President Barack Obama

President Barack Obama

This thread is dedicated soley to discussing the new President. This includes his inauguration, policies, etc. If it involves President Obama, discuss it here.

Nope, I think you mean Joe "JOBS is a 3 Letter Word here in--wherever that is--in the 20^th. Century" Biden.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

........Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful............

Well, sir, anybody dumb enough to buy into that hogwash ought to vote for Mitt Romney or D&D's own (drummmrollll) Smileyfaze.
"SECTION 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

SECTION 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

Case closed.

Vote Romney, the Party's answer to a SmileyDream

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Case closed.

Whatever.....May the Lord lift up your heart...live in peace until His final call old friend.

The choice shows how bleak statesmen like leaders are in an educated society

If the federal government, or any part of the three branches thereof, stopped at what the Constitution requires and didn't go beyond it, we the people would be a whole lot better off. The government would be much smaller than it is, the military would be sized to protect us and no bigger*, and we just might have a budget surplus. Imagine that.

*It costs a huge amount to maintain a military big enough to police the whole world. Having one big enough to protect us would be considerably smaller, less costly and we could hope somewhat more efficient. That last, about efficiency, is likely only a dream but we can at least dream.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Case closed.

Whatever.....May the Lord lift up your heart...live in peace until His final call old friend.

And peace be unto you, too, hombre!

We'll all enjoy your presidency.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

*It costs a huge amount to maintain a military big enough to police the whole world. Having one big enough to protect us would be considerably smaller, less costly and we could hope somewhat more efficient. That last, about efficiency, is likely only a dream but we can at least dream.

$654,000,000,000.47 for FY 2012.

Just about enough to protect us from...from...from...I need help here! The Republicans?

Ten Immigration Agents file suit in Federal Court against the Obama Administration & it's Immigration Policies & Directives.

The Obama Administration wants the ICE Agents to ignore the laws they took an oath to uphold, in essence the Obama Administration wants them to break the law, or otherwise face disciplinary action.

.....The plaintiffs say obeying new administration priorities on what types of illegal immigrants should get priority for deportation could place agents in violation of federal law...........

The 10 agents who brought the suit are asking for immediate and urgent relief. "They are being ordered to violate federal law and are facing discipline or adverse employment action if they follow federal law," according to the court document........

Source

Why does the Obama Administration insist these Civil Servants break the law?

Isn't the Obama Administration in violation of law by having them do so?

Is that the way it's done in Chicago?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Ten Immigration Agents file suit in Federal Court against the Obama Administration & it's Immigration Policies & Directives.

The Obama Administration wants the ICE Agents to ignore the laws they took an oath to uphold, in essence the Obama Administration wants them to break the law, or otherwise face disciplinary action.

.....The plaintiffs say obeying new administration priorities on what types of illegal immigrants should get priority for deportation could place agents in violation of federal law...........

The 10 agents who brought the suit are asking for immediate and urgent relief. "They are being ordered to violate federal law and are facing discipline or adverse employment action if they follow federal law," according to the court document........

Source

Why does the Obama Administration insist these Civil Servants break the law?

Isn't the Obama Administration in violation of law by having them do so?

Is that the way it's done in Chicago?

From that same source:

The Obama administration announced in June it will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children if they meet certain requirements. Under the new policy, people younger than 30 who came to the United States before the age of 16, pose no criminal or security threat, and were successful students or served in the military can get a two-year deferral from deportation
........
Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, responded, "DHS uses prosecutorial discretion to assist in focusing vigorously on the removal of individuals who are convicted criminals, repeat immigration law violators, and recent border-crossers."

So there is another side to the argument, one that stems from pending change in US Laws regarding immigration.

The matter is about implementation or "Focus". In my opinion the answer to the first two on those questions would therefore be no.

Humanity verses politically motivated inanity in my opinion.

Humanity isn't a Republican priority.

If the parents were born on Mars, their children, born here, must go to Mars. It is written in the Republican stars.

I wouldn't impose that on a citizen of Smileyland.

Romney is the Anti-Christ, a billionaire Anti-Christ, but an Anti-Christ nonetheless.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Romney is the Anti-Christ, a billionaire Anti-Christ, but an Anti-Christ nonetheless.

no.
Romney wants order, as much as he is liked, I don't care for him. Will he win, no. Why? Obama has created enough chaos much like the last tzar of Russia did before he died. Only Obama's reckless nature and cunning deception will net him more than another term of four years. America and the world will now never see another lightbringer again.

Obama might also win because he is the choice of the American People.

Originally posted by string:

Obama might also win because he is the choice of the American People.

very loosely thrown word choice is.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by string:

Obama might also win because he is the choice of the American People.

very loosely thrown word choice is.

Not really, what is loose is the commitment of some (not confined to America by the way) is the concept of democracy where elections are won by people who get the most votes. We have seen it both in Russia (there was some debate about that very thing in the "Putin" thread and also in this thread where some do simply not understand that Democracy does not mean that their view prevails and when it does not don't accept the outcome).

But in this context it seems that, fearing another Obama victory, excuses are being prepared on why that should be, one is (ref quote above) that there is not a real "choice", with an implicit insult to Americans who vote for Obama, implying that either they don't know what they are voting for or that they have been fooled in some way. Another is the business about getting people to register, a blindingly obvious signal that another excuse is being readied that the "silent majority", aka anyone who agrees with a certain view, cannot vote because they have not been registered or been prevented from doing so. ....Then there is the prattle about double voting or dead people voting or whatever, all geared towards preparing excuses for the outcome if it happens to be against a desired result.

What is really sad is the negativity of the logic of voting, where it seems that many are voting-against someone rather than voting-for someone. It is also rather sad that so many people have apparently made up their mind already. Were I an American I would not make up my mind until all the information was in, when I had read all about what the candidates were wanting to do and formed a solid opinion on their character and in-the-round worthiness for the task.

Hey you leave my poor last Tsar alone Virusboy!

Obama will win and America will continue to be wobbly the trilllions debt will continue, war and military base expansion, widescale social upheaval and a dodgy future. Would it be any different with the Mormon? Nah.

Obama could very well lose the popular vote yet still win re-election. We have some rather strange things in this country, and one of the strangest is the Electoral College. As long as we have that, Obama wins as long as he gets enough delegates--- regardless of how the popular vote comes out.

It had to happen. I just knew it, it had to happen.

The Japanese have designed a motorcycle that runs on political campaign promises. Or something like that.


The campaign-o-cycle

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Obama could very well lose the popular vote yet still win re-election. We have some rather strange things in this country, and one of the strangest is the Electoral College. As long as we have that, Obama wins as long as he gets enough delegates--- regardless of how the popular vote comes out.

Bush did it first run. So its very possible

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by string:

Obama might also win because he is the choice of the American People.

very loosely thrown word choice is.

Not really, what is loose is the commitment of some (not confined to America by the way) is the concept of democracy where elections are won by people who get the most votes. We have seen it both in Russia (there was some debate about that very thing in the "Putin" thread and also in this thread where some do simply not understand that Democracy does not mean that their view prevails and when it does not don't accept the outcome).

But in this context it seems that, fearing another Obama victory, excuses are being prepared on why that should be, one is (ref quote above) that there is not a real "choice", with an implicit insult to Americans who vote for Obama, implying that either they don't know what they are voting for or that they have been fooled in some way. Another is the business about getting people to register, a blindingly obvious signal that another excuse is being readied that the "silent majority", aka anyone who agrees with a certain view, cannot vote because they have not been registered or been prevented from doing so. ....Then there is the prattle about double voting or dead people voting or whatever, all geared towards preparing excuses for the outcome if it happens to be against a desired result.

What is really sad is the negativity of the logic of voting, where it seems that many are voting-against someone rather than voting-for someone. It is also rather sad that so many people have apparently made up their mind already. Were I an American I would not make up my mind until all the information was in, when I had read all about what the candidates were wanting to do and formed a solid opinion on their character and in-the-round worthiness for the task.

No, we don't vote for people, we vote for issues that are being spouted that going to be fixed.
If Obama lied to us about health care, the tools wouldn't care, they believe he is doing something by speaking about it. Which is why having faith is both mis-guided and ill-mannered. Obama is just a shell, what he speaks for is what the people want to hear.

A couple of years ago mjsmsprt40, I mused on why you need that 'Electoral Colleger' at all?

Originally posted by string:

Were I an American I would not make up my mind until all the information was in, when I had read all about what the candidates were wanting to do and formed a solid opinion on their character and in-the-round worthiness for the task.

Phewwww! Elections and politicians in England must be very different. Here both sides suggest that the opponent is demonic, that only they can produce results.

Presidential politics is complicated by an assumption that presidents can do things that they simply can't do by edict alone. The House and Senate figure in prominantly.

Things they can't do on their own?

Abortion, budget, economy, civil rights, corporations, crime, drugs, education, energy, oil, environment, families, children, foreign policy, free trade, government reform, gun control, health care, homeland security, immigration, jobs, principles, values, social security, tax reform, technology, war, peace, welfare and poverty.

That doesn't mean they don't figure prominantly in campaign rhetoric.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Things they can't do on their own?

Abortion, budget, economy, civil rights, corporations, crime, drugs, education, energy, oil, environment, families, children, foreign policy, free trade, government reform, gun control, health care, homeland security, immigration, jobs, principles, values, social security, tax reform, technology, war, peace, welfare and poverty.

That doesn't mean they don't figure prominantly in campaign rhetoric.

Hey ole man, you goin' senile on us here?

Have you forgotten about the often abused Executive Order?
Obama is quite familiar with them, so here to refresh your fragile memory, go here & freshin up!

One thing that presidents do that has a long-lasting effect is to appoint Supreme Court Justices. That is one reason why both sides get so fierce during election season. The next president has 4, or 8 if he gets re-elected, years in which a couple of vacancies are likely to get filled. The president can affect whether the court is liberal or conservative for several years after he leaves office.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

for several years after he leaves office

Um, you meant "several decades" didn't you? (But history has shown that no vetting process, no litmus test, will assure ideoligical fealty.)

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by string:

Were I an American I would not make up my mind until all the information was in, when I had read all about what the candidates were wanting to do and formed a solid opinion on their character and in-the-round worthiness for the task.

Phewwww! Elections and politicians in England must be very different. Here both sides suggest that the opponent is demonic, that only they can produce results.

Presidential politics is complicated by an assumption that presidents can do things that they simply can't do by edict alone. The House and Senate figure in prominantly.

That doesn't mean they don't figure prominantly in campaign rhetoric.....[/quote]

Politicians are indeed different in our two countries but ours too will slander the opposition. I was speaking only for myself as a voter, not a politician. Some here will also swallow hook line and sinker what they hear from politicians, especially when it bolsters with their own preconceptions, but I like to think that there is a sizeable number of floating voters who can make up their own mind. Surely that is the same in the US otherwise you would be stuck one party all the time, the voters having made up their mind for all time.

The President's role is, of course, different from our Prime Minister, the latter having to defend his position in Parliament (which means not just the place but the convocation of MPs) virtually every week in PM's Question Time. Often that degenerates into a slanging match but it does ensure that the PM treads carefully, or tries to. In principle the country is ruled by their "Cabinet" (the top ministers in the Government) and it is done by consensus of the Cabinet although some there have more influence than others notably, of course, the PM. There is a Democratic failing, however, in my opinion, in that sometimes (although it's the small exception) a Minister comes from the House of Lords which is not elected. I would like to see that end. I note in passing that the number of unelected people in your President's Government seems rather large. Would that be the case?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Hey ole man, you goin' senile on us here?

How do you spell smug ass-wipe? Hint: starts with an S.

"cumfort zone"

Scottish for....???? ::barf::

Spellcheck, Sir, spellcheck.

Hey Jaybro,it's the Minuteman who was insulting you and the winter of your years, not I. Jings, you must have a deep thing about the Caledonians.

Talk about sick.....That President, you know the one called Barack, Now that President is a sick....'scuse the pun....a sick puppy!

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Hey Jaybro,it's the Minuteman who was insulting you and the winter of your years, not I. Jings, you must have a deep thing about the Caledonians.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jaybro does have a thing about the Caledonians. Take a look at the vicinity around Grand Rapids, Michigan and tell me what you see on the map. Quickie hint: Caledonia, Michigan is Southeast of Grand Rapids. Now, who'da thunk it?

Now that is really going to irritate under his skin mjsmsprt40 having such so near to him. He can bellow all he likes here on the Forums but a fifth column in Michigan? Brilliant. Well done Chicagoan for that one!

ps. Being a rail simulator buff I have just downloaded a Chicago rail line to add to my list. El system and must have a drive. Getting a train in Grand Rapids - patience needed!

Absolutely!

::methinks he needs a punctuation simulator::

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

::methinks he needs a punctuation simulator::

Methinks caring is for the weak.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Now that is really going to irritate under his skin mjsmsprt40 having such so near to him. He can bellow all he likes here on the Forums but a fifth column in Michigan? Brilliant. Well done Chicagoan for that one!

ps. Being a rail simulator buff I have just downloaded a Chicago rail line to add to my list. El system and must have a drive. Getting a train in Grand Rapids - patience needed!

El system, eh? Word to the wise: I know certain parts of the Green and Red lines where spouting off the stuff you've been saying here will make more trouble than you need. Of course it won't matter on your simulator, but in real life, on the real Red or Green Lines, it would matter a great deal.

The El is light rail, Third rail electrified. Generally, a non-rush hour train will be either two or four cars long--- it's always an even number--and during rush hour may be ten cars long. It doesn't really go much beyond City Limits, for the most part.

I must check to see whether it is red or green i have........

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I must check to see whether it is red or green i have........

How complete of a simulator do you have? The El has several lines, each one color-coded so you can tell, by looking at the map, which line you're on and where your train is going. The line that goes from Forest Park through the Loop and back out to O'Hare is the Red Line, the Green Line runs from Harlem Avenue along Lake Street, through the Loop and then down the Dan Ryan to 63rd Street. Those are the ones I know the best, there are other lines with other color-codes.

Well it seems the creator has based it extremely loosely on the West Side as he puts it but has made up a would be connection that isn't real. Some people create a reproduction of what exists and some just make creations of their own thinking. I prefer the reality approach. It took me three years to build the whole of the former Glasgow Tramway street syetm (around 125 miles) which closed in 1962. Presently I am modeeling the whlle of the N. Ireland Railway company which runs the 6 passenger lines in Ulster. Although i will be continuing over the Border with the inter-city Enterprise route to ublin. On the Chicago thing i had thought I was going to download an actual repro of the real system or anyway part of it which i suppose I have although with some made up bits by there American concerned. On my next break from my present build using the Auran Trainz programme I must give it a run to see what it is like. Just in cae i don't get to Chicago!..

When Barack H. Obama took office in 2009 the US National Debt was $10.615 trillion.




Today, on President Obama's watch, the US National Debt has surged past $16.001 trillion, less than 4 years later!

I can't wait to hear how many apologists, how many Main Street Media so called journalist types, how many democrat pundits,
& how Obama himself will be blaming everything & everyone, but Obama himself, for a penny of it.

Obama himself said repeatedly, from stump to stump back in '08,
that allowing the National Debt to rise over $4 trillion dollars is Irresponsible & UnPatriotic.

Listen to Obama's own words, from his own sanctimonious mouth .......... Irresponsible ...... UnPatriotic ......



Might I ask the obvious question that begs to be asked.................

What does $6 trillion in new debt make President Barack H. Obama ?




Yes or No ...... Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

Over 50% definitely don't think so.

Only 31% think they are.

What about you?

Listen to the next video....it's short, but prophetic nonetheless.

After you listen, think of what it meant to you --- then & now ---



Now ask yourself an easy question, honestly, does that man deserve another 4 years as your President?

Now, ask the uncomplicated question ..... Why?


Based solely on his self-described "good solid B-plus" record of promises & accomplishment:

What can Obama say to you personally, today, that will help convince you into believing
that he will do things better if only given another 4 years as your President?

Can he be trusted?

Would you believe him?

And didn't this catastrophic situation start very profundly under the Republican President before him? Asways harder for the follower to get rid of something like that. At the same time, I feel that Obama's weakness is he tends to look like a campaigner and ideologic figure. However much the same can be said about Romney. The thing I have noted about this election is both sides fighting for the state of the middle class. Isn't there any working class over there simehow??

On taxation, it is my understanding that the rich pay about 70% of the taxes but often in practice only pay 17% in personal tax. That still doesn't seem right to me at all because that grouping is drawing in massive sums whilst those below have seen noincreade in their incomes and struggling.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And didn't this catastrophic situation start very profundly under the Republican President before him?

It all started with an Orangeman called Adam & his wife Eve in a garden called Eden in South of Scotland, & it's been all downhill from there.

True the economy wasn't all the best by a long-shot for sure, & there were major problems to say the least, but at what point would you personally deem reasonable when the onus of the bad decisions he--Obama--personally made from day one, becomes the sole responsibility of the present occupant of his Office---Obama himself?

6 Months....9 Months.....12 Months.....16 Months.....20 Months.....24 Months......32 Months.....36 Months.....40 Months.....46 Months.....Never--A Free Ride???


On taxes....what about 50% of all Americans that pay 0% in personal taxes? Is that fair game?

Or are you & I falling for the age old political tactic of divide & conquer....dividing people based on levels of income, amount of taxes paid, are they male, female, black, white, brown, yellow.....

I live in a land where if you earn $10 million dollars a year....you pay a percentage of taxes based on the tax laws---nothing more(unless you choose) & nothing less---& the rest belongs to you & you alone. The fruits of your labors. The State has not the right to demand that it gets 1 penny more for redistribution, amongst those that did not one thing to earn a penny of it.

In the end, I live in a land where charitable giving is if not the highest, is among the highest in the world. Americans are free to donate whatever they wish to charity, & we do---in the billions. Most people I know, even though they will never quote a figure, I can be very comfortable is saying that they donate over 10% of their net income to charity each & every year.

That's their free choice.

Last place I will donate anything to is to the Government, why, because they will only squander whatever I was stupid enough to give them.

If those that have fallen on harder times need a hand up, they should seek out charity from charitable & religious organizations---not be told by government that they should look to me in envy, because I have what I have, & it's me that owes what I have to them merely because I earned it.

Give a man a fish, & he will show up each & every day--palm to sky--to feed his family.....but, teach that same man to fish, & he will feed his family for a lifetime.

I have the fruits of my labors, pay my taxes, donate to charity, & yet somehow I don't pay what they consider is my "fair share".

My fair share is determined by & ends with the tax code....period.

This "Fair Share" chant is merely a clamor for Class Warfare.....Obama's prize tactic of division.

His vision of "Fair Share" does not exist....it's never attainable.....& it's always insatiable.

Want what I have??....Want to take it from me??.....be prepared to pay the ultimate price for the privilege of challenging what I own.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And didn't this catastrophic situation start very profundly under the Republican President before him?

Yes. But that's a fact that doesn't fit the needs of the screaming few, so it is swept under the carpet of "irrelevant because I say it is".

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

When Barack H. Obama took office in 2009 the US National Debt was $10.615 trillion.




Today, on President Obama's watch, the US National Debt has surged past $16.001 trillion, less than 4 years later!

I can't wait to hear how many apologists, how many Main Street Media so called journalist types, how many democrat pundits,
& how Obama himself will be blaming everything & everyone, but Obama himself, for a penny of it.

Obama himself said repeatedly, from stump to stump back in '08,
that allowing the National Debt to rise over $4 trillion dollars is Irresponsible & UnPatriotic.

Listen to Obama's own words, from his own sanctimonious mouth .......... Irresponsible ...... UnPatriotic ......

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="381" scrolling="no" src="http://embed.myopera.com/video/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1kuTG19Cu_Q&height=375&width=620" width="626" />


Might I ask the obvious question that begs to be asked.................

What does $6 trillion in new debt make President Barack H. Obama ?




Yes or No ...... Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?

Over 50% definitely don't think so.

Only 31% think they are.

What about you?

Listen to the next video....it's short, but prophetic nonetheless.

After you listen, think of what it meant to you --- then & now ---

<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="381" scrolling="no" src="http://embed.myopera.com/video/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3ziiZFcWChg&height=375&width=620" width="626" />


Now ask yourself an easy question, honestly, does that man deserve another 4 years as your President?

Now, ask the uncomplicated question ..... Why?


Based solely on his self-described "good solid B-plus" record of promises & accomplishment:

What can Obama say to you personally, today, that will help convince you into believing
that he will do things better if only given another 4 years as your President?

Can he be trusted?

Would you believe him?

yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada
How do you spell "obsessive compulsive whiner"?
S-M-I-L-E-Y-F-A-Z-E

Originally posted by rjhowie:

On taxation, it is my understanding that the rich pay about 70% of the taxes but often in practice only pay 17% in personal tax. That still doesn't seem right to me at all because that grouping is drawing in massive sums whilst those below have seen noincreade in their incomes and struggling.

Jaybro clears his throat..........

Mr. Romney’s return shows how wealthy Americans with foreign earnings can sharply reduce their tax liability in the United States. In 2010 Mr. Romney reported $2.73 million of gross foreign income. On that amount, he paid foreign taxes of $67,173, or just 2.5 percent of his gross foreign income.

Clears throat again. Smiles.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada-yada
How do you spell "obsessive compulsive whiner"?
S-M-I-L-E-Y-F-A-Z-E

You ain't seen nothin' yet....it's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg

Both the two parties that have the electoral system unfortunately stitched up over there have big money backers but it seems to me that the Republicans are very much in that pocket. It is a rather odd contradiction of that mythical "dream" no doubt conjured up by some cumfy capitalist baron where the banking lot are continuing without much effort as they have done with little restriction (having caused the crisis) whilst millions starve or olose homes. This all started to go downill under President Bush so another oddity. Why does Romney want to spend a couple of trillion more on the military? That's a massive government expense isn't it? As soon as you mention folk in uniform over the pond the throats go dry and the tears are near but recently someone asked me a rhetorical question once - who are our enemies why do we need such a big list of baes around the world? America must be awfully insecure they want to spens more than even the military is asking for. Maybe Smileyfaze can explain that one to me?

Likewise why is Romney wanting to growl at Russia and China? Russia isn't tryint to have 200 plus military bases round the globe nor see enemies everywhere like America does? You really have to get out of this silly and immature nonsense.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

.... It is a rather odd contradiction of that mythical "dream" no doubt conjured up by some cumfy capitalist baron where the banking lot are continuing without much effort as they have done with little restriction (having caused the crisis) whilst millions starve or olose homes.....

rj, after reading your codswallop I think the democrat Party would fit you like a latex glove. The democrats want to ban corporate profits, or at the very least cap corporate profits.

You'd probably agree wholeheartedly, no?

If you agree then you've forgotten one little thing.

Someone needs to generate wealth before they can confiscate and redistribute it.

Without profits, that wealth can only be generated by slave labor.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

.... It is a rather odd contradiction of that mythical "dream" no doubt conjured up by some cumfy capitalist baron where the banking lot are continuing without much effort as they have done with little restriction (having caused the crisis) whilst millions starve or olose homes.....

rj, after reading your codswallop I think the democrat Party would fit you like a latex glove. The democrats want to ban corporate profits, or at the very least cap corporate profits.

You'd probably agree wholeheartedly, no?

If you agree then you've forgotten one little thing.

Someone needs to generate wealth before they can confiscate and redistribute it.

Without profits, that wealth can only be generated by slave labor.


<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="381" scrolling="no" src="http://embed.myopera.com/video/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D07fTsF5BiSM&height=375&width=620" width="626" />

So.............explain to the audience how the obstructionists tactics being employed with in the halls of a GOP Congress has benefited the U.S. tax payer. And a smarmy response will only lend proof of your inability to do so.

Originally posted by zapl25:

So.............explain to the audience how the obstructionists tactics being employed with in the halls of a GOP Congress has benefited the U.S. tax payer. And a smarmy response will only lend proof of your inability to do so.

A smarmy

Oh I fully accept that we must have people to provide the basis for growth and jobs. However in the tally the republicans trail behind in the jobs totals. There are corprates supporting Obama but it is mainly the fifdom of Republicans. Personally, I wouldn't want to live over the pond stuck with 2 monstrous parties that are all about big money. Anyone else has no chance as it is a closed shop and hardly that democratic. Kind of pointless having "Independents as they have really nowehere to go but the 2 party dictatorship. I belive in a free market in principle but it seems rather odd to me that so many damn people lose jobs and millions their homes whilst the very banking barons who helped create the mess and tend to be Republicans caused the mess in the first place.

Can I say that I also believe in the principle of smaller government but can you please, please explain whuy your side wants to spend even more on the military and keep building bases everywhere. That's a government expenditure that should be cut shouldn't it. This tends to get danced away from. No chance of the Republican Party doing anything on that one, eh? The other thing that I noticed in the daft funfare you folk call a political convention that the republicans were a bit less of inclusive than the Democrat lot. The black faces in Florida were exceedingly hard to spot.

As for romney he is a flip flop man and he is part of the corprate set that blasts out the need to encourage the rish to help jobs when in fact their main motive is to continue to get away with financial murder. Where and when did you people go wrong?