'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:24 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:22:36 -0700,
wrote:



Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.

prevents one from stealing money...

It does. Self sufficiency is great for ones self esteme. No need to
stoop to steal from others if you are a good honest conservative. As
while times were good, you packed it away...

Why wait for government to do it? If you wait for governemtn, you are
certainly going to be disappointed.

People have generally become too useless. Preditors like Obama know the
theme well with people that have a poor attitude. Obama knows how to
manipulate the low end mentality.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such
as China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade,
protectionism. Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as
far? Nope. But will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control
at all costs, including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 2:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:29:56 -0700,
wrote:

On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

how can the govt run out of cash? you yourself have been crapping your
diaper over mounting govt debt. so what you just said is that the
depression was caused by the govt NOT going into debt.


Government can manufacture as much cash as it wants. True, the
government can create as much as it wants to. Create a billion dollar
bill if you want one.

But if no one wants it, it is as good as toilet paper if it wipes good
enough. I could legally print the CanuckBuck. If people want it, it
has value. If they don't, it is worthless. And the more you create,
the less it is worth.

That all being said, the creation of currency is directly linked to
inflation. Create too much and it isn't as valued as much.

To give you an idea how bad it can get:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6982749.stm

Annual inflation of 7,634% and 80% unemployment because of governemtn
carzyness in money creation. I am sure Haiti has a currency, but it is
hard to get because no one wants it.

thanks. we already knew that.


and why not check he

http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_m...debt_2008.html

to see how govt debt REALLY was. govt debt went to 120% of GDP during
ww2

we're still here, moron

Yep, and you have to show it on a log scale to look half normal. Go
find a non-log chart and weap. USA is already well along to currency
valuation colapse.

Remember, inflation is the opposit of currency deflation.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to
spend to have an economy based on fiat currency.

uh...govt debt was 120% of GDP when the depression ended.

And most people were dirt poor.

just like obama has planned.

and people need money? where they gonna get it?

Get off your ass and work for it.

[ sillyness snip ]

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

gee. tell it to the USA in 1943, OK?

Back then, governemtn borrowed money, they didn't create it ponzi style.
See "War bonds". 3% rate in low inflation was considered a good return.

Today it is all risk and not worht the gas to get a t-bill.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.

he's not picking on banks HARD enough THAT'S the problem.

as to the screw up, he hasn't been president for 9 years, regardless
of what you morons say.

The converstations went sort of this way:

Obama: Screw you banks, you are evil!
Bank: We hold your debt.
Obama: I am going to screw you....rant...rant.shoot the mouth off.
Bank: OK, our investors are out, we are over leveraged, we are
forclosing on 10% of the delinquent losers. Your problem.
Obama: You BSing me?
Bank: Round one, just to demonstraight. Whack...10% forclosures, GM
included.
Obama: That isn't fair!
Bank: You welshers don't pay your debts...you need us, we don't need
another welsher.
Obama: Hissy fit, make excuses. Bailout banks.
Congress: We like you banks, nice contributions, thanks.
Bank: Raise taxes.
Obama: No.
China: Pay your bills and back your currency.
Obama: No.
China: Ok, we tighten credit as we don't want more useless USDs.
Obama: Slaps a tax on them.
China: Tightn up credit some more.
Obama: That isn't fair!
China: Neither is not paying your bills.
Obama: I want 0% interest rate.
China: Nope, 5%...today only.
Obama: We will print it.
China: Tighten up credit some more.
Greece: Hell, we can't boorrow and have $16 billion Euro coming up!
Spain: Damn, we are in trouble, can't boorow either. Bad credit.
Iceland: Poor beggars.
Germany: How do we save face, we are broke too.
Obama: To GM, I need cash from you ******s...
GM: Still losing money.
GMAC: Those loans we made to poor Amricans to buy GM are defaulting,
need another $6 billion...
Obama: Congress, so I don't default, raise the debt ceiling to $14.5
billion from $12.3 billion Ok?
Congress: You bet, we love debt!
Toyota: Why you picking on us GM/NTFSA?
Obama: I hate asians.
Toyota: Will come to congress for a real showdown... Want a 500,000 lay off?
Obama: Maybe we aught to temper this.
Toyota: Too late, honor, something you know little of is at stake.
Obama: Cool off.
Japan: Knock some sense into that skull of yours Obama, we go down
because of Toyota, you go down.

----
And it gets worse.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
jps wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:51 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on
a controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground
anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them
however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch


If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.


Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch

Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney,
a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those posters,
especially not at that level.

No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor to
I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that your
mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything. Maybe
wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch

I expect most of what "things" you have to do, include being an ass.

You're more likely than Plume to be disagreeable while you disagree.


Eisboch is probably the most knowledgeable, level headed and caring
persons that dares post in this group. Of course you and a couple others
won't agree but that's to be expected.


Never said he was unknowledgeable, crazy, or uncaring. He does seem to jump
to conclusions based on minimal observations, which is what he said.


--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.


And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.


Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade, protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

--
Nom=de=Plume

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 3:52 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:19 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 12:54 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that
a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial subject means that the author of that statement is a
"rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of current
political animosity that has divided this country. Now-a-days you
are
either left or right apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree
with
much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the
stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious. I
notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The first
step to getting this country back on track is to be intellectually
honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would respectfully
suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've
been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous", a
"typical"
liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent attorney, a liar,
etc.
I've hardly ever even responded to those posters, especially not at
that
level.

Cause is in the eye of the beholder. Your cause isn't neccessarily
someone elses.


Stop acting so stupid. You're actually arguing with an adult.

There is no magic day you stop being a kid and become an adult. Human
observation only confirms it. We all look at out own viewpoint, and few
look beyond it. Your statement sounded sort of presumptious about without
cause. Of course we all finger point. Human nature.

Have you reached the age of ascension ... mentally? What does "Your
statement sounded sort of presumptious about without cause" mean in English?

Nope, don't think I have ascended. Mentally, yep, ever study Maslow?

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

Eisboch wrote:

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...


Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion
that a statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence
on a controversial subject means that the author of that statement
is a "rightie" or Bush supporter? This is exactly the type of
current political animosity that has divided this country.
Now-a-days you are either left or right apparently. There's no
middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on
occasion, expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I
don't agree with much of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop
the stupid finger pointing.

Eisboch



If that's the case, why bring up something that was always obvious.
I notice you didn't mention Bush the First's invasion either. Or,
Rumsfeld's or Cheney's previous involvement with Saddam. You didn't
mention the British establishing Iraq to begin with either. The
first step to getting this country back on track is to be
intellectually honest.



Based on the few posts of yours that I have read, I would
respectfully suggest that you lead the way.

Eisboch


Really? Please show me where I've done finger pointing without cause.
I've been vilified here for being female, not "beautiful", "vacuous",
a "typical" liberal (which I'm not even), told I'm not a patent
attorney, a liar, etc. I've hardly ever even responded to those
posters, especially not at that level.


No offense, but I don't have a clue who you are, what you are
professionally, what you look like or if you are male or female, nor
to I care. I've only read a handful of your posts. My take is that
your mind is pretty well made up about anything and everything.
Maybe wrong, but that's the impression I have.

Carry on. Didn't mean to interrupt. I have other things to do.

Eisboch




Her name is Irene.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 5:24 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:20 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:08 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 7:05 AM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700,
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is
this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

Lets see. Iceland tried it, fell flat on its ass.

Socialist Greece tried it, and to fund it now looks like they mistated
their real debt levels and is failing real bad.

Socialist Spain tried it, not fairing too well.

Japan tried it and hasn't seen valued growth in 2 decades.

Show me where in history I can find that it worked? I can't see any.
Even
Roman times tried it and resulted in the disbandment of the Roman
Empire.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

That is amost $500 billion a year every year for nothing of value. Or
about a perpetual debt payment of $3770 per worker every year and no
return.

Given the currency float has also been diluted, that is a wildly
optimistic number too. Reality is much worse as inflation will force
rates up or the currency will devalue like a rock.

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.

Does not mater at this point who you blame really. Even if you choose
to
forget Obama's 3.5 trillion 18% increase in just 2 years,
debt-corruption
spend at the end of 2010, the debt of $14.5 trillion isn't far off.

Each worker now supports about $108,000 in federal debt. And it adds
ZERO
value to their lives. Taxation enslavement. Permanent wealth rob.
Money
not spent so it can't create jobs.

Liberal debt borrowing, liberal ponzi currency management is bringing
down
the United States to it's financial knees. Get over it. Probably too
late to stop it too, and no politicial vision and will too either as
DC
**** fests the taxpayers with corporate corruption bailouts - certain
long
term doom for the US economy.

As in essence, Congress just expanded the administration debt
mongering
capabilities to $14.5 to prevent the US federal government from going
into
default for non-payment. Since they can't borrow, they create. A
fancy
way to say United States of America itself is NOT paying it's debts
and
debt is now out of control just like Greece.

Ever heard the investment term, "Dead cat a falling..."? Just about
where
we are right now.


You're just daft. Take an econ class and get back to us.

Nope, don't want to polute my mind with liberalism. Prevents one from
making money.


Ah... economics = liberalism. That's a brainiac response for sure!

Not at all. Liberalism is bull****. It always fails in time. Liberals
are more likely to gamble for example. And at Vegas, you are guaranteed
to loose given enough play and time. Because you liberally gamble you
will loose more.

Stuff like Keynesian for example, fantasy horse****.

Want money? Want wealth? Want want want?

Simple, take in more than you spend. Works for governemtns, people,
companies you name it. If GM did this, they would not be stealing $100
billion from coast to coast to support a ****** business model.

And, that relates to economics how???

As I said, you're off your rocker.

You can't talk or think economics today without factoring in debt be it
government, the company you work for or your own finances. For example,
I liquidates to cash all banks, mutuals, mortgage funds, bonds, etc
between 2005 and 2007. Just because the interest rates inverted on
inlfation. So when 2008 went bad, my losses were small. Right out of
some old time investment books and congress chose to ignore.

Debt and credit have a whole lot to do with economics.

'Bama killing more civilians.
 

On 15/02/2010 5:26 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 2:21 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15/02/2010 11:07 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend
it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

It's basic economics, and it's not about "spending it's way out of
debt."
That's your foolish twist. You don't cut back spending during a
financial
crisis. Hoover did it and we know what happened.

Actually, Hoover was in office when 1929 hit, and too tried to spend out
of it. But had to stop as the governemtn ran out of cash and mounting
debt. Which forced the issue of pulling back on spending.

Problem wasn't solved until the advent of WW II when people got cash
paid
to them for the war effort. Bottom line, people need money to spend to
have an economy based on fiat currency.

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to
prosperity.

See previous.

I could list the countries that have tried it, and none to date have
managed to do it any more than individuals can.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the
last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

I am not a government responsible for more than 300m people.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and
sings
a
song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

Like I said, I'm sure you feel fine calling him a nazi or stalinist or
similar. Go for it.

1935 or so, all over again. As Obama deflects blame, he will pick on
banks, Japanese, Chinese, even Euros... just does not want people at
home
looking too closely at the monumentious screw up of US politicial
history.


You're just wrong. It's really not much of an argument to make up facts
as
you go.

Those who don't knwo history, are doomed to repeat it.

Which is what you're doing... actually, you're just re-writing history,
which is a bit worse in my opinion.

I can assure you neither of us is going to change history.

Take Iran, all the news about nukes... so freaking what? But Obama
probably thinks a good war will stimulate the economy and deflect blame
off of DC.

You're just a scared little boy with access to a keyboard, who listens to
too much Rush.

Can't get Rush, wish I could. Government censored up here.
Did you know Canadians can't get real Coco Puffs up her as they contain
real and uncracked coco?

Just like Adolph did with Germany. A slow deterioration of morals such as
China is the enemy, Iran is bad, must fight, tax, baracade, protectionism.
Not really different at all. Do I think he will get as far? Nope. But
will not stop Obama's ego from trying to keep control at all costs,
including what is best for Americans.

Obama should be focusing his issues on Americans broken financials
including government overweight footprint on the economy.

You should focus on retaking that high-school equivalency test.

You always know when you have won an arguement with a liberal loser.
They always degrade into some crap statement like that.

But then again, pretty sure you are a debtor.