Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't care how things get done, as long as they get done.
Never have, never will. .
Every murderous dictator in history agrees with you.
Nailed him. ^
He's sold his liberty for security.
Every murderous dictator in history agrees with you.
Nailed him. ^
He's sold his liberty for security.
I have no problem with him doing that, that's his choice. He has the freedom to make that choice. What I despise is, he's selling our liberty, too. Where is our choice? I guess our freedom is as cheaply traded as his own. And all his blather about freedom and choice applies only to his decisions.
Nailed him. ^
He's sold his liberty for security.
I have no problem with him doing that, that's his choice. He has the freedom to make that choice. What I despise is, he's selling our liberty, too. Where is our choice? I guess our freedom is as cheaply traded as his own. And all his blather about freedom and choice applies only to his decisions.
Precisely the point, GW. And he's in a MINORITY.
I have no problem with him doing that, that's his choice. He has the freedom to make that choice. What I despise is, he's selling our liberty, too. Where is our choice? I guess our freedom is as cheaply traded as his own. And all his blather about freedom and choice applies only to his decisions.
Precisely the point, GW. And he's in a MINORITY.
The liberal way, they don't like, they like, they get to make the choice and fuck everybody else. Like hunting, gun ownership, marriage, and sundry other issues. They'll fuck everyone else over just to have their "rights", and I question why they get to have "rights" and constantly deny so many others theirs?
I think I'll go have some coffee and a nice breakfast. Either that, or I'll find a tall tower...
Spaeter, gator!
Why do you insist on being such a tool? How does that comment make any sense on any level??? Where did Ronald Reagan ever say the ends justify the means (the idiot liberal battle cry)?
Really? Really? How well do you know your history. Google "The Iran Contra Affair." That was pretty much Reagan thumbing his fucking nose at the Constitution after a bi-partisan Congressional effort told him he couldn't just go traipsing into Central and South America and a Democracy Crusade. Then he entered into arms negotiations with a Middle Eastern regime that we weren't exactly buddy-buddy with.
I know it's hard to believe, you partisan twat, but there are a lot of us who still see that incident as a major scandal, and something that certainly deserved a fuck of a lot more investigation and scrutiny. It tainted pretty much the entire Reagan administration, including G.H. Bush, who was totally not-electable and Dole probably would have had the nomination if DickFace Atwater hadn't stepped in.
See, motherfuck, I know my history. And yes, Reagan ABSOLUTELY used the "ends justify the means" excuse for what he did. He took a page from Dick Nixon and basically said "If the President does it, it's not illegal."
Know your history, fuckface.
See above, Dickmouth.
You just can't criticize any liberal can you? They are all perfect. You'll never acknowledge when they mess up. God almighty are you a tool...
Who the fuck said that you dipshit? I simply pointed out your bias-blindness, and you got your panties in a twist. I notice you didn't deny that Nixon and Bush II certainly feel into the "ends justify the means" category. So at least you're smart enough not to challenge me there.
But I guess since I just took all your bluster and stuffed it right back down your arrogant, partisan fucking throat, you'll come back with some other douchebaggery. It's cool, bro. Just go read up a bit.
Because, unlike you who is a fascist that pledges blind allegiance to your Communist leaders, I can be objective and call out conservatives who are wrong. Richard Nixon was a scum bag (much like Bil Clinton and Barack Obama). George W. Bush, while no where near the "evil" villan that you idiots made him out to be, was wrong on quite a few issues.
I have no bias-blindness... I've called out every single conservative leader for at least something. Meanwhile, even when just a few short months ago, Barack Hussein ADMITS in his own words he doesn't have the legal authortity to do what he just did, you still defend him to the ends of the earth and just point at dead presidents. Fucking amazing...
Once again Obama illustrates why the economy is still in the shitter.
He cannot be trusted to do what he says he will do.
They feel he is capable of doing anything on a whim unilaterally.
Nobody can feel safe in this kind of environment....because our biggest fear is an abusive government that is capable of ignoring or outright breaking our laws. The protections we once had under the constitution have been flushed.
I like how you changed the subject there, guy.
That was really slick.
If what Obama did was the right thing to do, why were the Republicans trying to "sneak" it in when he upstaged them?
Businesses are not hiring because they know they can abuse the crap out of the people they have right now. Work extra hours for no overtime. You'd better, because I have a pile of resumes on my desk of people who'd happily do it.
Once again Obama illustrates why the economy is still in the shitter.
He cannot be trusted to do what he says he will do.
They feel he is capable of doing anything on a whim unilaterally.
Nobody can feel safe in this kind of environment....because our biggest fear is an abusive government that is capable of ignoring or outright breaking our laws. The protections we once had under the constitution have been flushed.
I like how you changed the subject there, guy.
That was really slick.
If what Obama did was the right thing to do, why were the Republicans trying to "sneak" it in when he upstaged them?
Businesses are not hiring because they know they can abuse the crap out of the people they have right now. Work extra hours for no overtime. You'd better, because I have a pile of resumes on my desk of people who'd happily do it.
I wasn't talking to you.
I was talking to everyone. That's why I didn't quote a previous post.
I was simply illustrating a fact, that the unintended consequence of Obamas' unilateral approach is a fear he will rule rather than govern. He refuses to obey our laws, goes around congress whenever he can, and this kind of authoritarian activity scares the shit out of businesses.
Every murderous dictator in history agrees with you.
Nailed him. ^
He's sold his liberty for security.
I have no problem with him doing that, that's his choice. He has the freedom to make that choice. What I despise is, he's selling our liberty, too. Where is our choice? I guess our freedom is as cheaply traded as his own. And all his blather about freedom and choice applies only to his decisions.
Really? Really? How well do you know your history. Google "The Iran Contra Affair." That was pretty much Reagan thumbing his fucking nose at the Constitution after a bi-partisan Congressional effort told him he couldn't just go traipsing into Central and South America and a Democracy Crusade. Then he entered into arms negotiations with a Middle Eastern regime that we weren't exactly buddy-buddy with.
I know it's hard to believe, you partisan twat, but there are a lot of us who still see that incident as a major scandal, and something that certainly deserved a fuck of a lot more investigation and scrutiny. It tainted pretty much the entire Reagan administration, including G.H. Bush, who was totally not-electable and Dole probably would have had the nomination if DickFace Atwater hadn't stepped in.
See, motherfuck, I know my history. And yes, Reagan ABSOLUTELY used the "ends justify the means" excuse for what he did. He took a page from Dick Nixon and basically said "If the President does it, it's not illegal."
Know your history, fuckface.
See above, Dickmouth.
Who the fuck said that you dipshit? I simply pointed out your bias-blindness, and you got your panties in a twist. I notice you didn't deny that Nixon and Bush II certainly feel into the "ends justify the means" category. So at least you're smart enough not to challenge me there.
But I guess since I just took all your bluster and stuffed it right back down your arrogant, partisan fucking throat, you'll come back with some other douchebaggery. It's cool, bro. Just go read up a bit.
Because, unlike you who is a fascist that pledges blind allegiance to your Communist leaders, I can be objective and call out conservatives who are wrong. Richard Nixon was a scum bag (much like Bil Clinton and Barack Obama). George W. Bush, while no where near the "evil" villan that you idiots made him out to be, was wrong on quite a few issues.
I have no bias-blindness... I've called out every single conservative leader for at least something. Meanwhile, even when just a few short months ago, Barack Hussein ADMITS in his own words he doesn't have the legal authortity to do what he just did, you still defend him to the ends of the earth and just point at dead presidents. Fucking amazing...
Obama's not a Communist. If he is, he's a really shitty one. I don't have blind-allegiance pledged. I hate drone attacks, and I hate they've increased in his term. I'm not a fan of NDAA, and I hate that Gitmo is still open.
So are you now back-pedaling and realizing that Reagan and Bush I were just as guilty of "ends justify means?"
Nailed him. ^
He's sold his liberty for security.
I have no problem with him doing that, that's his choice. He has the freedom to make that choice. What I despise is, he's selling our liberty, too. Where is our choice? I guess our freedom is as cheaply traded as his own. And all his blather about freedom and choice applies only to his decisions.
Exactly. That's the whole problem with liberalism. Short of treading on the rights of others, Conservatism allows people the freedom to be who they are whether that is the most narrow minded, fundamentalist, gun toting, Bible thumping, fanatical separatist to the most leftwing environmental wacko bleeding heart communist minded liberal.
The main problem with liberals is they don't see taking away the rights of others to have things the way they want it as denying anybody their rights. To the liberal, it is okay to deny others the right to have things the way they want it so long as what the liberals consider the way things should be becomes the law of the land. But when Conservatives rise up to defend their right to be allowed to have things the way they wish for them to be, the liberals can be the most intolerant people on the planet.
Really? Really? How well do you know your history. Google "The Iran Contra Affair." That was pretty much Reagan thumbing his fucking nose at the Constitution after a bi-partisan Congressional effort told him he couldn't just go traipsing into Central and South America and a Democracy Crusade. Then he entered into arms negotiations with a Middle Eastern regime that we weren't exactly buddy-buddy with.
I know it's hard to believe, you partisan twat, but there are a lot of us who still see that incident as a major scandal, and something that certainly deserved a fuck of a lot more investigation and scrutiny. It tainted pretty much the entire Reagan administration, including G.H. Bush, who was totally not-electable and Dole probably would have had the nomination if DickFace Atwater hadn't stepped in.
See, motherfuck, I know my history. And yes, Reagan ABSOLUTELY used the "ends justify the means" excuse for what he did. He took a page from Dick Nixon and basically said "If the President does it, it's not illegal."
Know your history, fuckface.
See above, Dickmouth.
Who the fuck said that you dipshit? I simply pointed out your bias-blindness, and you got your panties in a twist. I notice you didn't deny that Nixon and Bush II certainly feel into the "ends justify the means" category. So at least you're smart enough not to challenge me there.
But I guess since I just took all your bluster and stuffed it right back down your arrogant, partisan fucking throat, you'll come back with some other douchebaggery. It's cool, bro. Just go read up a bit.
Because, unlike you who is a fascist that pledges blind allegiance to your Communist leaders, I can be objective and call out conservatives who are wrong. Richard Nixon was a scum bag (much like Bil Clinton and Barack Obama). George W. Bush, while no where near the "evil" villan that you idiots made him out to be, was wrong on quite a few issues.
I have no bias-blindness... I've called out every single conservative leader for at least something. Meanwhile, even when just a few short months ago, Barack Hussein ADMITS in his own words he doesn't have the legal authortity to do what he just did, you still defend him to the ends of the earth and just point at dead presidents. Fucking amazing...
Obama's not a Communist. If he is, he's a really shitty one. I don't have blind-allegiance pledged. I hate drone attacks, and I hate they've increased in his term. I'm not a fan of NDAA, and I hate that Gitmo is still open.
So are you now back-pedaling and realizing that Reagan and Bush I were just as guilty of "ends justify means?"
Before the banks were deregulated, the Fed did regulate all banking activity. Today the Fed regulates commercial banking in the US. Investment banking, offshore trading, and international banking which is where the big profits and risks are, are virtually unregulated by the Fed.Consider bank deregulation. Financial deregulation has made possible the elimination of nearly 10,000 banks in the last 40 years through mergers and acquisitions.And you came to that conclusion how?!?!?!?!?
.
My clueless friend.
Banking and credit have been under the EXCLUSIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC control of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD AND ENTITY CREATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
So banking deregulation is a fiction.
The Federal Reserve Board has rigged the banking system to favor the biggest banks." This has been true ever since 1914.
Come on dude snap out of the propaganda induced stupor.
.
Because, unlike you who is a fascist that pledges blind allegiance to your Communist leaders, I can be objective and call out conservatives who are wrong. Richard Nixon was a scum bag (much like Bil Clinton and Barack Obama). George W. Bush, while no where near the "evil" villan that you idiots made him out to be, was wrong on quite a few issues.
I have no bias-blindness... I've called out every single conservative leader for at least something. Meanwhile, even when just a few short months ago, Barack Hussein ADMITS in his own words he doesn't have the legal authortity to do what he just did, you still defend him to the ends of the earth and just point at dead presidents. Fucking amazing...
Obama's not a Communist. If he is, he's a really shitty one. I don't have blind-allegiance pledged. I hate drone attacks, and I hate they've increased in his term. I'm not a fan of NDAA, and I hate that Gitmo is still open.
So are you now back-pedaling and realizing that Reagan and Bush I were just as guilty of "ends justify means?"
And to answer your question - NO, I'm not "back-pedaling" on Reagan. There was an investigation into that matter, and Reagan was found to have no knowledge of the situation. How about we hold an investigation into Obama circumventing the law here? No? Didn't think so, "fuck-face". (You get really angry and foul when you get your ass kicked in a debate).
By your attitude and critizism methods, I would hate to be your neighbor (trapped in a home paid for by me as a homeowner) having to live next to you, if you are one who lives in an over-mortgaged home, and you are a over run credit card user, butt crack showing, bald headed, butt scratching out in the public, "tool" whom looks around himself and thinks "I DID THIS MYSELF" by being a bad little sheep following the wrong flock in life, and with no help at all in my life I DID THIS, I put myself & possibly my own family where we all are right now in life, and you say to yourself, I don't ever need my brothers help or nations help to ever make it any better than what it is right now for me (even though I could use a little help), but I can't admit it, because my neighbor next door would then see me for the fraud that I really am in life, so if I can just hang on and fake it a little bit longer, maybe he will die over there in that solid but older house lived in "first", before the truth is ever known about me and what I've been going through in live........ Is this who you are maybe ? Your attitude when speaking seems a little rude to be a person with such a good dreamy life, so I was just wondering is all.. BIG GRIN....You see I own my home and property, and all my bills are paid, even have a small (emphasis on the word small) business that I run on the side, along with a full time job, so was this the profile you figured I would have ? I bet not..... I am under attack however now also in America, because by all you loco's out there in this nation now, who are operating to save your skin or make the nation worst than it's ever been, you loath a person that has been somewhat successful by the older secure era that was found back then within a nation I worked hard in & played hard in, and also by living in and amongst a more solid generation of thinking due to the days of old, it was all good around me and my family to, and so it is now that you and others need me to be pushed down or torn down to the levels that everyone else is either on these days or are being like heards of sheep heared in, because this nation is fast moving towards being a nation that hates long term success stories and solid character anymore (to slow a living for the new generations to stomach very well), so there is envy coming from the ones who want to be equal without earning it (or) thete is envy coming from those who have been faking it for a long time now, who are buying up all the lies in which the greedy are still selling them of their style of hope, and this in hopes that somehow those greedy suckers will set them free or save them by allowing them into the clique (aboard the lifeboats as first class citizens) before the Titanic/USA slowly sinks into a sea of lies and muck as it is now sinking for so many (taking even the old solid ones down with it in the backwash as well).First, I'm not upset about the salary of a GM worker. I'm merely pointing out how your Communist unions extortions collapse companies, and then you little bitches cry like bitches that you don't have a job any more. A CEO didn't use union extortion to get his salary. He was offered it at the time of employment by the board. Oops - looks like someone just exposed their own hateful ignorance again.
Second, as far as "what's wrong with having a job for life, that was the norm in my dad's generation" - well thank you for showing everyone what a lazy, idiot liberal you are. In your dad's generation, it was also the "norm" to beat your wife. In his dad's generation, it was the norm to not let women work. God forbid we actually continue to evolve and get better. The business models used by your dad's generation are absolute. People have learned from the mistakes of that business model.
Third, do I agree with what they did to that woman after 25 years? No. But neither you or she have any idea why she was terminated, because they are not going to admit that was why to her. Most likely, she was terminated because Obama has collapsed our economy and businesses are struggling to survive.
Fourth, regardless of why she was terminated, the fact remains that she should have created her own retirement rather than expecting someone else to provide it for her. If she was a manager for 25 years, she should have quite a nice little nest egg right now.
Fifth and finally, if you feel these types of business practices are "scummy behavior" (nice sentence structure by the way - drop out of high school did we?), then rather than crying about it like a little bitch, why don't you start your own company and do it better? Think of the top notch talent you could attract by promosing to keep employees permanently like was "the norm in daddy's generation". But of course, that takes work and effort. It's easier to sit on a message board all day crying like a little bitch and blaming others who actually took the risk, have the tremendous pressure of running a company, and have to make tough decisions because of the idiot liberal policies that are out to hinder their efforts.
Once again, you just got destroyed. Go home now and cry to daddy about how his generation had it so much better...
Hey if I have placed you wrong in category maybe, as caused by your attitude in life, then I apologize... B )
You just said - "I don't ever need my brothers help or nations help to ever make it any better". The very essence of Communism/Marxism/Socialism. "We're all in this together". "We all have to help each other".
The problem is, you can't even admit who or what you are. Once you admit you are a Communist/Marxist/Socialist that believes "we are all in this together", then we can at leat have an honest debate about what works. But you won't do that, because you already know that Communism/Marxism/Socialism doesn't work, so you just want to take the same principles and call it something else - like "liberalism" or "progressivism".
Makes dollars and sence to me... I agree that we need accountability always in these things, before they sink us again and again or over and over, and what for the greed & wealth of the few verses the health and security of many who need stability also to be in this world ?Before the banks were deregulated, the Fed did regulate all banking activity. Today the Fed regulates commercial banking in the US. Investment banking, offshore trading, and international banking which is where the big profits and risks are, are virtually unregulated by the Fed.Consider bank deregulation. Financial deregulation has made possible the elimination of nearly 10,000 banks in the last 40 years through mergers and acquisitions.
My clueless friend.
Banking and credit have been under the EXCLUSIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC control of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD AND ENTITY CREATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
So banking deregulation is a fiction.
The Federal Reserve Board has rigged the banking system to favor the biggest banks." This has been true ever since 1914.
Come on dude snap out of the propaganda induced stupor.
.
Banking deregulation allowed banks to expand their operations first across state lines then internationally. They expanded into every segment of the financial sector, mortgage banking, investment banking, international banking, domestic, and offshore trading. There is almost no financial product or service not offered by the banks. Only a part of their business is regulated by the Federal Reserve.
We may hate the idea, that any private busy should be classified as to big to fail, but unfortunately that's the situation we have got ourselves into. Consider Chase. They hold over trillion dollars in deposits, 15% of the nation's GDP. A failure could overwhelm the FDIC. Credit would grind to a halt as it did in 2008. Anything not called U.S. Treasuries would be deemed too toxic to touch. Even the bluest of blue chip companies suddenly wouldn't have access to credit markets, and thousands of businesses around the country that rely on credit to fund inventory and payroll would be hurting. The problem wouldn't stop with just Chase. Just as in 2008, other financial giants would fail.
2008 is going to repeat because we have done little to remedy the problem and the market share of these financial giants are still increasing. Unless we start to truly regulate the financial sector, the federal government will eventually have to nationalize the banks. We can't keep spending trillions of dollars to bail out businesses that fail.
Bailing out these mega-corporations sets a very bad precedent. Why shouldn't they gamble in the derivatives market, subprimes, and currency? If they're successful, they repeat huge profits. If they fail the tax payers have to bail them out.Makes dollars and sence to me... I agree that we need accountability always in these things, before they sink us again and again or over and over, and what for the greed & wealth of the few verses the health and security of many who need stability also to be in this world ?Before the banks were deregulated, the Fed did regulate all banking activity. Today the Fed regulates commercial banking in the US. Investment banking, offshore trading, and international banking which is where the big profits and risks are, are virtually unregulated by the Fed.My clueless friend.
Banking and credit have been under the EXCLUSIVE AND MONOPOLISTIC control of the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD AND ENTITY CREATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
So banking deregulation is a fiction.
The Federal Reserve Board has rigged the banking system to favor the biggest banks." This has been true ever since 1914.
Come on dude snap out of the propaganda induced stupor.
.
Banking deregulation allowed banks to expand their operations first across state lines then internationally. They expanded into every segment of the financial sector, mortgage banking, investment banking, international banking, domestic, and offshore trading. There is almost no financial product or service not offered by the banks. Only a part of their business is regulated by the Federal Reserve.
We may hate the idea, that any private busy should be classified as to big to fail, but unfortunately that's the situation we have got ourselves into. Consider Chase. They hold over trillion dollars in deposits, 15% of the nation's GDP. A failure could overwhelm the FDIC. Credit would grind to a halt as it did in 2008. Anything not called U.S. Treasuries would be deemed too toxic to touch. Even the bluest of blue chip companies suddenly wouldn't have access to credit markets, and thousands of businesses around the country that rely on credit to fund inventory and payroll would be hurting. The problem wouldn't stop with just Chase. Just as in 2008, other financial giants would fail.
2008 is going to repeat because we have done little to remedy the problem and the market share of these financial giants are still increasing. Unless we start to truly regulate the financial sector, the federal government will eventually have to nationalize the banks. We can't keep spending trillions of dollars to bail out businesses that fail.
Bailing out these mega-corporations sets a very bad precedent. Why shouldn't they gamble in the derivatives market, subprimes, and currency? If they're successful, they repeat huge profits. If they fail the tax payers have to bail them out.
In late 2008, JPMorgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon and a number of Wall Street Banking firms met with Paulson concerning the growing problem in the subprime mortgage market. During the meeting Dimon ask Paulson if there were any federal regulations or tools that the government could use to avert a crisis because the banks are not able to stable the situation. In 2012, Dimon appogises for Chase's in ability to manage their risks. The Chase board offers to hire an assistant CEO. The facts are all there. We just choose to ignore them. These businesses are not just too big to fail, they are too big to manage and that's pretty scary.
First, I'm not upset about the salary of a GM worker. I'm merely pointing out how your Communist unions extortions collapse companies, and then you little bitches cry like bitches that you don't have a job any more. A CEO didn't use union extortion to get his salary. He was offered it at the time of employment by the board. Oops - looks like someone just exposed their own hateful ignorance again.
Second, as far as "what's wrong with having a job for life, that was the norm in my dad's generation" - well thank you for showing everyone what a lazy, idiot liberal you are. In your dad's generation, it was also the "norm" to beat your wife. In his dad's generation, it was the norm to not let women work. God forbid we actually continue to evolve and get better. The business models used by your dad's generation are absolute. People have learned from the mistakes of that business model.
Third, do I agree with what they did to that woman after 25 years? No. But neither you or she have any idea why she was terminated, because they are not going to admit that was why to her. Most likely, she was terminated because Obama has collapsed our economy and businesses are struggling to survive.
Fourth, regardless of why she was terminated, the fact remains that she should have created her own retirement rather than expecting someone else to provide it for her. If she was a manager for 25 years, she should have quite a nice little nest egg right now.
Fifth and finally, if you feel these types of business practices are "scummy behavior" (nice sentence structure by the way - drop out of high school did we?),
then rather than crying about it like a little bitch, why don't you start your own company and do it better? Think of the top notch talent you could attract by promosing to keep employees permanently like was "the norm in daddy's generation". But of course, that takes work and effort. It's easier to sit on a message board all day crying like a little bitch and blaming others who actually took the risk, have the tremendous pressure of running a company, and have to make tough decisions because of the idiot liberal policies that are out to hinder their efforts.
Once again, you just got destroyed. Go home now and cry to daddy about how his generation had it so much better...
No JoeB131 baby is not the other white meat.
