revisionist history you nutters can't even remember the last 10 years much less actual history
you talk all about Obama's debt when you know damn well that debt is on your hands and the "barely functional illiterate" YOU voted into office
2007 - Democrats take over the Senate and the Congress. At the time, The DOW, GDP, and Unemployment were around 12,621.77, 3.5%, and 4.6%, respectively. Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION and economic recovery after the bursting of the DotCom bubble and 9/11 (which I'm sure you also blame Bush for).
2007 - Barney Frank takes over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd takes over the Senate Banking Committee. 15 months later, an economic meltdown in BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES. DOW, GDP, and Unemployment all take a massive hit, thanks to (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans (all made possible by Bill Clinton beefing up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force mortgage lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans and repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks) on the economy from... you guessed it, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop/intervene Fannie & Freddie, starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the US economy. No Dice.
Who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac The Vacationer-in Chief. Who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie Mr. Teleprompter and his all-knowing Democratic Congress.
Well done Fulham!
So much for us "nutters" not knowing our history...
And let us not forget just WHO filibustered Bush's repeated attempts at reforming Fannie and Freddie, that very same House Financial Services Committee chair BARNEY FRANK, and that very same Senate Banking Committee chair CHRIS DODD! Not to mention a host of other Democrats.
And I have, many times, posted here video proof of these and other democrats deliberately lying about the state of Fannie and Freddie.
But hey, rather than talking about it, why not introduce our history-impaired leftist to the footage?
And despite this overwhelming evidence that it was Democrats who blocked any chance of averting the inevitable meltdown by refusing to reform the 2 largest home lenders in the country, brainless leftists like gumby still insist on blaming Bush.
It is not utter bullshit to claim republicans want a theocracy.. when every decision they make is based off some religious dogma or another.
1 - As for the guy who called Obama the "vacationer in chief".. nice.. although he's nowhere near the vacation days your guy took.. sooo nice try
and on the subject of Marxism.. quit being a dope. Again.. I wasn't arguing FOR marxism.. I simply said if it was a choice between the two.
2 - also @ Fullham.. stop copy/pasting from BS spam mails lol..
When Clinton took office, the DOW was 3241.95. On his last day it office it was 10587.59.
3 - When G. W. Bush took office, the DOW was 10587.59. On the last day of his term, it was down to 7949.09.
When Obama took office, the DOW was 7949.09. At this very second (2/24/12 9:49pm) it is at 12982.95
Like Shakira's hips.. the facts don't lie.
1 - Should we add in all of Obama's celebrity parties, multiple unnecessary fundraisers, numerous golf outings, appearances on late-night talk shows, and literally countless campaign-mode trips he's made across the country in an attempt to telepromt the masses into agreement with his radical agenda in his specifically-made-for-that RV since being elected? Yeah, you're right, all of that is nothing compared to a guy going to his own home in Texas with most of his staff in tow.
2 - If the facts check out, the source shouldn't matter much. However... judging by recent posts in this section, anyone on the right has to have absolute, concrete, credible sources for every single thing they say, and none had better be opinionated... but, those on the left are allowed to say whatever they feel and quote anyone/thing they please... you know, because they are so much more intellectually advanced that just by them saying the words, makes it fact.
3 - A MAJOR reason for that DOW (Democrat greed and irresponsibility, Obama included), was in my previous post... that YOU quoted. But of course, you won't/can't accept that reason, because a) It contains truth b) It's "poorly sourced" and c) It paints Democrats in a negative light. A light they do not deserve, because we all know that they are the tolerant and compassionate pillars of our nation, and the sole keepers of humanity.
The facts, on their own, don't lie... but give a liberal enough time and money, and he'll figure out a way to make them into lies.
_________________________
Camilla Belle Kate Beckinsale - Emma Watson Emmy Rossum - Vanessa Hudgens - JoJo Levesque Jennifer Lawrence - Debby Ryan - Kaylee DeFer - AnnaLynne McCord Elizabeth Gillies - Selena Gomez - Lily Collins - Lea Michele - Haley Bennett - Emma Roberts
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Ah yes... and we all know how well the poor and the earth fare under Marxist rule...
Honestly, is their not a single leftist here who has read a fucking history book EVER???
It blows my mind how fucking ignorant some leftists can be!
And we all know how much better things would be under theocratic rule.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Right, well, Tex, everyone. Here's the complete response.
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Put plainly, I don't believe that business should have an effect (at least not directly) on our political process.
As an ideal, perhaps, I see the possibility of there being no money whatsoever in politics. But I don't think of myself as an idealist, nor that an ideal, by definition, is neccesarily achievable.
I do believe in Democracy, which is hardly an ideal. Communism is an ideal, and, unsurprisingly, there are no communist countries. After it's revolution, Russia was briefly communist, as I understand it, but then the country was taken over. There is socialism, of course, but socialism is merely a stepping stone to communism, as Marx described.
If there is to be money in politics, I believe contributions ought to be tied to the individual voter and normalized per individual as much as possible, per the principle of Democracy. That's to say, I don't believe that the fact that a company has sold a whole bunch of product, or whatever, should give the CEO (or whoever is in control of the corporation's accounts) more political will than anyone else (or any more than a person with at least a little money to spend). The money in a corporation's accounts need not have come from a conglomerate source normalized over the individual sources, and those sources need not be, themselves, individuals.
Perhaps, Tex, this is why other people focus on corporations over unions on the issue of money, though I can't speak for anyone else.
I am not totally adverse to the idea of an organization in some way directing the political will of a group of it's contituents, for the express and indicated purpose of political contributions, be it a union, collecting dues, or a corporation, perhaps taking money off employee paychecks, provided that there are limits per individual.
As far as what you said, Tex, about Democratic officials somehow directing money to unions, well, I don't quite know what you're talking about, but I'll trust your description. Per what you described, such a thing is in confict with the above principle and should be stopped.
Another reason I didn't want to post it is because it's a bit rough.
Oh, and when I say "the principle of Democracy," I of course simply mean the principle under which our current political system is (supposed) to work, where everyone gets one vote, no exceptions. While they may be voting on specific issues or representatives. It may be innacurate to call it a Democratic principle, for while the vote comprises a much larger part of the Democratic system than of the Republican, Republics have been in existence for far longer than Democracies.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 986
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
The Fair Tax is levied on ALL purchases of NEW GOODS and SERVICES. Every trip to your lawyer or doctor, every meal at a fancy restaurant, every stay at a posh hotel, every rental of a luxury car or charter of a luxury Lear jet or yacht, the hiring of that fancy party planner and crack cooking staff for that special affair, that remodel of the summer home in the Hamptons, the workers, the materials, the furniture, the new fixtures and appliances, that fancy accountant, that private masseuse and personal trainer, that expensive new bauble from Tiffanys for the significant other, ALL of the things one associates with the activities of the hated rich, ALL of them will be subject to the FAIR TAX.
In your words:
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
A big if [more or less, and implied] for which you present no figures. Get back to me when youve done your homework on this point.
Your post is a response to a user called "misterdick" who was talking about the burden on the poor sales taxes tend to have, so I assume that your saying that because one can select 8 or 9 items out of a particular list (posh hotels, lawyer visits), that these goods and services must comprise a larger percentage of the buyer's income, on average, than other items, and b) that all other items are similar in that respect, simply because you've selected them.
But this is not neccesarily true.
What you could be implying is (actually) fallacious. If you're implying nothing, then your argument is incomplete.
I could also select several new goods which one would associate with the poor, or at least, which the poor would ordinarily spend far more of their income on than the rich.
But again, your specific point is implied, so who knows, you could be talking about something completely different.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
JT
Menounos Numero Uno
Registered: 08/09/04
Posts: 66268
Loc: Nueva York
what a joke of a party
_________________________
Maria Menounos Vanessa Hudgens Minka Kelly Jennifer Lawrence Emmanuelle Chriqui Jessica Alba Kelly Brook Lucy Hale Carmen Villalobos Jojo Ashley Benson Elisha Cuthbert Kate Upton Debby Ryan Sophia Bush Sarah Shahi Nina Dobrev Emma Watson Olivia Munn Candice Swanepoel Anna Kendrick Alison Brie Frankie Sandford Victoria Justice
Well done Fulham!
Camilla Belle 
Previous Topic
Index
