Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    YOU just had another enema and posted the result here.

    IF the other taxes you are referring to to is the payroll "tax" you are wrong because contributing to your retirement[social security] and you health insurance[medicare] is not a tax.

    [/QUOTE]

    You really are a good Republican.  Just repeating the same bs over and over again trying to make it true.  YOUR MOTHER had an enema and the result was you.  Even if you want to insist that a tax is not a tax there are also state income taxes, sales and excise taxes and property taxes.  In conclusion you are still a moron.




    [/QUOTE]

    YOU are the MORON!!! IF YOU have any accomplishments in this world which I doubt, the one that will become you the most is your leaving it.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    1. By that reasoning a "lot" of blacks voted for Romney.

    The African Americans voting for Romney didn't come anywhere near one-eighth of the entire voting public. White men voting for Obama were roughly one-eighth of the voters.  All I'm saying is that while Obama only got about 35% of the white male vote, that 35% is still a very large group of voters.  

    2. Never said anybody was a single issue voter. Said a key block was decisively influenced by a certain issue in particular.

    Sorry, but this is a vast oversimplification of the polling data and not something anybody with any real knowledge of statistics would ever conclude.  You go wrong when you try to claim that one issue was "decisive."  It wasn't decisive on its own.  It was part of a much bigger and broader package that moved (and has been moving) women and young people away from the Republicans for a while now.  

    3. Clinton presided over the dotcom bubble and nobody is trying to say that was real growth, except perhaps you. Reagan's tax cuts certainly did grow the economy. There were deficits due to military spending in a successful attempt to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Would you like to have them back? I think a lot of Ukrainians for just one example would disagree with you.

    There are always bubbles, but what Clinton really presided over was a period of tremendous growth in information technology.  It ended with a bubble, but much of the growth was real and lasting.  As far as "bankrupting" the Soviet Union . . . that's a nice myth that Reaganites like to repeat as truth, but the Soviet Union's collapse was due to multiple factors. Defense competition with the US was only a part of a much bigger picture.  And Reagan's deficits didn't help our own long-term financial health as a nation either. In fact, it was the start of truly uncontrollable deficits that may, in the end, bankrupt us even more completely than defense spending "bankrupted" the Soviets. 

    4. Maybe Canada should try having an army bigger than the NYPD. Then maybe they wouldn't have all this extra money laying around while we pay for their defense. I find it laughable that these many countries sit back and pontificate about the missteps of the USA while they bask in the warm safety of the US military. And when the US doesn't get involved they are the first to cry that we shirked our duty as a great power.

    Or maybe we shouldn't have a bigger army? Maybe we think it's more important to ensure our own economy is healthy first, that our domestic infrastructure is in good shape, and that we have reasonable social benefits.  Tell me exactly why the US is spending billions and billions of your tax dollars trying to "fix" the Middle East?  Is there a plan to move you all there sometime? Believe me, it's not making you any safer. If you believe that bunk, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for you . . .

    The average canuk is spending 20 bucks a year on defense, LMAO!

    Yeah, we make our choices and you make yours.  (Unfortunately, though, I pay taxes in both countries--I just think the Canadians are doing better things with my money than the Americans are right now. Health care for me and my wife at home versus never-ending war in places I'll probably never go?  What's a better deal? To me, the answer is obvious.)

    [/QUOTE]


     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Prolate, agree on the Clinton luck while in office acting like he did something with the internet boon/E-Commerce, but I disagree with Reagan and his pressure on the Soviet Union.

    It's pretty well documented that between NASA and the arms race, the peak of the cold war really came in the late 1970s and 1980s. This outside of the heated confrontation with the Bay of Pigs (1962), etc. 

    Everything they tried (USSR) to compete with the US in the Cold War, they failed at regularly.   Their system could never have them win.  Reagan upped the ante in the 1980s, put continus economic pressure on (as did Carter by boycotting the 1980 Olympics) buy expanding the space program and building nukes.

    Not a coincidence Reagan and James Baker forced the issue and the Soviet Union collapsed.

    I think it's incredbily political for anyone to claim otherwise. That's exactly the historical timeline and what happened. You can't change history.   The wall came down in '87 and then Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991. Even the invasion of Afghanistan can be seen as the USSR trying to keep up with the US, attempting to have a presence like we had in the region with the relationship we've had the Saudis since the 1930s. The oil fields south of the Urals and the issues they had with traded in and out of the Dardenelles was always a problem for them. But, as you can see, they lost.

    No president really put heat on the USSR like that, minus JFK and Eisenhower.

    Go ask eastern Euorpeans about what they think of Reagan and his policies. They love the guy, and for good reason.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty, Reagan's policies certainly contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I think the Soviets problems were deep and had been growing for years.  They didn't have the economic strength to compete.  You also can't underestimate the fact that the leadership of the Soviet Union had changed too and the new generation of leaders wasn't really committed to preserving communism.  The financial health of the Soviet union was teetering, their defense commitments were too large for their economy to support--but there was also a signfiicant loss of will to preserve communisim among the nation's people and leaders. Gorbachev and his worldview was far more significant to the changes in the Soviet Union than Reagan's defense spending. Americans have a tendency to forget, I think, that countries have their own internal dynamics that Americans really don't have anything to do with.  Maybe that's why we keep making the mistake of thinking we can "nation build." 

     

     

     

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    YOU are the MORON!!! IF YOU have any accomplishments in this world which I doubt, the one that will become you the most is your leaving it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know this must be hard for you.  Someone actually using facts to refute your talking points.  You probably don't see a lot of that on Fox (notice how my actual points go virtually unchallenged in your "counterarguments" and your posts are mostly a bunch of namecalling).  But suggesting my death will be my "greatest accomplishment" in life is a bit much.  You really are pathetic.  I almost feel bad for you.

    Oh and just in case you were wondering I work full time and pay taxes (including the federal income tax).  Nice try though.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    That's pretty much what I just said.  They were never going to win, but I think he escalated it in the 1980s.  To try to discredit that is a little arrogant because we have no idea what would have happened if he hadn't. Give credit where credit is due. The differences in this area between Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter vs Reagan are vast. Obviously, the difference was the unfortunate Vietnam.

    In the end, Reagan helped finish off the Cold War with a policy that made sure we never fired a shot against the USSR and them not against us, both with It was very Teddy Rooseveltesque, actually.  Good relationship with Gorbachev, no doubt, and his presence helped that because he was more rational than Andropov and Chernenko, but still. 

    I just don't think you can discount the "take down this wall" speech in 1987 and then it comes down in 1989.  Good example of forcing the issue in multiple ways.  Outside of JFK, no president really challenged them.  I still think if JFK wasn't assisinated and got a second term, Johnson isn't a moron raging in Vietnam.

    My premise is it may have gone past 1991 if he hadn't.  There is hard data out there that shows their approach in spending put the USSR over the top compared to previous decades.

    Not that it matters, Russia is still behaving poorly and running around as Communists anyway.  Their people lose, as do the bordering countries who have to deal with "big brother" all the time.

    But, you ask any eastern European who had to live through 1945-1991 and they'll tell you.

    [/QUOTE]

    Rusty, we're not really disagreeing here.  Reagan's policies probably hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by forcing them to spend more on defense than they really could afford.  But the underlying dynamic was that their economy was failing, their various "republics" were all itching to break away, and their leadership was of a new generation that wasn't committed to the old Soviet system and wanted change (maybe not exactly the complete change they got, but still significant change).  

    On the other hand, while the US is economically in better position to support the massive defense  build-up Reagan initiated, that build-up (and the deficits it created) are also threatening our own economy.  Reagan may have pushed the Soviet Union quickly into bankruptcy.  History may yet show that in doing so, he also nudged his own country closer to the very same precipice. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    YOU are the MORON!!! IF YOU have any accomplishments in this world which I doubt, the one that will become you the most is your leaving it.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know this must be hard for you.  Someone actually using facts to refute your talking points.  You probably don't see a lot of that on Fox (notice how my actual points go virtually unchallenged in your "counterarguments" and your posts are mostly a bunch of namecalling).  But suggesting my death will be my "greatest accomplishment" in life is a bit much.  You really are pathetic.  I almost feel bad for you.

    Oh and just in case you were wondering I work full time and pay taxes (including the federal income tax).  Nice try though.

    [/QUOTE]

    You have loser written all over your comments. You disregard facts by saying they are not true. You are a tax payer, glad to hear it. Notice you didn't mention military service. Obviously I HIT ON WHAT WILL BE THE GREATEST ACCOMPLISHMENT OF YOUR LIFE. tough to live with isn't it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to Neal Page's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think your last paragraph is dramatic and wrong unless you want to elaborate.  A lot of rhetoric in there, Prolate.  Care to expand on what you means with the dramatic statement?

    Precipice of what?

    You do realize the deficits that Reagan created were quickly and easily erased by the internet boom of the 1990s? I could have balanced that budget as a 19 year old with that kind of revenue for the gov't then.  These things are cyclical. 

    Fair enough, Rusty.  Clinton, with the help of higher taxes and cut backs in Reagan's defense spending, was able to turn an annual deficit into a surplus. But Clinton wasn't able to significantly reduce the cumulative debt that grew under Reagan and continues to grow today. It's the accumulating debt that may eventually result in a big problem for the US.  

    These deficits, while bad and needing to be addressed, are slightly overrated. They're recoverable with some good leadership and facilitation from the gov't.  It's been proven time and again in history. I don't care if it's 1901, 1946, 1933, 1953, 1963, 1983, 1993 or now.

    I agree as well.  And there's been some hysteria from the Right about deficits.  However, we need sound fiscal policy if we are ever going to begin controlling the debt.  At this point, the debt burden seems manageable as a percentage of GDP, but every country has a breaking point.  We need higher taxes and more controlled spending to prevent becoming a very large Greece.  Boondoggles like the unfunded war in Iraq accompanied by tax cuts aren't great for the fiscal health of the country.  They build up the national debt and slowly but surely constrain our flexibility to adjust to emerging problems--such as the retirement crisis that's likely to hit as today's 40 and 50 years olds start to reach their 60s and 70s.

    It's when Congress plays games and we're dumb is when it's a problem, yes.  But, what Reagan did in the 1980s with his foreign policy has ZERO to do with the economy now. The Cold War isn't applicable to now in terms of economics. Globalization has proven that.

    Well, it's not exactly zero.  The accumulated debt is still a problem for us.  And had the money Reagan spent on defense been diverted to investment in domestic infrastructure or retirement and health plans we might be in better shape now and in coming years. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from laurienyc13. Show laurienyc13's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    Are you ready FOR SOME FOOTBALL!!! This is way too much, lets great back to the PATS.. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jimmytantric's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is a sign that the Pats will win the SB!  When a man that believes that some guy,(I believe Joseph Smith?--wow you can't make this sh_t up), finds 2 tablets in the woods, giving him a direct connection to God, and then forms a billion dollar religion,(idealogy), runs for PREZ and loses - that tells me we have a chance!!!! Thank goodness that silver-spooned snake oil salesman Romney LOST! The guy is slick as grease. He should go into acting now-he'd be great. Isn't it time for people to stop telling others what they can and can't do with thier own bodies? Anti-abortion, anti-pot smoking, anti-same sex marriage, anti-anything---if I aint bothering you don't bother me!!!! So tired of these rich old Right wing Christian Farts that want everyone else to behave like them. And I know this isn't Patriot talk- but c'mon people America just elected a president----little more important than rich jocks, who most, have never got out of their sophmoric high school days,(UHUM-Brett Farve anyone), running around chasing a Ball---it's a game!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    (YAWN.........)

    So, instead of those "Old Right Wing Christian Farts that want everyone to behave like them", you want the Amateur In Chief to lead a bunch of low intelligence, entitlement taking, no skin in the game paying, gay marriage loving, pot smoking, illegal alien loving, food stamp getting, alternative energy ignorent yahoos telling just about half of the country that THEY need to behave as THEY do? BIG difference, right?  The perspective is who won. But, remember who controls the course strings of Congress. Let's see how transparent he'll be THIS time.

    Bozo got another 4 years. The :Moron Voters"  bought his Blame Bush rhetoric. Unfortunately, it's not ALL on him. No more Blame Bush traction. Let's see if he can go 0-2 on his "promises".  Hold onto your wallet, unless, of course, you're a "taker". In which case it doesn't matter what's in your wallet....

    GLOAT ON! 

    [/QUOTE]

    You mean Takeer like the entire state of Arizona? http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Thank Goodness Obama won!!!!

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to newenglanderinexile's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]Wall Street drops more than 2 percent

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. stocks extended losses, with all three major stock indexes dropping more than 2 percent and the S&P 500 falling below 1,400 for the first time since September 4 on Wednesday, a day after the re-election of President Barack Obama, as comments by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi weighed on sentiment.

    The Dow Jones industrial average was down 292.25 points, or 2.21 percent, at 12,953.43. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index was down 31.18 points, or 2.18 percent, at 1,397.21. The Nasdaq Composite Index was down 69.60 points, or 2.31 percent, at 2,942.33.

    ------------------

    Thanks Obama!

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand the stock market tends to fluctuate, sometimes going down, sometimes going up, and that what happens on a particular day is not all that important.  I heard somewhere that the markets are up pretty solidly for the year. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Not a good sign day after election.  The people spoke last night, the money is speaking today.


    Get together food, guns and turn your money into cash.  It's time to run for the hills!!

    [/QUOTE]

    I am sure you said that before and after the last election, too. Why do you still have Internet access?

     

Share