The question Democrats dread.....

Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Joe Steel

2009-04-20 18:04:05 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

The answer Republicans dread:

Absolutely!

First first time in eight years we can bask in the glow of poltical
sanity knowing that the restoration of the American dream is underway.

--
I've never been a big fan of the Tenth Amendment. It seems to me to be
substantially meaningless.

Alric Knebel

2009-04-20 18:28:02 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Crash

2009-04-20 18:32:14 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

unknown

2009-04-20 19:38:25 UTC

Post by Crash

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

Wow.... how were they up to 2006?

If you can't make it in a roaring economy, you need to start rethinking
your financial and economic beliefs. Find someone who is making it and
talk to them.

Obama obviously knows nothing of economics and the Professors in
colleges are still working as teachers for a living, so they don't have
a clue or they'd be rich.

Kevin Cunningham

2009-04-20 22:04:03 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

Wow.... how were they up to 2006?
If you can't make it in a roaring economy, you need to start rethinking
your financial and economic beliefs. Find someone who is making it and
talk to them.
Obama obviously knows nothing of economics and the Professors in
colleges are still working as teachers for a living, so they don't have
a clue or they'd be rich.

unknown

2009-04-20 22:14:16 UTC

Post by Kevin Cunningham

Post by Crash

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

Wow.... how were they up to 2006?
If you can't make it in a roaring economy, you need to start rethinking
your financial and economic beliefs. Find someone who is making it and
talk to them.
Obama obviously knows nothing of economics and the Professors in
colleges are still working as teachers for a living, so they don't have
a clue or they'd be rich.

Bush went to an Ivy League College too.

So why is it that you think Obama is a genius and Bush is an idiot?

They both have a sheepskin.

Obama is as big an idiot as Bush. Not two cents worth of difference in
their $500,000 educations.

2009-04-21 00:54:11 UTC

Post by unknown
Bush went to an Ivy League College too.
So why is it that you think Obama is a genius and Bush is an idiot?

bush went to an ivy league college that is famous as the one in the
ivy league which was the most dedicated to the american aristocracy,
and where his grandfather, a Senator, and his father, at the time a
congressman, also happened to attend.

obama went to harvard, and is the son of a guy from Kenya who went to
University of Hawaii.

same thing!

bvallely

2009-04-20 22:38:48 UTC

Yeah, those damned teachers. Who said they's smart.

.
Not me.
.

Riiiiggghhhttt, Obama knows nothing about the economy, graduated from
Harvard Law, edited the legal journal, but he's stupid. >

.
Some of the dumbest guys I've ever met attended Ivy League
universities. There's a reason that Obama never went to work in a real
law firm - he'd have been eaten alive.

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-21 00:48:34 UTC

Post by Kevin Cunningham
Yeah, those damned teachers. Who said they's smart.

.
Not me.
.

Post by Kevin Cunningham
Riiiiggghhhttt, Obama knows nothing about the economy, graduated from
Harvard Law, edited the legal journal, but he's stupid. >

.
Some of the dumbest guys I've ever met attended Ivy League
universities. There's a reason that Obama never went to work in a real
law firm - he'd have been eaten alive.

Ever hear of areas of practice? Anyway like jihadist right-wing
(clueless-of-law) dumbfucks like you people can dictate why he didn't
join the $$$ areas of law?? Just how?

I've seen many low low level attorneys out there, Obama is far from
that.

Why the fuck do you right wing trash always try inject yourselves in
peoples legal affairs and legal business?

anarchists, thats all you people are

unknown

2009-04-21 03:39:27 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Kevin Cunningham
Yeah, those damned teachers. Who said they's smart.

.
Not me.
.

Post by Kevin Cunningham
Riiiiggghhhttt, Obama knows nothing about the economy, graduated from
Harvard Law, edited the legal journal, but he's stupid. >

.
Some of the dumbest guys I've ever met attended Ivy League
universities. There's a reason that Obama never went to work in a real
law firm - he'd have been eaten alive.

The man is an idiot, he supported the gun ban in DC, the supreme court
shot it down. If Obama knew about Constitutional law, why didn't he
know that the second amendment is real? He will try again to take our
guns because he is an idiot and doesn't understand the constitution, yes?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Why the fuck do you right wing trash always try inject yourselves in
peoples legal affairs and legal business?

Obama is an idiot.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
anarchists, thats all you people are

Garrison Blvd.

2009-04-21 17:13:33 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

Wow.... how were they up to 2006?
If you can't make it in a roaring economy, you need to start rethinking
your financial and economic beliefs. Find someone who is making it and
talk to them.
Obama obviously knows nothing of economics and the Professors in
colleges are still working as teachers for a living, so they don't have
a clue or they'd be rich.

Yeah, those damned teachers. Who said they's smart.

Riiiiggghhhttt, Obama knows nothing about the economy, graduated from
Harvard Law, edited the legal journal, but he's stupid. So is his
wife. But morons on the right who never attended any school are the
smart ones. They gave us war after war and the highest debt in our
history.

Thank you Great Bush!
===========================

Well you know these al-Qaeda republicans are going to build a shrine to Bush
like they did for aircraft carrier Reagan.
Hell, these hypocrites wanted to replace FDR on the dime with Reagan;s
pinhead.

unknown

2009-04-21 17:49:03 UTC

Post by Kevin Cunningham

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.
--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Ibid... The last 8 years have been an economic disaster for me...

Wow.... how were they up to 2006?
If you can't make it in a roaring economy, you need to start rethinking
your financial and economic beliefs. Find someone who is making it and
talk to them.
Obama obviously knows nothing of economics and the Professors in
colleges are still working as teachers for a living, so they don't have
a clue or they'd be rich.

Yeah, those damned teachers. Who said they's smart.
Riiiiggghhhttt, Obama knows nothing about the economy, graduated from
Harvard Law, edited the legal journal, but he's stupid. So is his

"Profit to Earnings" I'd be asking HARVARD for a $refund$ on that
economic education......

Obama is an idiot.

Post by Kevin Cunningham
wife. But morons on the right who never attended any school are the
smart ones. They gave us war after war and the highest debt in our
history.
Thank you Great Bush!
===========================
Well you know these al-Qaeda republicans are going to build a shrine to Bush
like they did for aircraft carrier Reagan.
Hell, these hypocrites wanted to replace FDR on the dime with Reagan;s
pinhead.

bvallely

2009-04-20 19:06:10 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Major Debacle

2009-04-20 19:28:51 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Or do you have a link to back it up?

If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

bvallely

2009-04-20 20:34:02 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

.
Since, while fiegning political savvy, you haven't heard of the 1.7
trillion dollar deficit, I can only assume that your head is firmly
planted where the sun doesn't shine.

I mean, the DAILY KOS is talking about this number.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/27/702547/-Hey-Buddy,-Can-you-spare-$1.75-Trillion

Hey Buddy, Can you spare $1.75 Trillion
by pollwatcher

The Presidents budget will come in with a $1.75 trillion deficit.
That would be roughly 12% of GDP. Oh, wait a minute, just in, GDP is
dropping at a much faster rate of 6.8% which means government revenues
will be down even more, which means the deficit will be more like 15%
of GDP.

This deficit must be financed through the sale of treasuries.

One question.

Where will the money come from?

Other sources

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Business/Story/A1Story20090321-130086.html

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-deficit.thtml

Kevin Cunningham

2009-04-20 22:05:14 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

.
Since, while fiegning political savvy, you haven't heard of the 1.7
trillion dollar deficit, I can only assume that your head is firmly
planted where the sun doesn't shine.
I mean, the DAILY KOS is talking about this number.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/27/702547/-Hey-Buddy,-Can-you-sp...
Hey Buddy, Can you spare $1.75 Trillion
by pollwatcher
The Presidents budget will come in with a $1.75 trillion deficit.
That would be roughly 12% of GDP. Oh, wait a minute, just in, GDP is
dropping at a much faster rate of 6.8% which means government revenues
will be down even more, which means the deficit will be more like 15%
of GDP.
This deficit must be financed through the sale of treasuries.
One question.
Where will the money come from?
Other sources
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Business/Story/A1Story20090...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-def...

Were was the money coming from to pay of the repugs debt? The highest
national debt in history.

bvallely

2009-04-20 22:42:16 UTC

Were was the money coming from to pay of the repugs debt? >

.
Fun fact - the deficit was slowing coming down until the Democrats
took over both houses.
.

The highest national debt in history.>

.
Not even close. The budget Obama just signed added 1.4 trillion to
the national debt. He's scheduled to add another 1.7 trillion next
year - although itls likely to be more..

Major Debacle

2009-04-20 23:03:28 UTC

Were was the money coming from to pay of the repugs debt? >

.
Fun fact - the deficit was slowing coming down until the Democrats
took over both houses.
.

The highest national debt in history.>

.
Not even close. The budget Obama just signed added 1.4 trillion to
the national debt. He's scheduled to add another 1.7 trillion next
year - although itls likely to be more..

Do you take into account inflation, or deficit as percentage of GDP?

Or do you only focus on total dollar amounts?

In any case, you may find this site interesting:

The National Budget, Debt & Deficit

"Clinton balanced the budget." "The national debt is at an all time
high" (and so is the deficit). What does this all mean? I found some
historical information and plugged the numbers into Excel and generated
these charts.

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-20 23:06:04 UTC

.> Were was the money coming from to pay of the repugs debt? >
.
Fun fact - the deficit was slowing coming down until the Democrats
took over both houses.

OK, here is an exercise for you. Name the bills that the Democrats
passed in the two years (2007 and 2008) that the Democrat Congresses
passed that are the cause of the debt getting so high. Of course, the
Republicans would have been against any bill that would raise the debt
so high, so you need to explain how the Democrats in the Senate got
the extra 9 votes to overcome the filibuster the Republicans would
have made. Then, you need to explain how the Democrats got the extra 7
votes needed (on top of the 9 already mentioned) to overcome President
Bush's inevitable veto.

Don't worry, I'll wait...

[snip]

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:09:33 UTC

Post by bvallely
Fun fact - the deficit was slowing coming down until the Democrats
took over both houses.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
OK, here is an exercise for you. Name the bills that the Democrats
passed in the two years (2007 and 2008) that the Democrat Congresses
passed that are the cause of the debt getting so high.

.
You really don't want to talk about Obama's massive debt, do you?

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-20 23:17:22 UTC

..> > Fun fact - the deficit was slowing coming down until the Democrats

Post by bvallely
took over both houses.

.
You really don't want to talk about Obama's massive debt, do you?

Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

BTW, as far as the deficit in the future, I believe that, once the
economy is again on a firm footing, we need to take all reasonable
steps to reduce it. However, in the current situation, only the
government has the resources to get the economy moving again, IMHO.

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:25:28 UTC

Post by bvallely
You really don't want to talk about Obama's massive debt, do you?

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

.
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.
.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
BTW, as far as the deficit in the future, I believe that, once the
economy is again on a firm footing, we need to take all reasonable
steps to reduce it. However, in the current situation, only the
government has the resources to get the economy moving again, IMHO.

.
Nope - Obama's actions are designed to destroy the US economy.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 00:30:30 UTC

.> > You really don't want to talk about Obama's massive debt, do you?
.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

.
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.

Again, you are the one who tried to blame the Democratic Congress for
the current deficit. I am asking you to justify that statement. And,
you are now trying to run from it. Why?

.> BTW, as far as the deficit in the future, I believe that, once the

Post by Dave Fritzinger
economy is again on a firm footing, we need to take all reasonable
steps to reduce it. However, in the current situation, only the
government has the resources to get the economy moving again, IMHO.

.
Nope - Obama's actions are designed to destroy the US economy.

Fact-free assertion noted. I would hope you could do better, but I
guess you can't.

bvallely

2009-04-21 02:00:59 UTC

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

Post by bvallely
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Again, you are the one who tried to blame the Democratic Congress for
the current deficit. >

.
How dare I point out that they control spending?
.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
I am asking you to justify that statement. And,
you are now trying to run from it. Why?

.
Because every time I've answered such a question, it took hours of
research, and was then ignored by the leftist.

Not worth the effort.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 04:11:43 UTC

.> > > Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being

Post by Dave Fritzinger
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

Post by bvallely
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Again, you are the one who tried to blame the Democratic Congress for
the current deficit. >

.
How dare I point out that they control spending?

You have yet to answer my question. I will post it again: What bills
exactly did the Democratic Congress pass in 2007 or 2008 that caused
the huge deficits you are blaming them for? How did they manage to get
them past the Senate, where 60 votes are required for cloture (The
Democrats only had 51 senators at the time). How did they get 7
additional votes to overcome the veto that Bush would have cast to
stop such a horrible bill?

Oh, and you cut (without marking the snip) my original posing of the
question. Why is that?

.>I am asking you to justify that statement. And,

Post by Dave Fritzinger
you are now trying to run from it. Why?

.
Because every time I've answered such a question, it took hours of
research, and was then ignored by the leftist.

Yet, I've yet to see you post anything defending your stupid
positions.

Not worth the effort.

Translation of Rightwing nutbar speak: "I can't back up what I say. I
just figure if I keep making the same accusations, perhaps someone
will believe me".

unknown

2009-04-21 14:31:55 UTC

.> > > Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being

Post by Dave Fritzinger
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

Post by bvallely
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Again, you are the one who tried to blame the Democratic Congress for
the current deficit. >

.
How dare I point out that they control spending?

You have yet to answer my question. I will post it again: What bills
exactly did the Democratic Congress pass in 2007 or 2008 that caused

which spending in 2007 or 2008 didn't they pass?

Post by Dave Fritzinger
the huge deficits you are blaming them for? How did they manage to get
them past the Senate, where 60 votes are required for cloture (The
Democrats only had 51 senators at the time). How did they get 7
additional votes to overcome the veto that Bush would have cast to
stop such a horrible bill?
Oh, and you cut (without marking the snip) my original posing of the
question. Why is that?

.>I am asking you to justify that statement. And,

Post by Dave Fritzinger
you are now trying to run from it. Why?

.
Because every time I've answered such a question, it took hours of
research, and was then ignored by the leftist.

Yet, I've yet to see you post anything defending your stupid
positions.

Not worth the effort.

Translation of Rightwing nutbar speak: "I can't back up what I say. I
just figure if I keep making the same accusations, perhaps someone
will believe me".

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 17:11:55 UTC

.> > > Hey, you were the one who blamed the Democrats in Congress of being

Post by Dave Fritzinger
the cause of the massive deficit this year. I'm just trying to see how
you justify that statement.

Post by bvallely
No, you're trying to muddy the water - ANYTHING other than talk about
what a grade A screw up Obama's proven to be.

Post by Dave Fritzinger
Again, you are the one who tried to blame the Democratic Congress for
the current deficit. >

.
How dare I point out that they control spending?

You have yet to answer my question. I will post it again: What bills
exactly did the Democratic Congress pass in 2007 or 2008 that caused

which spending in 2007 or 2008 didn't they pass?

You are ignoring my question, I see. In order to get the bills passed,
they would have had to get at least 9 Republicans on board, as it
takes 60 votes for Cloture in the Senate, and the Democrats had only
51 senators (actually, 49, with 2 independents caucusing with them).
Then, if the bill was so bad, President Bush surely would have vetoed
it, meaning they would have needed another 7 votes to override his
veto. And, you seem to be unable to point out bills the Democrats
originated that caused this massive deficit. Why is that?

.>I am asking you to justify that statement. And,

Post by Dave Fritzinger
you are now trying to run from it. Why?

.
Because every time I've answered such a question, it took hours of
research, and was then ignored by the leftist.

Yet, I've yet to see you post anything defending your stupid
positions.

Not worth the effort.

Translation of Rightwing nutbar speak: "I can't back up what I say. I
just figure if I keep making the same accusations, perhaps someone
will believe me".

Major Debacle

2009-04-20 22:52:12 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

Oh, yeah... there's a website we can all trust

...a blogger at the Daily Kos.

LOL!

Post by bvallely
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/27/702547/-Hey-Buddy,-Can-you-spare-$1.75-Trillion
Hey Buddy, Can you spare $1.75 Trillion
by pollwatcher
The Presidents budget will come in with a $1.75 trillion deficit.
That would be roughly 12% of GDP. Oh, wait a minute, just in, GDP is
dropping at a much faster rate of 6.8% which means government revenues
will be down even more, which means the deficit will be more like 15%
of GDP.
This deficit must be financed through the sale of treasuries.
One question.
Where will the money come from?
Other sources
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Business/Story/A1Story20090321-130086.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-deficit.thtml

Thanks, that's all I'm asking for, corroboration, which is too often
omitted when claims are made.

Please be aware that the FY 2009 deficit for which this projection of
$1.7 trillion is given includes the quarter of October 1, 2008 to
December 31, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year#United_States

Do you have any idea what the deficit for this quarter was?

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:10:39 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

Oh, yeah... there's a website we can all trust
...a blogger at the Daily Kos.
LOL!

Post by bvallely
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/27/702547/-Hey-Buddy,-Can-you-sp...
Hey Buddy, Can you spare $1.75 Trillion
by pollwatcher
The Presidents budget will come in with a $1.75 trillion deficit.
That would be roughly 12% of GDP. Oh, wait a minute, just in, GDP is
dropping at a much faster rate of 6.8% which means government revenues
will be down even more, which means the deficit will be more like 15%
of GDP.
This deficit must be financed through the sale of treasuries.
One question.
Where will the money come from?
Other sources
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Business/Story/A1Story20090...

Post by bvallely
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-def...

Post by Major Debacle
Thanks, that's all I'm asking for, corroboration, which is too often
omitted when claims are made.
Please be aware that the FY 2009 deficit for which this projection of
$1.7 trillion is given includes the quarter of October 1, 2008 to
December 31, 2008.

.
Written by the Democrats, Signed by President Obama.

Major Debacle

2009-04-20 23:55:42 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

Oh, yeah... there's a website we can all trust
...a blogger at the Daily Kos.
LOL!

Post by bvallely
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-def...

.
Written by the Democrats, Signed by President Obama.

Obama wasn't president during the first quarter of FY 2009, Bush was.

Again, do you know what the deficit was during this quarter?

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

bvallely

2009-04-21 00:26:35 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
Where did you get the figure of $1.7 trillion for the current level of
the deficit?

Post by Major Debacle
Did you pull it out of where the sun don't shine?

Post by Major Debacle
Or do you have a link to back it up?

Post by Major Debacle
If no link is forthcoming, I will assume the former.

Oh, yeah... there's a website we can all trust
...a blogger at the Daily Kos.
LOL!

Post by bvallely
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3230256/the-cost-of-the-us-def...

Post by bvallely
Written by the Democrats, Signed by President Obama.

Post by Major Debacle
Obama wasn't president during the first quarter of FY 2009, Bush was.

.
Obama still signed the bill.
.

Alric Knebel

2009-04-20 20:12:05 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

bvallely

2009-04-20 20:35:50 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

.
The president pushed through an eight hundred billion dollar spending
bill without anyone having read it.

The Democrats wrote the current budget without hardly any imput from
the Republicans.

A Democrat president signed the current defict.

This deficit is all democrat, babe. Deal with it.

Alric Knebel

2009-04-20 20:45:21 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

.
The president pushed through an eight hundred billion dollar spending
bill without anyone having read it.
The Democrats wrote the current budget without hardly any imput from
the Republicans.
A Democrat president signed the current defict.
This deficit is all democrat, babe. Deal with it.

I embrace it. Deficits were a problem for Republicans until a Democrat
decided to initiate one as part of a stimulus package. Deal with it.

--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Dave Heil

2009-04-20 23:24:07 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

.
The president pushed through an eight hundred billion dollar spending
bill without anyone having read it.
The Democrats wrote the current budget without hardly any imput from
the Republicans.
A Democrat president signed the current defict.
This deficit is all democrat, babe. Deal with it.

I embrace it. Deficits were a problem for Republicans until a Democrat
decided to initiate one as part of a stimulus package. Deal with it.

You really have no idea what is ahead. You just jump on the train to
doom and shout, "I've never been to doom."

Dave Heil

bvallely

2009-04-21 02:02:02 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

.
The president pushed through an eight hundred billion dollar spending
bill without anyone having read it.
The Democrats wrote the current budget without hardly any imput from
the Republicans.

Post by bvallely
A Democrat president signed the current defict.

Post by bvallely
This deficit is all democrat, babe. Deal with it.

I embrace it. Deficits were a problem for Republicans until a Democrat
decided to initiate one as part of a stimulus package. Deal with it.

.
Good, because you and your ilk are going to have to defend them.

unknown

2009-04-20 20:57:50 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

And yet you felt compelled to try to insult and diminish their belief to
enhance and pronounce your belief in Obama.

Alric Knebel

2009-04-20 21:10:29 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Only very special children believe that Obama is responsible for this
mess, and nothing those children say will change the minds of most
Americans.

And yet you felt compelled to try to insult and diminish their belief . . .

I do that because that's all it's worth. It's partisan claptrap.

--
____________________________________________________
Alric Knebel

Major Debacle

2009-04-20 22:52:20 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

.
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

The FY 2008 deficit was $455 billion, not $240 billion.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=184

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:05:50 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Post by Alric Knebel
No, I'm worse off, thanks to Bush.

Post by bvallely
You are better better off with an unemployment rate of 8.4% than
2006's 4.2%?

Post by bvallely
You were worse off when the Stock Market was in the 14000s, instead of
the current 7000s?

Post by bvallely
When the deficit was $240 billion, instead of the current 1.7
trillion?

Post by Major Debacle
The FY 2008 deficit was $455 billion, not $240 billion.

Post by Major Debacle
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=184

.
I know. the 240 billion number refers to the deficit refers to 2006,
the last year the Republicans controlled Congress and the White house.

By 2008, the Democrat controlled Congress almost doubled that number -
WHILE running as the party of fiscal responsibility.

The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad off now,
Just wait 'til I get through with it

The country's taxes must be fixed
And I know what to do with it
If you think you're paying too much now
Just wait till I get through with it
Rufus T. Firefly
"Duck Soup"

China Blue Öyster Cult

2009-04-20 19:46:42 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Yes.

--
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be,
Silver silverware - Where is the love? Reverend.
Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Damn the living - It's a lovely life. mmmm lemon yogurt

bvallely

2009-04-20 20:36:31 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Yes.

.
Most American's aren't.

Patriot Games

2009-04-20 20:31:49 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!

They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

unknown

2009-04-20 20:58:41 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

Patriot Games

2009-04-20 22:05:50 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:58:41 -0400, Poetic Justice

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

hahahahahahah!

bvallely

2009-04-20 22:43:52 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

Post by Patriot Games
"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

.
Maybe Obama will run a spot with Catro endorsing him.

unknown

2009-04-20 23:15:03 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

Post by Patriot Games
"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

..
Maybe Obama will run a spot with Castro endorsing him.

Loading Image...

Castro seems to be a poster child for the left.

Bugman

2009-04-20 23:35:21 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

Post by Patriot Games
"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

.
Maybe Obama will run a spot with Catro endorsing him.

And just why would he do that Whacko?

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:41:19 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

Post by Patriot Games
"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

Post by bvallely
Maybe Obama will run a spot with Catro endorsing him.

Post by Bugman
And just why would he do that Whacko?

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 14:58:12 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:35:21 -0500, "Bugman" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Isn't your time about up?

Loading Image...

"Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The
lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist.
Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in
the support of our cause."
"U.S. soldiers who die in Iraq knew they would. Most of them couldn't
get a decent job in the private sector anyway, so what does it matter?
Someone has to die in a war, why not the poor?"
Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03

No CITE.

One wonders WHY?

The answer?

YOU'RE LYING!

Bugman

2009-04-21 20:34:09 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
Isn't your time about up?

http://oraculations.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/coulter%20gun-753470.jpg

No CITE.
One wonders WHY?
The answer?
YOU'RE LYING!

It's from a magazine. You know those things printed on paper?

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 22:36:40 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
Isn't your time about up?

http://oraculations.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/coulter%20gun-753470.jpg

No CITE.
One wonders WHY?
The answer?
YOU'RE LYING!

It's from a magazine. You know those things printed on paper?

Prove it.

We're waiting........

<crickets...>

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 14:56:10 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

Ouch!
They'll be hearing that next year when they LOSE the House and
Senate...

It will be funny won't it.

"Vote for us again - the world likes us now!"

Maybe Obama will run a spot with Catro endorsing him.

The Four Plops!

Buckwheat, Saudi King, Chavez and Fidel!

e***@netpath.net

2009-04-20 20:48:23 UTC

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No - the question liberals dread will be next November, when
conservative congressional candidates ask in 30-second ads: "are you
better off now two years after a Democrat president, a Democrat House,
and a Democrat Senate all got elected at the same time?"

http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!

Kevin Cunningham

2009-04-20 22:08:05 UTC

Post by e***@netpath.net

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No - the question liberals dread will be next November, when
conservative congressional candidates ask in 30-second ads: "are you
better off now two years after a Democrat president, a Democrat House,
and a Democrat Senate all got elected at the same time?"
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!

So tell us all, why didn't your party win the special election in New
York? That's a repug district, has been save for one dem since the
civil war. But you lost it. You spent more. But you lost it. The
party was gloating over their up coming win. But you lost it.

So tell us again, when and how are you going to win?

Major Debacle

2009-04-21 00:04:50 UTC

Post by Kevin Cunningham

Post by e***@netpath.net

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No - the question liberals dread will be next November, when
conservative congressional candidates ask in 30-second ads: "are you
better off now two years after a Democrat president, a Democrat House,
and a Democrat Senate all got elected at the same time?"
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com- your source for hard-to-find stuff!

So tell us all, why didn't your party win the special election in New
York? That's a repug district, has been save for one dem since the
civil war. But you lost it. You spent more. But you lost it. The
party was gloating over their up coming win. But you lost it.
So tell us again, when and how are you going to win?

Kevin, thanks for the graphic lesson in sticking the blade in between
the ribs and twisting. I have never seen it done better.

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-20 23:06:22 UTC

Post by e***@netpath.net

Post by allright
Are you better off now then you were in 2006 when the Democrats took
both houses?

No - the question liberals dread will be next November, when
conservative congressional candidates ask in 30-second ads: "are you
better off now two years after a Democrat president, a Democrat House,
and a Democrat Senate all got elected at the same time?"
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!

How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner? Every ad in our state and by phone has always been
dark scare tactic ads. People are sick as hell of that overused worn
out tactic by Republicans.

Either they have what it takes or they don't.

bvallely

2009-04-20 23:26:22 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

.
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Major Debacle

2009-04-21 00:02:37 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

.
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

By sending tea bags to the White House?

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

bvallely

2009-04-21 00:27:59 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

Bugman

2009-04-21 01:31:06 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

Who told you something that stupid and why did you believe them?

Major Debacle

2009-04-21 02:11:01 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

Who told you something that stupid and why did you believe them?

The Iraqis in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general think so.

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

Bugman

2009-04-21 11:19:57 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

Who told you something that stupid and why did you believe them?

The Iraqis in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general think so.

They are democrats?

Post by Major Debacle
--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

bvallely

2009-04-21 02:22:44 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Post by bvallely
Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

Post by Bugman
Who told you something that stupid and why did you believe them?

Major Debacle

2009-04-21 02:10:03 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.

Let us know how that works out for in 2010.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

bvallely

2009-04-21 02:18:47 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.

Let us know how that works out for in 2010.

.
Tell you what - here's something the Republicans will bring up next
year. See what you can say against this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcxMDQ3ZTNmY2E4MTdhNWRmNGZjZTYwMGZjZmUxYjU=

Going Nowhere Fast
Obama’s false promises on high-speed rail.

By David Freddoso

Book a train from Washington, D.C., to Chicago, and you’re in for a
ride that takes 17 hours, 35 minutes. Given the choice between that
and a two-hour plane trip, it’s little wonder that most Washingtonians
prefer to fly, despite the security searches and the long lines at
Reagan National. It is also little wonder that some airlines still
make money, whereas Amtrak, America’s near-monopoly provider of inter-
city passenger rail service, requires huge annual subsidies.

But what if inter-city train service became much faster? President
Obama wants to offer Americans such an option, and to that end he has
promised an $8-billion federal investment in high-speed rail, plus $5
billion more over the next five years. That’s just $13 billion in all,
and for that, Obama promises to start building ten different rail
corridors, each between 100 and 600 miles long.

“What we're talking about,” he says, “is a vision for high-speed rail
in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No
racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on
the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine
whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only
a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from
your destination.”

It sounds lovely, but before you go to sleep with visions of bullet
trains dancing in your head, it’s worth examining the numbers more
closely. Any real-life high-speed rail system on the scale Obama is
promising would be vastly more expensive than the $13 billion he has
committed; in fact, it would require close to half of the $787 billion
contained in his recently passed stimulus package.

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not
built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama
suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-
speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy,
often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems
heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on
subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion,
according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail
ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of
these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their
market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

Although the U.S. has no true “bullet trains,” at least two states
have developed and approved detailed plans for high-speed rail that
came with cost analyses. In 2000, Florida voters approved a ballot
initiative mandating construction of a 320-mile bullet train from
Tampa to Miami via Orlando. The voters repealed it four years later
when they saw the price estimate of $25 billion. (Other estimates put
the cost as high as $51 billion in 2004 dollars.)

Last year California voters approved a ballot proposition to dedicate
$10 billion in bonds to a high-speed rail line slated to cost $45
billion just for its main leg between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
If this project is ever completed — which would require tens of
billions from the federal government or from private investors — it
will probably end up costing more like $65 to $81 billion, according
to a study by two rail experts at the Reason Foundation.

These are some benchmarks for the price of high-speed rail. Yet
somehow, Obama’s plan envisions spending a mere fraction of the cost
of either the Florida or the California plan, while sending trains
speeding along both those routes, as well as routes in New England,
Texas, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, the Gulf Coast, the Pacific
Northwest, the Southeast, and the Midwest. The document outlining
Obama’s strategic vision promises express trains running at speeds
above 150 miles per hour, rivaling some of the Japanese bullet trains,
the French TGV, and the Spanish AVE. Obama is promising such trains
virtually everywhere — you could take one from Little Rock to San
Antonio, if you chose.

“This plan incorporates all of the high-speed rail routes that were
federally approved several years ago,” says Ron Utt, a railroad expert
at the Heritage Foundation. “Nobody’s ever invested any money in them
because there’s not enough money anywhere to actually build them. This
is sort of like a concession to the rail buffs — that now we’ll
pretend we’re going to build them.”

In the real world of high-speed rail, Utt said, $13 billion gets you
“almost nothing . . . You would build more sidings and a couple of
extra double tracks here and there, and reduce the time of some of the
trips.”

At the very best, riders can hope that a few lines will get marginally
faster, along the lines of Amtrak’s Acela service. For between $133
and $155 (one-and-a-half to two times the price of a regular train
ticket), Acela cuts 20 to 27 minutes from the three-and-a-quarter-
hour, 230-mile trip between Washington, D.C., and New York City. The
trip would cost about $20 by bus, with high-speed Internet service the
whole way.

It is perfectly understandable why a politician like President Obama
would present a plan like this. In a time of fear and worry, promises
of high-speed rail excite the imagination, and Obama’s plan spreads
the empty promises among ten different geographic areas for maximum
political benefit.

What could be more presidential than promising a chicken in every pot
— even if all the plan actually delivers is an egg?

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

Major Debacle

2009-04-21 02:23:50 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.

Let us know how that works out for in 2010.

.
Tell you what - here's something the Republicans will bring up next

Oooh... I'm trembling in my boots.

An article from the National Review critical of Obama...

The country is turning red.

Post by bvallely
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcxMDQ3ZTNmY2E4MTdhNWRmNGZjZTYwMGZjZmUxYjU=
Going Nowhere Fast
Obama’s false promises on high-speed rail.
By David Freddoso
Book a train from Washington, D.C., to Chicago, and you’re in for a
ride that takes 17 hours, 35 minutes. Given the choice between that
and a two-hour plane trip, it’s little wonder that most Washingtonians
prefer to fly, despite the security searches and the long lines at
Reagan National. It is also little wonder that some airlines still
make money, whereas Amtrak, America’s near-monopoly provider of inter-
city passenger rail service, requires huge annual subsidies.
But what if inter-city train service became much faster? President
Obama wants to offer Americans such an option, and to that end he has
promised an $8-billion federal investment in high-speed rail, plus $5
billion more over the next five years. That’s just $13 billion in all,
and for that, Obama promises to start building ten different rail
corridors, each between 100 and 600 miles long.
“What we're talking about,” he says, “is a vision for high-speed rail
in America. Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No
racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on
the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine
whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only
a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from
your destination.”
It sounds lovely, but before you go to sleep with visions of bullet
trains dancing in your head, it’s worth examining the numbers more
closely. Any real-life high-speed rail system on the scale Obama is
promising would be vastly more expensive than the $13 billion he has
committed; in fact, it would require close to half of the $787 billion
contained in his recently passed stimulus package.
We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not
built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama
suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-
speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy,
often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems
heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on
subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion,
according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail
ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of
these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their
market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.
Although the U.S. has no true “bullet trains,” at least two states
have developed and approved detailed plans for high-speed rail that
came with cost analyses. In 2000, Florida voters approved a ballot
initiative mandating construction of a 320-mile bullet train from
Tampa to Miami via Orlando. The voters repealed it four years later
when they saw the price estimate of $25 billion. (Other estimates put
the cost as high as $51 billion in 2004 dollars.)
Last year California voters approved a ballot proposition to dedicate
$10 billion in bonds to a high-speed rail line slated to cost $45
billion just for its main leg between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
If this project is ever completed — which would require tens of
billions from the federal government or from private investors — it
will probably end up costing more like $65 to $81 billion, according
to a study by two rail experts at the Reason Foundation.
These are some benchmarks for the price of high-speed rail. Yet
somehow, Obama’s plan envisions spending a mere fraction of the cost
of either the Florida or the California plan, while sending trains
speeding along both those routes, as well as routes in New England,
Texas, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, the Gulf Coast, the Pacific
Northwest, the Southeast, and the Midwest. The document outlining
Obama’s strategic vision promises express trains running at speeds
above 150 miles per hour, rivaling some of the Japanese bullet trains,
the French TGV, and the Spanish AVE. Obama is promising such trains
virtually everywhere — you could take one from Little Rock to San
Antonio, if you chose.
“This plan incorporates all of the high-speed rail routes that were
federally approved several years ago,” says Ron Utt, a railroad expert
at the Heritage Foundation. “Nobody’s ever invested any money in them
because there’s not enough money anywhere to actually build them. This
is sort of like a concession to the rail buffs — that now we’ll
pretend we’re going to build them.”
In the real world of high-speed rail, Utt said, $13 billion gets you
“almost nothing . . . You would build more sidings and a couple of
extra double tracks here and there, and reduce the time of some of the
trips.”
At the very best, riders can hope that a few lines will get marginally
faster, along the lines of Amtrak’s Acela service. For between $133
and $155 (one-and-a-half to two times the price of a regular train
ticket), Acela cuts 20 to 27 minutes from the three-and-a-quarter-
hour, 230-mile trip between Washington, D.C., and New York City. The
trip would cost about $20 by bus, with high-speed Internet service the
whole way.
It is perfectly understandable why a politician like President Obama
would present a plan like this. In a time of fear and worry, promises
of high-speed rail excite the imagination, and Obama’s plan spreads
the empty promises among ten different geographic areas for maximum
political benefit.
What could be more presidential than promising a chicken in every pot
— even if all the plan actually delivers is an egg?

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."

Kevin Cunningham

2009-04-21 12:28:31 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.

Let us know how that works out for in 2010.

.
Tell you what - here's something the Republicans will bring up next
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcxMDQ3ZTNmY2E4MTdhNWRmNGZjZTYw...

Lets try this again. You just lost a seat in up state New York. You
repug spent more money than the evil dems. You bet the farm on this
one and what happened?

You lost. You lost another one. You lost and Obama didn't show up
for the dem.

So another try, how does this one feel?

China Blue Öyster Cult

2009-04-21 05:34:35 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

How dare some Iraqi disrespect our president. That's our job.

unknown

2009-04-21 14:43:10 UTC

Post by China Blue Ãyster Cult

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

How?

.
By taking over Congress, and refusing to fund Obama's bills.
.

By sending tea bags to the White House?.

Aren't Democrats the same guys who thought the jerk who threw a shoe
at Bush was a hero?

How dare some Iraqi disrespect our president. That's our job.

Actually I think you finally got something right.... too bad it was in jest.

I don't remember bush pissing on any Iraqi Graves. tit for tat will get
you nowhere. You think Someone should have tossed a shoe at Akmadinajad
the other day?

Bugman

2009-04-21 00:31:16 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

.
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Bring it on bitch.

bvallely

2009-04-21 00:31:13 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

.
Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 00:40:20 UTC

.> >> How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in

Post by s***@yahoo.com
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

.
Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Odd how the number keeps going up. I had heard about 500,000. Got any
support for your number?

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 14:59:21 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Liars are EXPOSED:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

YOU are a LIAR.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating state or collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for
all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialist economies in practice
"Many of the industrialized, open countries of Western Europe
experimented with one form of socialist development or another during
the 20th century. They can be regarded as social democratic
experiments, because they universally retained a wage-based economy
and private ownership and control of the decisive means of production.

"Nevertheless, many Western European countries tried to restructure
their economies away from a pure capitalist model. Elements of these
efforts persist throughout Europe, even if they have repealed some
aspects of public control and ownership.

"They are typically characterized by:
Redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high
earners."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

"Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political
policy promoted by members of the political left, especially
socialists..."
http://www.thebestlinks.com/Redistribution_of_wealth.html

unknown

2009-04-21 15:41:33 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 17:14:05 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

unknown

2009-04-21 17:36:10 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

But you know what it is?

feel free to tell us your definition.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 18:20:41 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

But you know what it is?
feel free to tell us your definition.

Ownership of the means of production by the state. A progressive
income tax is certainly not socialism. Heck, the income tax has been
progressive since it was started. And, Obama's proposed rates are
lower than Reagans's.

unknown

2009-04-21 18:32:39 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

But you know what it is?
feel free to tell us your definition.

Who owns GM?

If you take the profit, are you an owner? Just who does get the profits?

Who sets the regulations? What do regulations do, don't they allow the
business to do business as they see fit. In essence the regulators can
run the business.

Democrat-Socialists set out to take all of the AIG Bonus from the people
that earned it. In a Capitalist society we respect contracts and don't
use government to attack particular people in particular businesses,
when they have broken no laws.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 18:45:52 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

But you know what it is?
feel free to tell us your definition.

Who owns GM?

GM stockholders own GM. Remember, they didn't have to take the federal
bailout.

Post by unknown
If you take the profit, are you an owner? Just who does get the profits?

Since GM won't make any profit anytime some, the question is moot.
Once they pay back the government back for the loans they took, the
stockholders get the profits.

Post by unknown
Who sets the regulations? What do regulations do, don't they allow the
business to do business as they see fit. In essence the regulators can
run the business.

We need the government to set regulations. We all saw how great the
lack of regulations worked in 1929 and again in 2008. I am for
capitalism, but it clearly needs to be regulated.

Post by unknown
Democrat-Socialists set out to take all of the AIG Bonus from the people
that earned it.

If you all bringing down the company and nearly bringing down the
economy "earning it", then you may have a point. Personally, I don't.

Post by unknown
In a Capitalist society we respect contracts and don't
use government to attack particular people in particular businesses,
when they have broken no laws.

They nearly brought down the economy, you fool. And, they kept their
bonuses.

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 20:32:15 UTC

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:20:41 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger

Post by Patriot Games
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:40:20 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Are you a socialist?

Nope.

But you know what it is?
feel free to tell us your definition.

Ownership of the means of production by the state.
A progressive
income tax is certainly not socialism. Heck, the income tax has been
progressive since it was started. And, Obama's proposed rates are
lower than Reagans's.

Did you think you could get away with changing the subject?

A progressive income tax alone is NOT the Redistribution of Wealth.

A progressive income tax COMBINED WITH giving that revenue away as
free entitlements to those who provide nothing is the Redistribution
of Wealth.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 17:13:44 UTC

On Apr 21, 4:59 am, Patriot Games <***@America.Com> wrote:
[crapsnip]
Nothing.

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 20:32:40 UTC

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 20:47:25 UTC

On Apr 21, 10:32 am, Patriot Games <***@America.Com> wrote:
[snip]
Nothing of importance, as usual.

Rant away, gomer. It provides much humor...

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 22:37:28 UTC

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:47:25 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Liars are EXPOSED:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:56:38 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:11:28 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger
The Supreme Court threw out the Donofrio case.

The only case they are looking at

The Supreme Court DID NOT throw out the Berg case.

That is because it never reached the Supreme Court, and never will

You're a LIAR.

The Berg Case has been at the Supreme Court for WEEKS.

No. 08A391
Title: Philip J. Berg, Applicant v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a391.htm

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Now, YOU are a PROVEN LIAR.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 23:01:10 UTC

On Apr 21, 12:37 pm, Patriot Games <***@America.Com> wrote:
[crapsnip]
Ooops, nothing left...

Bugman

2009-04-21 23:00:18 UTC

Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Nothing of importance, as usual.
Rant away, gomer. It provides much humor...

He is getting a little screechy and hysterical lately. Maybe too much
teabagging.

Bugman

2009-04-21 01:36:54 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

.
Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Liar. 300,000 tops. And most of them have already forgotten about it. The
whole thing was a joke.

bvallely

2009-04-21 02:17:33 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Liar. 300,000 tops. >

.
Prove it.
.

And most of them have already forgotten about it. The
whole thing was a joke.

.
So you keep telling yourself.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 04:13:25 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Liar. 300,000 tops. >

.
Prove it.

Why don't you support your number?
[snip]

Bugman

2009-04-21 11:30:16 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in
a positive manner?

Post by bvallely
What we can do is stop the Democrats from destroying America.

Post by Bugman
Bring it on bitch.

Post by bvallely
Already started. One milliion Americans attended Tea Parties on April
15th - all the establishment media could do was sputter and make blow
job "jokes".

Liar. 300,000 tops. >

.
Prove it.

Why don't you support your number?
[snip]

I'll bet I'm way closer than he is.

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 14:59:40 UTC

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:13:25 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Liars are EXPOSED:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 17:13:03 UTC

On Apr 21, 4:59 am, Patriot Games <***@America.Com> wrote:
Absolutely nothing of importance (yes, I snipped his babbling).

YOu are pathetic, gomer. Come back when you actually have something to
say.

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 20:33:22 UTC

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sucks being you, eh?

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

unknown

2009-04-21 21:35:35 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
Sucks being you, eh?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

YOU are a LIAR.
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating state or collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for
all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialist economies in practice
"Many of the industrialized, open countries of Western Europe
experimented with one form of socialist development or another during
the 20th century. They can be regarded as social democratic
experiments, because they universally retained a wage-based economy
and private ownership and control of the decisive means of production.
"Nevertheless, many Western European countries tried to restructure
their economies away from a pure capitalist model. Elements of these
efforts persist throughout Europe, even if they have repealed some
aspects of public control and ownership.
Redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high
earners."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
"Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political
policy promoted by members of the political left, especially
socialists..."
http://www.thebestlinks.com/Redistribution_of_wealth.html

This guy will tell you that "socialism" is *only* when you stand on one
leg and take all the extra money from someones pocket then trow it over
your left shoulder while looking at your foot and whistling the
socialist heroes salute.

They won't admit to being socialists and they won't admit that anything
ever done in America was socialist.

The point is to confuse and stalemate any argument against their
Socialist agenda because you can't classify anything they ever do and
attribute it to them.(Plausible deniability)

You have to simply find the correct level of socialism they are
proposing from Democratic-socialism to communist-socialism.

Obama is a Progressive-Socialist which falls somewhere in the middle of
Socialism as far as confiscation of individual rights.

The problem arises when Obama takes the rights he needs to force you
into his collectives. Then it only takes a small step to fall into the
totalitarian trap where someone takes power and there is no way to turn
it around.

arf

2009-04-21 22:40:35 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
Sucks being you, eh?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is
by your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

YOU are a LIAR.
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating state or collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all
individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialist economies in practice
"Many of the industrialized, open countries of Western Europe
experimented with one form of socialist development or another during
the 20th century. They can be regarded as social democratic
experiments, because they universally retained a wage-based economy and
private ownership and control of the decisive means of production.
"Nevertheless, many Western European countries tried to restructure
their economies away from a pure capitalist model. Elements of these
efforts persist throughout Europe, even if they have repealed some
aspects of public control and ownership.
"They are typically characterized by: Redistribution of wealth,
typically by progressive taxation of high earners."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
"Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political
policy promoted by members of the political left, especially
socialists..."
http://www.thebestlinks.com/Redistribution_of_wealth.html

This guy will tell you that "socialism" is *only* when you stand on one
leg and take all the extra money from someones pocket then trow it over
your left shoulder while looking at your foot and whistling the
socialist heroes salute.
They won't admit to being socialists and they won't admit that anything
ever done in America was socialist.
The point is to confuse and stalemate any argument against their
Socialist agenda because you can't classify anything they ever do and
attribute it to them.(Plausible deniability)
You have to simply find the correct level of socialism they are
proposing from Democratic-socialism to communist-socialism.
Obama is a Progressive-Socialist which falls somewhere in the middle of
Socialism as far as confiscation of individual rights.
The problem arises when Obama takes the rights he needs to force you
into his collectives. Then it only takes a small step to fall into the
totalitarian trap where someone takes power and there is no way to turn
it around.

It's as stupid to accuse the Democrats of being socialists as it is to
accuse Republicans of being anarchists. Don't let that stop you,
though. Every time you guys level such obviously ridiculous charges you
further destroy the Right's credibility with moderate swing voters.

Patriot Games

2009-04-21 22:47:55 UTC

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:35:35 -0400, Poetic Justice

Post by Patriot Games
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
Sucks being you, eh?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

YOU are a LIAR.
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating state or collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for
all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialist economies in practice
"Many of the industrialized, open countries of Western Europe
experimented with one form of socialist development or another during
the 20th century. They can be regarded as social democratic
experiments, because they universally retained a wage-based economy
and private ownership and control of the decisive means of production.
"Nevertheless, many Western European countries tried to restructure
their economies away from a pure capitalist model. Elements of these
efforts persist throughout Europe, even if they have repealed some
aspects of public control and ownership.
Redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high
earners."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
"Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political
policy promoted by members of the political left, especially
socialists..."
http://www.thebestlinks.com/Redistribution_of_wealth.html

He's a non-white Hawaiian (of Pacific Island, Polynesian, Oriental)
descent benefitting from the huge handouts in the Blue state of
Hawaii.

He has a vested interest in LYING and promoting Socialism in America.

Post by unknown
The point is to confuse and stalemate any argument against their
Socialist agenda because you can't classify anything they ever do and
attribute it to them.(Plausible deniability)

I've trapped him in several lies, caught red-handed. Once exposed as
a Liar, most normal people will tend to avoid him and he'll get
marginalized...

Post by unknown
You have to simply find the correct level of socialism they are
proposing from Democratic-socialism to communist-socialism.
Obama is a Progressive-Socialist which falls somewhere in the middle of
Socialism as far as confiscation of individual rights.

I think that's about right. Buckwheat knows that Communism has a
Responsibility Component. By that I mean that when you own something
you're responsible. He would prefer to not own but just completely
control it thus ducking responsibility. Democrats, especially the new
Socialist Democrats, fear responsibility.

Post by unknown
The problem arises when Obama takes the rights he needs to force you
into his collectives. Then it only takes a small step to fall into the
totalitarian trap where someone takes power and there is no way to turn
it around.

Today the Democrats were holding Hearings on how to bailout the
Leftist newspapers. They're in full-on panic mode...

America got tricked. Americans are a trusting lot but they don't like
to be tricked. Payback, beginning with the mid-term elections, is
gonna be powerful!

Dave Fritzinger

2009-04-21 23:04:08 UTC

Post by Patriot Games
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:35:35 -0400, Poetic Justice

Post by Patriot Games
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:13:03 -0700 (PDT), Dave Fritzinger
Sucks being you, eh?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:54:41 -0800 (PST), Dave Fritzinger

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:16:40 -0800 (PST), DickBoy Fritzinger

Second, you make it obvious that you don't know what a socialist is by
your comment, as nothing Obama has said points to his being a
socialist.

Redistribution of wealth.

Nope, that isn't socialism, fool.

YOU are a LIAR.
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social
organization advocating state or collective ownership and
administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
and an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for
all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialist economies in practice
"Many of the industrialized, open countries of Western Europe
experimented with one form of socialist development or another during
the 20th century. They can be regarded as social democratic
experiments, because they universally retained a wage-based economy
and private ownership and control of the decisive means of production.
"Nevertheless, many Western European countries tried to restructure
their economies away from a pure capitalist model. Elements of these
efforts persist throughout Europe, even if they have repealed some
aspects of public control and ownership.
Redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high
earners."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
"Income redistribution or redistribution of wealth is a political
policy promoted by members of the political left, especially
socialists..."
http://www.thebestlinks.com/Redistribution_of_wealth.html

He's a non-white Hawaiian (of Pacific Island, Polynesian, Oriental)
descent benefitting from the huge handouts in the Blue state of
Hawaii.

Hey stupid (yeah, gomer, I'm talking about you). While I live in
Hawaii, I am every bit as much of a Haole (Look it up, stupid) as you
are.
[crapsnip]

Kevin Cunningham

2009-04-21 12:25:01 UTC

.> >> How about some ads that show what Republicans are capable of doing, in

Post by s***@yahoo.com
a positive manner?