if you are a US Congressman....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691)
Quote
"....The study also indicates that a significant number of members owned shares of major players in the health-care and financial-services sectors, which were the subject of major reform legislation during the period.
The findings—based on federal financial disclosure data released earlier this year—paint a wealthy bunch in Congress, with more than half of all members—261—were millionaires. ..."
If you got rich in Congress, or accumulated a lot of wealth during your tenure, then you need to be investigated, period. This isn't the place to make money.
This should go for either party, Dim or Pub. >:(
Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2010, 04:30:45 PM
This should go for either party, Dim or Pub. >:(
ABSOLUTELY! And, their family members/circle of associates...
Quote from: taxed on November 24, 2010, 04:32:39 PM
ABSOLUTELY! And, their family members/circle of associates...
It's for reasons such as this, that we cleaned House recently, and will do more come 2012.
Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2010, 04:34:46 PM
It's for reasons such as this, that we cleaned House recently, and will do more come 2012.
Definitely.... We need to keep the squeeze on these guys and keep purging...
Quote from: Solar on November 24, 2010, 04:34:46 PM
It's for reasons such as this, that we cleaned House recently, and will do more come 2012.
I sincerely hope the public has the stamina to keep kicking these bums and bumesses out of office until it becomes what it was created to be .................. our public servant.
Lyndon B. Johnson went to Washington, D.C. as a virtually penniless freshman Congressman, and left Washington, D.C. as a multi-millionaire.
We all know that the base salaries of Congressmen and Presidents aren't anything spectacular.
Simple solution, kids. Term limits. Make 'em short, and make 'em constitutional amendments. One term for Senators, three for Representatives. No exceptions.
Jeez, I've go all the answers! :P :P :P
Quote from: tbone0106 on November 24, 2010, 10:36:03 PM
Simple solution, kids. Term limits. Make 'em short, and make 'em constitutional amendments. One term for Senators, three for Representatives. No exceptions.
Jeez, I've go all the answers! :P :P :P
YES!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.
Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?
Bama, at what point in Obama's Presidency does the economy become HIS economy? At what point does the record national debt and record budget deficit become HIS national debt and budget deficit?
It's been almost TWO YEARS now. Everything has gotten much worse since the Kenyan took over. So when are you marxists, er, "progressives", going to take a vote to decide when Obama's Presidency BEGINS?
I can remember very vividly how, right after 9/11/01, you "progressives" incessantly blamed then-President George W. Bush for the events of 9/11/01, even though he had only been in office for less than 8 MONTHS. Then, of course, there are the "truthers", who believe that 9/11 was an "inside job", but I won't even go there.
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 24, 2010, 07:50:58 PM
Lyndon B. Johnson went to Washington, D.C. as a virtually penniless freshman Congressman, and left Washington, D.C. as a multi-millionaire.
We all know that the base salaries of Congressmen and Presidents aren't anything spectacular.
LBJ married very well. Lady Bird was of a wealthy family, so LBJ didn't need a lot of money, especially after being taken under the wing of Sam Rayburn. As a 12 year Congressman before winning the Texas Senate seat from Coke Stevenson by 87 votes. ( Corruption was pretty rampant in that election )
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.
Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?
Beau...Beau..Wake Up, you've been dreaming!
It was Husein that has all but ruined the economy, along with Pelosi and Reid.
It will be us Tea baggers that set the train back on the track to recovery.
Did I mention that we will be cutting the bloat out of the Gov, things like money for the arts, PBS, planned parenthood.
The list is way to long to mention, but we will be gutting every little pet liberal project that exists, and the people will back us all the way. 8)
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 08:13:29 AM
We Progressives do not count Obama as a Progressive.
Many of us allowed ourselves to believe that he would become one,
but he has sorely disappointed those who did. Still, he was better than McCain.
As for the economy, no POTUS could have dug us out of the hole
that we have put ourselves in any faster than Obama can or will if indeed
he ever decides to do so. The problem is not that he is too Progressive.
The problem is that he is too corporatist and not Progressive enough.
From day one he should have taken a stand against the wealthy
and powerful who have robbed and raped this great nation. But he didn't.
And he probably won't. And we will probably get someone worse next time.
But that's okay, because like Obama, we usually get what we deserve too.
What cracks me up about you "progressives" is the fact that you are too EMBARRASSED to call yourselves what you REALLY are..........................MARXISTS. So you come up with these cute and comfortable names, like "progressives" or "greenies", and catchy slogans and legislation like "hope and change" and "The Fairness Doctrine" and "economic stimulus" and "Obamacare". Nice try, "Karl", but we aren't buying ANY of it.
Is this whole "I'm really a Marxist, but call me a Progressive" schtick some sort of ideological "don't ask, don't tell" policy that you "Marxists" have?
:)) :)) :))
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 08:13:29 AM
We Progressives do not count Obama as a Progressive.
Many of us allowed ourselves to believe that he would become one,
but he has sorely disappointed those who did.
Of course not, he's a black separatists Marxist.
QuoteStill, he was better than McCain.
Yes he was, he woke the American people to the cancer of socialism that was eating away at our culture.
McCain would have been just more of the same BS.
Husein single handed, killed the so called Progressive movement, by force feeding a sleeping public, only to awaken from the choking.
QuoteAs for the economy, no POTUS could have dug us out of the hole
that we have put ourselves in any faster than Obama can or will if indeed
he ever decides to do so.
Something we actually agree upon, it is not the job of the POTUS to manipulate the free mkt, it should be allowed to correct itself.
QuoteThe problem is not that he is too Progressive.
The problem is that he is too corporatist and not Progressive enough.
From day one he should have taken a stand against the wealthy
and powerful who have robbed and raped this great nation. But he didn't.
And he probably won't. And we will probably get someone worse next time.
But that's okay, because like Obama, we usually get what we deserve too.
You deceive yourself if you think money never influences people.
Everything I said above is true, until the left accepts it, you all will be relegated to the lawn outside the stadium, while the rest of us watch the play unfold.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2010, 08:53:23 AM
You deceive yourself if you think money never influences people.
Through 100.000 dollars out a window in a big city and see what will happen. You will see just how fast Progressive will move. ;D LOL
Quote from: walkstall on November 25, 2010, 12:03:52 PM
Through 100.000 dollars out a window in a big city and see what will happen. You will see just how fast Progressive will move. ;D LOL
;D ;D ;D
And just how fast they'll run you over to get it.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.
Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?
Beau, do you ever tire of your delusions.Obama and his cohorts are in the process of squeezing the middle class through legislation. Are you so blinded by your partisan rhetoric to see? Just who prey tell will pay for these socialist programs with the last dime of their disposable income? Do you think the wealthy cares if their utilities double or they pay six bucks for a gallon of gas? What was the first order of business when he took office? Increase the tax on tobacco products. Who will that affect the most? The working class and the poor. The government always goes after the simple pleasures of the working class masses. Obama's delusional lie about not raising taxes on the middle class is just a lie, covered up with smoke and mirrors. He's an Alinskyite, they will attempt to dazzle them with the promise of change, all the while they will be stabbed in the back by the Marxist elites, who will never subject themselves to the same rules as the ruled. Their is no Utopia under a socialist system, only misery for the governed under the thumb of government control. Obama sold you a lie, he is no better than the corporate monster you despise. He is their enabler.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 04:50:59 AM
You've accidentally hit the finger on the uvula, taxed.
The GOPP is the equivalent of political bulimia.
First they binge for 30 on the carcass of the middle class
and then they purge under the guise of the teabaggers.
Either way, they make a mess of things and then they
leave it to the Progressives to clean up their messes.
Wherefore art thou, oh Progressive saviour?
Progressive and Savior are contradictory. Progressive and Tyranny are compatible.
Question:
How do "Progressives" define Progress? AND How do they measure success towards same?
"WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THEIR PROGRESS"
Billy
Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 25, 2010, 05:12:05 PM
Question:
How do "Progressives" define Progress? AND How do they measure success towards same?
"WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THEIR PROGRESS"
Billy
Answer: Their governance consumes the total wealth of the country to sustain their progressive government.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 08:13:29 AM
As for the economy, no POTUS could have dug us out of the hole
that we have put ourselves in any faster than Obama can or will if indeed
he ever decides to do so.
The problem with this POTUS is that he doesn't realize that
no one can dig themselves out of hole. A shovel only works in one direction -- down, and every swing of the shovel makes the hole bigger.
When the dems took control of congress in 2006, they switched from using a shovel to a backhoe. The debt escalated at a much faster rate. The dems were blaming the debt on the cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan. Even with the war debt, the biggest portion of the debt was the excessive spending of the dems and the Fannie-Freddie fiasco. Fannie and Freddie continue to be a financial burden on the taxpayers and is a safe haven (they became board members at Fannie and Freddie) for all of the dems that were once a part of the Clinton administration. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank's boytoy and Jamie Gorelick gave themselves healthy bonuses as board members. The information is readily available to anyone who wishes to explore.
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 25, 2010, 07:34:06 PM
When the dems took control of congress in 2006, they switched from using a shovel to a backhoe. The debt escalated at a much faster rate. The dems were blaming the debt on the cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan. Even with the war debt, the biggest portion of the debt was the excessive spending of the dems and the Fannie-Freddie fiasco. Fannie and Freddie continue to be a financial burden on the taxpayers and is a safe haven (they became board members at Fannie and Freddie) for all of the dems that were once a part of the Clinton administration. People like Rahm Emmanuel, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank's boytoy and Jamie Gorelick gave themselves healthy bonuses as board members. The information is readily available to anyone who wishes to explore.
When the Dems took control of Congress in 2006, Bush still had the VETO pen, and he obviously didn't use it enough. Bush is just as complicit as Congress is for EVERYTHING that happened from January/2007 to January/2009.
I'll give you partial credit for that response. ;) Bush did have the veto pen - true. But both houses of congress were well in the majority to override any veto. Also, congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2010, 08:53:23 AM
Husein single handed, killed the so called Progressive movement, by force feeding a sleeping public, only to awaken from the choking.
hahaha, so true. Instead of a few drops of socialism every night with a medicine dropper into the mouths of the sleeping public, they woke up choking with a firehose shoved down their throats!!
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 10:49:22 AM
I'll give you partial credit for that response. ;) Bush did have the veto pen - true. But both houses of congress were well in the majority to override any veto. Also, congress controls the purse strings, not the POTUS.
Love your spunk, SS, but Congress needs a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. (That would be 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate.) Yeah, there were nice Democrat majorities 2006-2010, but never veto-killers. GWB could have really slowed things down via the veto, which by the way has the power to de-fund vetoed bills, but he didn't.
It's the same problem the repealers face with ObamaCare for the next two years. Repeal of ObamaCare might get done in the House, and by some minor miracle in the Senate, but the Kenyan in the White House would instantly veto any repeal bill, and there's no 2/3 override vote in either house of Congress.
That's exactly why the de-funders stand a better chance!
Quote from: tbone0106 on November 26, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
Love your spunk, SS, but Congress needs a 2/3 vote to override a presidential veto. (That would be 290 votes in the House and 67 in the Senate.) Yeah, there were nice Democrat majorities 2006-2010, but never veto-killers. GWB could have really slowed things down via the veto, which by the way has the power to de-fund vetoed bills, but he didn't.
It's the same problem the repealers face with ObamaCare for the next two years. Repeal of ObamaCare might get done in the House, and by some minor miracle in the Senate, but the Kenyan in the White House would instantly veto any repeal bill, and there's no 2/3 override vote in either house of Congress.
That's exactly why the de-funders stand a better chance!
I was going to straighten out surfer on the veto override law, but you did it for me. Thanks!
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on November 26, 2010, 05:08:24 PM
I was going to straighten out surfer on the veto override law, but you did it for me. Thanks!
Mea Culpa! I stand corrected. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. Maybe 2012 will provide me with what I am looking for.
I don't want to be second guessing why Bush didn't use the veto when there appeared to be times that he should have. I'd like to see if he explains that in his book. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 06:21:56 PM
Mea Culpa! I stand corrected. Sometimes I get ahead of myself. Maybe 2012 will provide me with what I am looking for.
I don't want to be second guessing why Bush didn't use the veto when there appeared to be times that he should have. I'd like to see if he explains that in his book. Haven't had a chance to read it yet.
Why not second guess Bush on MANY of the things that he did, didn't do, should have done, and should not have done? Because he is a Republican? Because he is not Barack Obama? Nope, Bush does not get the benefit of the doubt, at least not with me. He made many mistakes. The difference is that the marxist news media made sure that Bush was held accountable and made to pay a price for his mistakes, while the Kenyan makes mistakes and gets away with them.
ALL of these politicians need to have their feet held to the fire, regardless of political affiliation. This country of ours is VERY screwed up right now. NOBODY in Washington, D.C. should get a pass or a "get out of jail free" card.
I totally agree with what you are thinking but I don't see that I'm in a position to challenge decisions that Bush made even though I personally disagree with what he did. I'll give you an example:
The chart below shows the deficits for the years of 2003 to 2010. In 2007 the new congress was sworn in with a democratic majority in both houses. While the Iraq spending increased slightly due to the troop surge, the domestic deficit decreased to its lowest point in the 8 year period charted. Notice what happens to the deficit the year after the congressional change and again in 2009 after Obama is POTUS. The deficit sharply increases, on whose watch? Did the democrats do anything to control the deficit? No! Did it start to increase during the time that a democrat congress controlled the spending? Yes. Could Bush have used his veto pen to severely impact the deficit during the time the democrat majority controlled the spending? Maybe, but to what extent?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi240.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff315%2Flymetick%2FDeficits.jpg&hash=b9097ef9acbbd6c0f0d0ecd5d26ef31a69685a53)
Let us review the use of the POTUS veto, shall we?
George Washington -- 2
John Adams -- 0
Thomas Jefferson -- 0
(They sure did get along nicely back then... Actually, no president used the veto more than twelve times [Andrew Jackson] until after the Civil War.)
Andrew Johnson -- 29 (But over half were over-ridden by Congress. Johnson was a widely hated stand-in for the murdered Lincoln, and was the only president impeached by Congress until Bill Clinton managed it 130 years later.)
Ulysses S. Grant -- 93
Grover Cleveland --584 (These were spread over two separated four-year terms as POTUS. This Democrat managed to lead the veto count for a while, thanks to bitter conflicts with factions within his own party and cross-party bitterness.)
Teddy Roosevelt -- 82 (Bully!)
Herber Hoover -- FDR's Republican predecessor, and largely blamed for the Great Depression -- 37, of which only 3 were overturned.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- the president who would be king -- enjoyed unparalleled success during his first two terms as POTUS. But he's still the record veto guy, with 635. Things didn't go quite so smoothly in his later terms.
Harry S. Truman -- 250
Dwight D. Eisenhower -- 181
Gerald Ford -- 66
Ronald Reagan -- 78
George H.W. Bush -- 44
Bill Clinton -- 37
George W. Bush -- 12
It is fact that George W. Bush used his veto power as POTUS less often than any president since the Civil War, with two exceptions. James A. Garfield, with a score of 0 vetoes, was the victim of an assassin't bullet barely four months into his term. And Warren G. Harding, who served just under 29 months before he died in office from natural causes, used his veto only six times.
It is also fact that George W. Bush, thanks to the Democrat-controlled Congress after 2006, posts the third-highest veto override rate in American history -- 33%. Only the hated Andrew Johnson and the ineffectual Andrew Pierce did worse with overrides. Johnson scored 15 overrides for 29 vetoes, 52%. And the hapless Pierce was slightly worse at 5 overrides of 9 vetoes, a 56% override rate.
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 08:34:54 PM
I totally agree with what you are thinking but I don't see that I'm in a position to challenge decisions that Bush made even though I personally disagree with what he did. I'll give you an example:
The chart below shows the deficits for the years of 2003 to 2010. In 2007 the new congress was sworn in with a democratic majority in both houses. While the Iraq spending increased slightly due to the troop surge, the domestic deficit decreased to its lowest point in the 8 year period charted. Notice what happens to the deficit the year after the congressional change and again in 2009 after Obama is POTUS. The deficit sharply increases, on whose watch? Did the democrats do anything to control the deficit? No! Did it start to increase during the time that a democrat congress controlled the spending? Yes. Could Bush have used his veto pen to severely impact the deficit during the time the democrat majority controlled the spending? Maybe, but to what extent?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi240.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fff315%2Flymetick%2FDeficits.jpg&hash=b9097ef9acbbd6c0f0d0ecd5d26ef31a69685a53)
Wow! Nice graph, SS! You don't quote a source, but it's very powerful.
Help me out on the lag time thing, people....
I'm pretty sure the new Dem class of 2006 -- seated in January 2007 -- had nothing whatever to do with the FY2007 budget, and I'm thinking very little to do with FY2008, right? They absolutely OWN FY2009 and FY2010, along with the collapsing Bush administration, the Obama surge of Democrat congress-critters in 2008, and the incoming Kenyan cabal.
I ain't a budget guy, just an old curmudgeon. Correct as needed, please. :P :P :P
Sorry. The graph was developed from data provided on the monthly Treasury report annual summaries. You can view the data here (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html). The annual summaries are issued each September for the fed's fiscal year. You can also view the reports on a month-to-month basis. The last couple of years have been real shockers as far as deficit numbers. So much so that the Whitehouse is attempting to have the CBO omit certain deficit entries in order to make the budget look less bleak.
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 26, 2010, 11:10:05 PM
Sorry. The graph was developed from data provided on the monthly Treasury report annual summaries. You can view the data here (http://fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html). The annual summaries are issued each September for the fed's fiscal year. You can also view the reports on a month-to-month basis. The last couple of years have been real shockers as far as deficit numbers. So much so that the Whitehouse is attempting to have the CBO omit certain deficit entries in order to make the budget look less bleak.
What are you saying, SS? Are you trying to tell us that our trusted federal government is
lying to us, for real and like, on purpose?
Say it ain't so.
OK, it isn't so .................................. damn! my nose is growing! :o
Nice work, surfer. The graph is very telling. I can remember the news media and their Democrat bosses having countless hissy-fits over Bush's budget deficits during his eight years as President.
Now that Obama has more than TRIPLED Bush's budget deficits in less than two years, I hear crickets from the news media (except for Fox News Channel and talk radio).
Remember that this graph involves the BUDGET deficits, not the national debt (which is in the $13 trillion range right now).
I WISH we had Bush's budget deficits today.
As of 10/31/10, the following is true:
Quote
MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER 31, 2010
TABLE I -- SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, OCTOBER 31, 2010
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public Holdings
Marketable:
Bills....................................... 1,764,088 4,372 1,768,460
Notes....................................... 5,293,330 3,015 5,296,345
Bonds....................................... 859,206 3,816 863,022
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities..... 604,435 219 604,653
Federal Financing Bank 1 ................. 0 10,239 10,239
Total Marketable a........................... 8,521,058 21,661 2 8,542,719
Nonmarketable:
Domestic Series............................. 29,995 0 29,995
Foreign Series.............................. 4,186 0 4,186
State and Local Government Series...........195,009 0 195,009
United States Savings Securities............ 188,674 0 188,674
Government Account Series................... 129,594 4,576,793 4,706,387
Hope Bonds 19............................... 0 493 493
Other....................................... 1,363 0 1,363
Total Nonmarketable b........................ 548,821 4,577,286 5,126,106
Total Public Debt Outstanding ................ 9,069,879 4,598,946 13,668,825
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, OCTOBER 31, 2010
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding..................... 9,069,879 4,598,946 13,668,825
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit........... 488 0 488
Unamortized Discount 3................... 20,959 19,320 40,279
Federal Financing Bank 1 ............ 0 10,239 10,239
Hope Bonds 19............................. 0 493 493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.......... 9,048,432 4,568,895 13,617,326
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 10 0 10
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.......... 9,048,442 4,568,895 13,617,337
Statutory Debt Limit 5..................................................................... 14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit............................................................. 676,663
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
www.TreasuryDirect.gov (http://www.treasurydirect.gov)
Things don't really line up but the bottom line shows that there is only $676,663M left before the statutory debt limit of $14,294,000M is reached. It looks like there will have to be another increase in the debt limit unless the incoming house majority can seriously curtail federal spending.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on November 25, 2010, 08:13:29 AM
We Progressives do not count Obama as a Progressive.
Many of us allowed ourselves to believe that he would become one,
but he has sorely disappointed those who did. Still, he was better than McCain.
As for the economy, no POTUS could have dug us out of the hole
that we have put ourselves in any faster than Obama can or will if indeed
he ever decides to do so. The problem is not that he is too Progressive.
The problem is that he is too corporatist and not Progressive enough.
From day one he should have taken a stand against the wealthy
and powerful who have robbed and raped this great nation. But he didn't.
And he probably won't. And we will probably get someone worse next time.
But that's okay, because like Obama, we usually get what we deserve too.
Once again I ask a "progressive", what do you consider "progress", what is the goal?
Or do you people even know or have one?
Billy
They use the word as an noun/adjective to emphasize an action. EX: " We are making progress if the economy is getting progressively worse. " ;D
Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 27, 2010, 05:33:23 PM
Once again I ask a "progressive", what do you consider "progress", what is the goal?
Or do you people even know or have one?
Billy
I asked that question years ago, and LL, Leftyloosey and a whole bunch of other libs, flat out told me that change, good or bad is what they consider progress.
My response? :o :o :o WTF The is wrong with you? Was Hitler making progress?
They said Yep, look at Germany today. :o
I gave up...
You cannot reason with a lib because they use circular logic. You get dizzy trying to understand their responses.
Quote from: surfer_squirrel on November 27, 2010, 05:51:57 PM
You cannot reason with a lib because they use circular logic. You get dizzy trying to understand their responses.
It's true, there is no reasoning with an emotional idiot.
Quote from: Solar on November 27, 2010, 05:47:26 PM
I asked that question years ago, and LL, Leftyloosey and a whole bunch of other libs, flat out told me that change, good or bad is what they consider progress.
My response? :o :o :o WTF The is wrong with you? Was Hitler making progress?
They said Yep, look at Germany today. :o
I gave up...
So a three trillion dollar debt is "progress" ?
Again I say progress towards what goal?
Billy
Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 27, 2010, 06:24:35 PM
So a three trillion dollar debt is "progress" ?
Again I say progress towards what goal?
Billy
Billy, what makes you so sure that it is only three trillion? That number is only what they will currently admit to. The creative bookkeeping they do in DC would make professional embezzlers look like cub scouts.
Quote from: BILLY-bONNEY on November 27, 2010, 06:24:35 PM
So a three trillion dollar debt is "progress" ?
Again I say progress towards what goal?
Billy
The $3 trillion is roughly the
deficit for that past two years. The
debt is somewhere north of $13 trillion.
I think you might be missing the point, Billy. If 'change' is considered 'progress,' there can be no goal other than continuing 'change.' They do not think like we do, man.
Quote from: tbone0106 on November 28, 2010, 01:56:22 PM
The $3 trillion is roughly the deficit for that past two years. The debt is somewhere north of $13 trillion.
I think you might be missing the point, Billy. If 'change' is considered 'progress,' there can be no goal other than continuing 'change.' They do not think like we do, man.
Thats just it, there is no real goal, other than change for the sake of change.
I also asked when will enough be enough, like when Marxism is knocking at the door, and Leftyloosey said we will never let it come to that. :o
Thats just what they changed it to, Marxism!
Quote from: tbone0106 on November 28, 2010, 01:56:22 PM
The $3 trillion is roughly the deficit for that past two years. The debt is somewhere north of $13 trillion.
I think you might be missing the point, Billy. If 'change' is considered 'progress,' there can be no goal other than continuing 'change.' They do not think like we do, man.
With progressives/liberals/marxists, we are truly dealing with mentally unstable, damaged minds. This is what makes it extremely frustrating, and impossible, for people with "normal" minds to understand them.
The PLUMS (Progressive Liberal Unamerican Marxist Scumbags) don't process information the way NORMAL people do. They don't understand "cause and effect" at all. They don't adhere to, or even consider as relevent, the concepts of responsibility, accountability, and consequences. They consider hypocrisy and lack of integrity to be virtues. Their lack of basic morality and core values is stunning.
The rest of us simply can't grasp the magnitude of their insanity and sociopathic behavior.
The depths of depravity that the left will resort to in achieving power cannot be underestimated. The last two elections (federal and many state) should provide a good idea of what to expect in 2012. The re-election of Harry Reid is a good example of an election that couldn't be lost by the left. The convenient power failure on election day (I wonder what union the power company employees belong to) IMO was deliberate and used to help skew the results in favor of Reid.