|
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:07:50 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:39:41 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:05:22 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:12:09 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:09:40 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011 23:56:48 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011 13:09:46 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... Have you ever googled Santorum? ;-) Yes. And that's as sick as Santorum. Just shows how low we are. All poison, little common sense. That was actually Savage and his gay mafia that google bombed Santorum. You're defending Santorum??? Now that's funny! I am just pointing out a fact. I have no opinion either way You have no opinion on Nutcase Rick? :) Not really. He is about as important to me as the rest of the failed politicians who find a job on TV. As for google bombing, I often wonder why it is only conservatives who get google bombed. I am sure if it happened to a prominent democrat it would be a national scandal that the government have to do something about. I guess you never heard of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Obama. I have never seen the Gore, Obama or Clinton google bomb Then I take back everything I said, because that would mean you've never listed or heard of Faux News, Beck, or Rush. I just tried it and none of them resolve to frothy fecal matter. I am sure Larry and Sergey would take that down right away. I'm sure that your tinfoil hat is getting a bit damp. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:09:28 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:41:18 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:30:41 -0400, wrote: I am just pointing out a fact. I have no opinion either way What fact? You're afraid of something called the gay mafia? Talk about delusional... Did I say I was afraid? I was just quoting Savage on Stewart (or Maher) when he took credit for the google bomb. Jesus on a crutch, you will try to start a fight over anything. Well, you think there's a gay mafia... You said it, not I. I am quoting Savage. Yet you didn't appear to quote him in the original post. Interesting. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
"L G" wrote in message ... True North wrote: "I_am_Tosk" wrote in message ... You call the tin hat, hyperbole you spew here a "response".. You are bat**** crazy... -- Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life! ************* Boy.......... if imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, you sure do have a 'hard-on' for Harry. No wonder you want to see him this summer..... that puppy love can be overpowering. You are his puppy, dummy - following him everywhere he goes. ***************** ....as you...to me! |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
In article ,
says... On Mon, 16 May 2011 22:01:42 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:07:50 -0400, wrote: As for google bombing, I often wonder why it is only conservatives who get google bombed. I am sure if it happened to a prominent democrat it would be a national scandal that the government have to do something about. I guess you never heard of Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Obama. I have never seen the Gore, Obama or Clinton google bomb Then I take back everything I said, because that would mean you've never listed or heard of Faux News, Beck, or Rush. So you can't give me an example of a Clinton, Obama or Gore google bomb and you are changing the subject. What other examples are there besides Santorum? Why would the queers bomb Clinton, Obama or Gore? It's Santorum who compared queers to dogs, wasn't it? BTW, I'm only going back to the term "queer" because The word "gay' is often used as a perjorative having nothing to do with queers. Saying "gay community" every time is cumbersome. "Homosexual" is likewise too long, and "homo" is frowned upon. I don't like saying "African-American" either. I just say "black." Like Trump. But I'm not a birther, or conman. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Tue, 17 May 2011 01:52:10 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:54:45 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:45:55 -0400, wrote: I do not see the Dems telling anyone to shove it. They are the same to me when it comes to Wall Street. You saw where the money went in 08. Obama is doing exactly what the GOP would do and so did Clinton. That is why the big money didn't take a serious swing at either of them. Come on. MCain/Palin? Dole/Kemp? That is a party that didn't want it very bad. Really? Exactly the same? Wow. That's shockingly narrow-minded and total BS. In regard to the industries I listed in this thread (this note and others), what is the difference? Obama brought GW Bush's economic team and his financial policy over virtually unchanged. The Democratic Senate gave us a health care bill that was little more than a gift to the insurance and health care provider corporations. The military industrial complex is still chugging along unchecked. All you have to do is look who gave the dems their money in 2008 to see why. You're going to claim it was the Dems fault that the less than perfect healthcare bill was passed? It was fought tooth and nail by the Republicans, who received the lion's share of the lobbying money. Obama replaced many of the senior people at Treasury and in his cabinet. Too bad reality hurts. Obama continued what Bush started re not letting the US/World economies collapse, sure. Gates has struggled to end many of the military industrial complex projects, e.g., the new air force fighter. Clinton was the best "big business" president since Herbert Hoover but Obama is catching up to him pretty fast. That leaves the GOP with nothing but a few emotional issues to run on. Pretty different situation though isn't it. The economy was actually doing pretty well under Clinton. Obama is definitely pro business or is he a Marxist? It's hard to tell when you listen to your right wing friends. So, either he's so pro business that he's ruining the economy or he's such a leftist that he's ruining the economy. Basically, that's your argument. I am not running from anything. There were plenty of neocon democrats who were eager to have a war with Iraq. \ how many were president? oh. zero. Congress has to pay for those wars and there are some war resolutions I can go look up if you really need the votes. and how many would have done so if bush hadn't LIED?? Clinton, Schumer and Lieberman were right behind him cheering him on. You have plenty of neocons on your side. Total BS. Do you want me to go get the Iraq war resolution vote? I could get the congressional record transcripts of the debate. I won't even charge you $350 I just bet you would change the subject. After being lied to by Bush/Cheney.... interesting how you forget that part when it's convenient. Yeah the technical detain is OBL was in Pakistan and it was not a 150,000 man army that got him., It was a small team of special ops people. That is what we should have been doing all along. and obama has been moving in that direction as well, which is why the number of these operations has increased, along with increased drone strikes. but you dont just cut and run How many GIs have to die before you decide it is a waste of capital. how many new yorkers have to die before you decide it wasnt? You are waging a war on people who had nothing to do with it. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan but he left almost 10 years ago. As far as we know Karzai was covering for him too and we are backing Karzai. So, you're claiming the Taliban didn't harbor OBL and was never involved in terrorism... wow. No I am saying the same government we are currently propping up probably had as much to do with OBL being there as this nebulous concept of the taliban. If harboring OBL is a crime worth us spending $400 billion and a 10 year occupation why are we letting Pakistan off the hook? Feel free to give Sec. Clinton a call and let her know. I'm sure she'd appreciate your advice. You sound like Nixon now. Do we want "Peace with Honor"? That cost us about 30,000 guys and we still lost. gee. i just missed being drafted for vietnam. i got over vietnam syndrome you havent Pity. The people who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. and yet if we dont stablize afghanistan, the taliban will return, they will set up operations with al qaida and we'll have pakistin and afghanistan to deal with The taliban is going to return. We have no way to stop them. sure we do. we set up a dictatorship that's a ruthless killer. it's been done before how much luck did al qaida have in iraq? none. So now you are saying you like brutal dictatorships? Nice. Maybe we should have backed Mubarak and we should be backing Qdaffy. I guess we should have dusted off Saddam, made him promise to be good and put him back in the palace. No, we should have attacked him for being absolutely no threat to us or our allies. ... except he was giving the family of any suicide bomber who attacked Israel $25,000 Except that Israel was doing just fine. Feel free to keep justifying a war of choice and lying to the American people (and the world). Afghanistan was a war of choice too. I have been telling you for a year, if we just want to kill OBL and other terrorist leaders, covert operation is a lot more effective than a 150,000 troop, $400 billion dollar war with Islam. No it wasn't. You know that, but you're still defending Bush's failed policy of ignoring that country in pursuit of Saddam. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11. Most of them still have never even heard of it. sure they did. in fact, you lost all credibility when you made that statement OBL was living in kabul on 9/11. when mullah omar was ordered by the US to turn over OBL, he refused, saying OBL was a guest in afghanist so your statement is wrong. and it's like saying the japanese had no responsibility for hte attack on pearl harbor That is total bull****. The japs were flying the planes that attacked Pear Harbor. There were ZERO Taliban guys on the planes on 9-11, nor were they really involved in the plot at all. To use your logic, we should declare war on Pakistan today now let's see OBL was living in afghanistan he planned the attack from there with his conspirators you DO know that, if you are engaged in a conspiracy you are as guilty if you PLAN it as those who carry it out....that's the law. so you're an appeaser. you're the only moron ive seen who loves the taliban The Taliban is in Pakistan too, as was OBL. Do you want to attack them too? Sounds like you do. Are you even aware of the nuanced situation? Sounds like you aren't. There is not much nuance when you have 150,000 occupiers in a country for no good reason Some day soon Obama will tell you this and you will believe it ... I hope. Umm... we're in Afg. not Pakistan. Try to keep up. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
In article ,
says... The titanic had not been sinking very long either but they had no way to stop the water. There are no "minor" changes that will fix a 2.6 trillion dollar problem and that is how much money we have to come up with to pay back those SS bonds you think will make us whole until 2037 ... oops they just said it is 2024. (the latest trust fund report, in case your google search is old) No, 2036. Medicare is 2024. BTW, I just saw that the Obama payroll tax reduction is actually just a tax reduction on those with FICA wages under the cap, which is about $107k. No effect on the SS trust fund. Why? Treasuries were issued to the SS trust fund to replace the SS income lost to the SS trust fund due to the cut. It's called a "tax holiday." http://tinyurl.com/685fe6g Slick. Somebody really believes in the trust fund. So that Treasury issue raised the added debt from SS from $46b to $150b. Actually though, the $46b SS shortfall should come off the SS trust fund books as paid out, so the real addition to debt is the $105b due to the payroll tax cut. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Tue, 17 May 2011 02:04:11 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:58:25 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:57:03 -0400, wrote: No. You're wrong. Many programs "pay out" more than they take in for some period of time and they do fine in the long run. You're the one in denial. Name one that is on this scale. Social Security. You have come back to where you started didn't you. SS generated huge surpluses for the first 75 years of it's existence, money we spent. That where it got the reputation for being successful. Now we are going to see how it works in deficit. Give me an example of a program that successfully runs for a significant time in deficit. SS hasn't run a deficit for a significant time and it's projected to do just fine with some minor changes. Feel free to keep ringing the gong of nonsense until your head hurts. The titanic had not been sinking very long either but they had no way to stop the water. There are no "minor" changes that will fix a 2.6 trillion dollar problem and that is how much money we have to come up with to pay back those SS bonds you think will make us whole until 2037 ... oops they just said it is 2024. (the latest trust fund report, in case your google search is old) Feel free to holler at the top of your lungs if you think doing so will change the facts. You started out with 35 or 40 payers per retiree in 1935 and people were only expected to collect for a couple of years if they lived that long. Now we have 3 workers per retiree and they will collect for 18 years. It is simply unsustainable. The whole concept of a trust fund is fantasy, invented in 1939 to fund the build up for WWII. what's also unsustainable is the massive increase in healthcare costs we face, again, engineered by the 'free market' fundamentalism of the right. Health care cost is part of it but simply having 40 million medicare recipients is unsustainable and that will double in a decade. It's only unsustainable if no action is taken. Action is being proposed and the situation will turn around. More fear mongering isn't part of the solution. Do you have a 1.5 trillion dollar idea to fix the deficit. That is really what we are talking about here and it is not a long term problem it is a problem today. Medicare/SS are just another part of the deficit now since both are running in the red. I suggested several ways to start. We DON'T NEED TO FIX THIS TOMORROW. We need to get started... subsidies, military, tax rates. I know you don't like it and would prefer to think all is lost and the sky is falling. It isn't. The problem is this administration took a giant step in the wrong direction, cutting the FICA tax. When are they going to start? Not a giant step. Not compared to the budget busting of the last couple of decades. I agree we have made some big mistakes but this is going directly to the SS deficit and clipping 5% of the total revenue from the government. (payroll taxes are 36% and we took 14% of that away) So, you'd rather blame Obama for a relatively minor and recent error than blame Bush for nearly destroying the economy. Got it. I blame Obama for drinking that same "cut taxes to make more money" kool ade you were criticizing 6 months ago. I have been consistent. Bush was wrong and Obama is doubling down on his mistakes. You are the one who is flip flopping. Not at all. Please show me where I supported the tax reduction from Obama. BTW did you see how Geithner is extending the debt ceiling? He is taking money from the federal pension program. I am surprised nobody is raising hell about that. we have no choice but to extend the ceiling. our debt wouldnt be serviceable if we didnt The debt will be unserviceable when the interest rate doubles too and that is far more than likely. It is not "more likely." There's no credible evidence that interest rates will be doubling any time soon. More denial. At this point we are only paying 0.3% on our short bonds. That is not likely to continue very long. To think a fraction of a percent rate hike is impossible it just lunacy. Right now investors are not even covering the drop in the value of the dollar we pay them back with. There is NO EVIDENCE of a dramatic increase in interest rates. Total nonsense. It doesn't have to be a huge change to make a huge difference. Interest is now almost a third of our revenue. You said double. So, you're backpeddling on that? It is not unreasonable that the 0.3% rate we pay on short money would double. Feel free to let us know when there's a crisis. OK, I doubt you will have to wait long. Well, do let us know. Post it here in case we miss it on CNN. Every crash in history was caused by debt. If the US economy crashes it could quite easily be the end of the world as we know it. It could easily, in your view, start raining marbles. I notice you finally used the "end of the world" language. How else would you describe a failure of the dollar? That is what is at stake here. The dollar has not "failed." It's devalued against certain currencies, but it's far from failed. You act like nobody but you is aware of the situation. Talk to me in a year or two. I said that is what is "at stake" not what has happened already. Sure, whatever Mr. Oracle. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Tue, 17 May 2011 02:12:01 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:59:52 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 20:59:09 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:38:23 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:27:56 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 10:33:42 -0700, wrote: I saw Bob Gates promoting everlasting war in Afghanistan. Maybe you saw another show. I never heard him say we could pull out and the Afghan government would survive. All they got out of him was "The troops can start to come home" but when pressed he said "it was premature" I'm sure you did. I'm also sure that no matter what anyone says or shows you, you know more than they. Do you want me to go get the transcript? Never mind, you would just change the subject if I did. He said it was premature to quickly reduce the forces. Feel free to get the transcript. Exactly right. That means we are going to be there quite a while if we keep listening to him. He was behind the "double down" in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The idea that he won't find an excuse to stay there is still pretty likely. The timeline for withdrawal hasn't changed, but may depending on the facts on the ground. Feel free to keep yammering about how terrible Obama is doing. |
2nd Kook Seeks GOP Nomination
On Tue, 17 May 2011 02:12:52 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 16 May 2011 22:00:19 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 23:48:39 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 18:07:41 -0400, wf3h wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:18:29 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: The fact is there are more Taliban now than there were in 2002 but the vast majority of them have no interest in attacking the US, they just want us out of their country, just like they wanted the Soviets out. We somehow feel the need and the right to impose our culture on them and they don't like it. Well, in order to have less Taliban, you have to be prepared to kill them. Or like cockroaches they can become a bigger problem. I do think it best to leave, but after building a monument our of concrete. It will read. "Live in peace, do what you want inside your borders and we will ignore your barbarism. But take your problems to us again, this will be ground zero." Put it right in-front of their capital buildings. And if they ause trouble in the future, including frug trade, nuke'em. No need to spread American and Canadian blood for a barbaric culture. The point is the Taliban don't really care about us one way or the other., If we get out they will chug along in their 10th century world without giving us a second thought. gee. how much thought did they give us on 9/10/2001? too much for my liking but, then, i was there in the aftermath. you weren't I wasn't there but my brother in law was in building 7. He still has health issues. Us killing a lot of people who had nothing to do with it will not bring any of those people back but it will guarantee there are a lot of new terrorists. Talk to Bush. Why bother we have Obama and he is as dumb as Bush about this. Wow... it's pretty obvious that you're unable to distinguish facts from fiction. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com