not expand by some several hundred billion dollar by 2017. What Republicans don't tell you is the simply fact that much of the Obama, spending came as a direct result of what Bush 43, had already put into place with two (2) wars that had to be concluded under Obama, the Omnibus spending that was not taken care of before Bush 43 left office that had to be dealt with under Obama, and both the necessary Stimulus and TARP programs, including the Federal Auto Bailout programs.

So, if Obama, did not spend on stimulus, did not spend on TARP I and TARP II, did not bailout Detroit and did nothing to keep the Government running, then everybody in the world would have finally had a very legitimate opportunity to label this President as one of the worst managers of the nation's business in history. Yet, these very same highly disingenuous people who know full well that Obama, did not raise the debt by $5 trillion, are out there selling this nonsense to people who have not studied the CBO numbers as I and others clearly have.

Go look at CBO, read its reporting and you will see that current Obama spending policies, projects an actual DECREASE in the deficit over time, not the false increase that you've been sold. These are not my report, these come from CBO.

Source: CBO.

Do you really think everyone is as ignorant and uninformed as you are?

No. I just think that YOU are as ignorant as you appear to be.

Why do you support Obama if you think $14 trillion in debt is a problem?

Obama, did not create $14 trillion in debt, Sherlock. You have your math all backwards, because you have not studied the actual data. You have instead, taken the exact same talking point measure and injected it into this thread.

Now, do you understand how to READ a CBO report? If so, I just gave you the link.

BO Monthly Budget Review 2012.

Are you aware that the national debt is currently north of $16 trillion? Does the fact that Obama has managed to dig us $5 trillion deeper into the hole in 4 years mean nothing to you?

If you actually were spouting real numbers and knew what you were spewing about, I might tend to agree with you. Your so-called intelligent retort leave much to be desired.

Fact:

From December 31th 2001 through December 31st 2008, George W. Bush, increased the national debt by nearly 179%. From December 31st 2009 through June 30th 2012, Barack Obama, increased the national debt by 128%, with the vast majority in the increase, coming directly from Bush 43 policies that were already in place. The wars had to be shut down and that cost money. A floor had to be put under the economy and that cost money. The auto industry needed a bailout and that cost money. The banks needed to be supported, or our entire economy would have entered a Greater Depression and that cost most. Foreclosures had to be stemmed and that cost money. Small business loans and auto loans had to be re-instantiated and that cost money.

The total lack of common sense that you have brought to this discussion is staggering. You don't even understand the concept of one President, having to follow-through on the massive clean-up of another President, who left the biggest gaping hole in our economy since 1932. Common sense should tell you that the next President in-line was forced to spend money and increase the debt, else the nation's economy and the broader global economy would have slipped well past the point of no return.

That is funny, considering you support the guy that thinks being free means the government has to control everything.

It is extremely sad (not funny at all) that you pretend to understand the issues, while doing nothing more than spouting inaccurate rhetoric, without actually doing the homework.

I'm in the financial global markets each day of the week. I read the economic reports of not just the U.S., but China, Japan, Germany and the U.K. as a matter of business, not a mere hobby during an election season. I know where this county is relative to our trading partners and the other developed nations in the world and I know what our Debt to GDP status looked like before and after Bush 43. I know what spending was already authorized and put into place by Congress, before Bush 43 left office and I know what caused Obama 44, to have to engage in even more spending that was not part of his original economic agenda.

So, you can go sell stupid and ignorant somewhere else, I'm all stocked-up for the winter.

Let me know when you want to go over those CBO numbers, after you've actually done your homework.

Class dismissed.

 

[336thF15E]

The word is dire. Iy you were &#8539; as smart as you think you are you wouldn't look so stupid.

So, u idyots are doun to tipos know? That's pretty much a clear sign that you've got nothing more erudite or substantive to offer. Keep feigning it.

I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history, [incorrect use of comma here. use period here next time] How do you justify your support of Obama's [place comma here next time] redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps and defense of other Bush [place comma here next time] era polices that violate civil rights, his willingness to sign laws that allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, and his blatant disregard of the division of power in the Constitution?

We can play your silly typo games until the cows come home, if you so desire. The forum has its own search engine and you have plenty more posts here than I do. So, you set yourself up into a very target rich environment for such games.

In addition, you might want to take an English refresher on sentence structure and punctuation. Your ineptitude and failure to place an appropriate comma, especially after proper names, is staggering.

Do you have anything else to offer, Einstein?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You put people to sleep with the bull you post..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If that were true, you would not be in such dyer need of beauty rest - would you? You see, if I truly wanted to major in sarcasm, I'd bury you in it. But, I'd rather discuss the substantive issues.

Now, if you sincerely believe in what you say, then simply step up to the plate and post a link to the "bull" that you see being authored.

Its easy to be sarcastic, when you never have to engage out of fear of getting your clock cleaned.

Speaking of clocks - better check your 6.

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The word is dire. Iy you were &#8539; as smart as you think you are you wouldn't look so stupid.

So, u idyots are doun to tipos know? That's pretty much a clear sign that you've got nothing more erudite or substantive to offer. Keep feigning it.

I am a lot more free, and independent, than you, simply because I have never supported any party. You, on the other hand, are an ignorant hack who supports the most ideological president in history, [incorrect use of comma here. use period here next time] How do you justify your support of Obama's [place comma here next time] redefinition of due process to exclude the Judiical branch, his use of unwarranted wiretaps and defense of other Bush [place comma here next time] era polices that violate civil rights, his willingness to sign laws that allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, and his blatant disregard of the division of power in the Constitution?

We can play your silly typo games until the cows come home, if you so desire. The forum has its own search engine and you have plenty more posts here than I do. So, you set yourself up into a very target rich environment for such games.

In addition, you might want to take an English refresher on sentence structure and punctuation. Your ineptitude and failure to place an appropriate comma, especially after proper names, is staggering.

Do you have anything else to offer, Einstein?

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

 

[336thF15E]

Actually, moron, most of us are pretty tolerant of typos, and even blatant illiteracy . . . provided you're not prancing around, telling everyone how much more fantastically brilliant you are. At that point, you are inviting people to take you down a peg and point out your lack of qualifications for bragging.

You want people to respect your intelligence? Show, don't tell.

By the way, "dyer" in place of "dire" is not a typo. It's a lack of vocabulary.

...and

Dude, the word is "dire", not "dyer". "Dire" is "desperately urgent"; "dyer" is "someone who dyes things".

If you're going to tout yourself as a fearsome debater who's "cleaning clocks", you might try at least speaking English first.

Actually, you High School drop-out, paranoid delusional, crack-head, the notion that you are "tolerant" about anything other than your narrow minded, myopic, self-centered, deranged, imbecilic, intemperant and parasitic attitude that you have the audacity to think is something worthy of sustaining, is beyond the level of any rational human being to contemplate.

Who the heck told you, or gave you permission to put words on my keyboard? You don't see one iota or as much as a shred of evidence to support the petulant, petty and childish claim that anything within any of my posts, has anything whatsoever to do with "bragging" about some silly notion of "Internet Qualifications" that only really dumb people find necessary to perpetuate.

So, why don't you take your XXXXX, uneducated, hopelessly slacking attitude back to that hole in the wall that you just slithered your way out of, in a feeble attempt at scolding me, while ultimately doing absolutely nothing more than making the biggest fool of yourself in modern US Message Board history. You sick pathetic waste of 32 bits in a 64 bit environment.
-----------------------------------------------

Now! Do you see just how vicious it can get?

That's not really who I am, nor is that the tone that I brought to this forum, but that's the tone and the attitude that I saw on this forum long before I got here, and that is exactly the same tone and tenor that you have addressed me with in your post. Clearly, if I practiced being as antithetical to human decency that some of you long time members do, I'd be light years ahead in the irrevocably useless insults category.

Fortunately, I prefer not to post that way. I just gave you a small taste of how nasty it can be, if I were to stoop as low and some of you. I prefer not to wallow in the mud with piggish diatribe as my only resort, as opposed to focusing on the issues. I tried to do that, but the very first post in response to my initial walk on this forum, was a perfect example of the lack of intellect that I detected on this board before I registered.

The vile nature of some people on this forum who call themselves Conservatives, is beyond comprehension and absent any moral backbone, whatsoever. A party that claims to have a total lock on morality, character, integrity, principle, decency and family values, can't possibly be the same party of most individuals that I see tossing around their near satanic utterances and diabolic rants.

So, spare me the false "bragging" claim, Otay!