Is Obama Bankrupting our Sovereignty as well?

Listed in the Politics category.

1 2

Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on May 26, 2009 at 6:27 AM

One more thing, I'm getting tired of your hypocritical whine about name-calling when you're one of the biggest culprits.

Permalink

offline

Reply by neo_waxworks on May 26, 2009 at 7:33 AM

FrankCNY wrote:One more thing, I'm getting tired of your hypocritical whine about name-calling when you're one of the biggest culprits.

lol..whatever...

Permalink

Reply by paisan37GOLD on May 26, 2009 at 12:32 PM

paisan37 holidays suck

neo_waxworks wrote:
FrankCNY wrote:
neo_waxworks wrote:
FrankCNY wrote:I remember another President who came into office with little experience. His name was JFK, he seemed to do OK.
yea, so ok someone shot his ass...lol
I would expect nothing less from this poor excuse for a human being. Even though he weakly tried to qualify his statement, there cannot possibly be any irony in a sitting President getting shot and killed.
Sure there can, when a dem president is so badly inexperienced that he gets his ass shot by members of his own party.. thats Called Irony.... What was funny was someone trying to use JFK as an example of inexperience doing well...
At least Reagan just got shot by a nut case trying to impress Jodi Foster...
But then, I don't expect you to Get it, or more to the point, admit you get it. That wouldn't fit you and your buddy's Bait and Bash agenda...
Personally I find you and your buddy despicable in your attempts to bait people into fighting with you.. But then I expect nothing less of despicable human beings...

hopefully im the "buddy" he's talkin about...lol

Permalink

Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on May 26, 2009 at 12:57 PM

I just want to know where this guy gets this zany crap from....on second thought, never mind...LOL!!!! Kennedy got shot because of his inexperience??? I heard some crazy crap, but this tops it all.

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on May 26, 2009 at 7:54 PM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

WitnessToItAll wrote:
FrankCNY wrote:Yeah we know we know, you hate Obama, but here's a little word of advice, the American people have spoken at the ballot box, deal with it!!!! The whining gets old.
You have spoken yet another falsehood. I do not hate the man. To hate someone, you would have to have intimate knowledge of them to the degree that the motivation for hatred has real root in personal experience.
I do not believe he is a leader. I do not believe he is qualified to be the Commander in Chief. I do not believe he has the best wishes for this nation as it stands. I think he wants to refashion this country into something other than it has been historically.
Another somewhat misleading thing you stated. "The American People Have Spoken". Yes, enough people fell under the trance fostered by misinformation and outright lies by media outlets for years on end to go and pull a lever for B. Obama and get him and his cohorts in office.
But a very large percentage DID NOT vote for the man. They are also American People Frank. And we are watching. I have a feeling this mistake will be corrected in the upcoming elections. This man is dangerous, and what makes it even more so is the like minded majority we mistakenly put in office.
We will fix this.

You know something, this 'If-you're-not-for-Obama-you hate-the man' attitude is something I ran into time and time again when debating politics during the election. When an a point of debate can't be won on merit, liberals immediately go to discrediting the debator, their motives, or their credibility, or if they're really cocky, they'll go for the whole trifecta all at once. Most of these work at MSNBC. The fact is that the man has no worldly experience or seasoning to project the maturity and gravitas required for the most powerful office in the free world, and therefore jepordizes our country's security, credibility and economic stability. You've got to have the resume' to qualify and Obama in the cold light of day falls dangerously far short. There's no hate for Obama here- contempt, by the boxcar-load, plenty- but certainly not hate.
As for the majority comment, only an estimated 26% of legal voting age citizens actually sent a mandate that the man be elected. the other 74% either found McCain an acceptable alternative- or neither, and didn't vote all all. Non-voters vote by their non-paarticipation, so the perception that Obama sailed into office on a wave of popularity by the American people is a liberal myth scraped fresh off the stable floor. Er, I mean, the liberal playbook.
The American people certainly have NOT spoken, but they will. Believe me, they will. Just ask Arnold.

Edited on May 26, 2009 at 8:03 PM Permalink

Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on May 26, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Bottom line, Obama got elected, so I repeat. Deal with it!!

Permalink

Reply by paisan37GOLD on May 26, 2009 at 8:22 PM

paisan37 holidays suck

que?

Permalink

Reply by paisan37GOLD on May 26, 2009 at 8:28 PM

paisan37 holidays suck

i dont understand why this "well not every eligible voter voted crap" has there ever been a presidential where every eligible voter cast their vote? i really dont know the answer but id bet there hasnt been. but im sure you used this same criteria on all the other presidents we have had...right?

Permalink

Reply by FrankCNYGOLD on May 26, 2009 at 11:26 PM

It amazes me how these wingnuts know what the so-called "Liberal Playbook" is about better than the ahem Liberals.

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on May 28, 2009 at 1:57 AM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

Sure. No President has had a mandate by the people to get elected, only a mandate by his supporters. Obama happened to fire up the masses with 'hope and change' message, and more of them turned out than McCain's supporters, who only happened to have Sarah Palin as an asset. It's no secret what the liberal playbook entails- activism. They have to go out and sell their message to the American people, because it is not the accepted way of thinking. Once they get in power, they aggressively try to force the issues and pass them into law just as hard and fast as they can- I return again to Hillary care- and the new clause in an unrelated bill (I haven't had time to look it up, I only heard the details of the clause itself) in the emerging health care bill that provides 150 wks of 80/20 health care for those displaced (laid off) by green technology, plus reeducation loans, help with mortgages, it's all basically federal welfare with universal healthcare at it's core. Why do liberals continue to attempt to sneak legislation like that in, buried in semi-or unrelated legislation? Last year after the coastal drilling ban was lifted, it was reinstated in a similar clause in the first stimulus bill, written by Nancy Pelosi herself (the one that many Democrats had to admit not being able to read because it was ramrodded through so quickly, then given only days to read the bill, unnoticed until after it was passed). True, both parties were shamelessly guilty of shoveling or attempting to shovel earmarks into their districts, but as far as actual legislative policy, this activism has a religious fervor that can not be anything but planned out, coordinated, and executed by a fine-tuned strategy. This is because Liberalism, or more properly, progressiveism, is trying to force change by law where it can't win the hearts and minds of most Americans. There is a devious, malicious and a spirit of contempt for the sensibilities of the voter, an attitude of 'We-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do and-if-you-don't-like-it-we'll-make-a-law-to-make-you-do-it-anyway'. Not give you the option, like Roe-vs-Wade (I taught my family life begins at conception, let others make up their own minds- however, trying to pass laws for federally-funded abortions is an example of liberal activism), but to force universal health care and other forced or controlled programs that we will HAVE to pay for whether we like it or not. If I can't care for my family because too much of my check is going to pay for the detox for tens of thousands of crack heads who'll be smoking rock again 36 hours after leaving rehab, compassion goes right out the window. Tend to the home fires, then help others if you can. But don't tell me I HAVE to help to help a miserable waste of a human being who won't help himself. And that's the liberal playbook. I'm selfish if I don't help, so they'll make it illegal to be selfish. Keep your goddam good intentions and the laws that force me to adopt your values out of my life. Liberals hate us Libertarians, and the feeling is mutual.

Edited on May 28, 2009 at 2:25 AM Permalink

online

Reply by MishamayCOMMUNITY-SUPPORT on May 28, 2009 at 2:17 AM

CoconutDave wrote:Sure. No President has had a mandate by the people to get elected, only a mandate by his supporters. Obama happened to fire up the masses with 'hope and change' message, and more of them turned out than McCain's supporters, who only happened to have Sarah Palin as an asset. It's no secret what the liberal playbook entails- activism. They have to go out and sell their message to the American people, because it is not the accepted way of thinking. Once they get in power, they aggressively try to force the issues and pass them into law just as hard and fast as they can- I return again to Hillary care- and the new clause in an unrelated bill (I haven't had time to look it up, I only heard the details of the clause itself) in the emerging health care bill that provides 150 wks of 80/20 health care for those displaced (laid off) by green technology, plus reeducation loans, help with mortgages, it's all basically federal welfare with universal healthcare at it's core. Why do liberals continue to attempt to sneak legislation like that in, buried in semi-or unrelated legislation? Last year after the coastal drilling ban was lifted, it was reinstated in a similar clause in the first stimulus bill (the one that many Democrats had to admit not being able to read because it was ramrodded through so quickly, then given only days to read the bill, unnoticed until after it was passed). True, both parties were shamelessly guilty of shoveling or attempting to shovel earmarks into their districts, but as far as actual legislative policy, this activism has a religious fervor that can not be anything but planned out, coordinated, and executed by a fine-tuned strategy. This is because Liberalism, or more properly, progressiveism, is trying to force change by law where it can't win the hearts and minds of most Americans. There is a devious, malicious and spirit of contempt for the sensibilities of the voter, an attitude of 'We-know-what's-better-for-you-than-you-do and-if-you-don't-like-it-we'll-make-a-law-to-make-you-do-it-anyway'. Not give you the option, like Roe-vs-Wade (I taught my family life begins at conception, let others make up their own minds- however, trying to pass laws for federally-funded abortions is an example of liberal activism) but to force universal health care and other forced or controlled programs that we will HAVE to pay for whether we like it or not. If I can't care for my family because too much of my check is going to pay for the detox for a crack head who'll be smoking rock again 36 hours after leaving rehab, compassion goes right out the window. Tend to the home fires, then help others if you can. But don't tell me I HAVE to help to help a miserable waste of a human being who won't help himself. And that's the liberal playbook. I'm selfish if I don't help, so they'll make it illegal to be selfish. Keep your goddam good intentions and the laws that force me to adopt your values out of my life. Liberals hate us Libertarians, and the feeling is mutual.

you think of any other person as a "miserable waste of a human being", and that really goes beyond politics to me.

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on May 28, 2009 at 2:35 AM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

Semantics. Fine. A poor, downtrodden, abused, victimized, dysfunctional lost wayward soul. But it's his choice to be that way. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for other people's self-destructive behavior.

Permalink

online

Reply by MishamayCOMMUNITY-SUPPORT on May 28, 2009 at 2:55 AM

CoconutDave wrote:Semantics. Fine. A poor, downtrodden, abused, victimized, dysfunctional lost wayward soul. But it's his choice to be that way. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for other people's self-destructive behavior.

Who's asking you to pay directly for other people's self-destructive behavior? Your taxes go to fixing roads, paying the fire department, police, things like that. And the military. It goes into a pot and then they determine who gets what. Democrats give more to social programs yes. But you seem to be thinking of the most undeserving that you don't want your money going to. Druggies. It goes to other social programs too. How about one for supporting abused women when they leave their spouses and take their children and live a new life. Imagine a social program like that. Or one to support abused children or runaways from abusive homes. Stuff that's not the person's fault. Counselling for kids who witness domestic violence in the home so they won't be screwed up, and for their parents. That's a biggie.

Permalink

online

Reply by MishamayCOMMUNITY-SUPPORT on May 28, 2009 at 3:01 AM

Dude without any social programs, umm. There's lots of domestic violence still out there. What else are victim's going to rely on? Church donations? Donations from big business? You can't rely on that...society is too screwed up. But is it all just about the money to ya?

Permalink

offline

Reply by neo_waxworks on May 28, 2009 at 4:33 AM

IMHO, Social program should be optional.. as far as taxes...those that want to can, those that do not are not strong armed into it...

would effectively get rid of all the actual useless social programs and allow the money to go to ones that actual have a purpose...

Dems would never go for it though, that want to control YOUR money, giving you control of it is a cardinal sin to them...

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on May 29, 2009 at 7:45 AM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

CoconutDave wrote:Semantics. Fine. A poor, downtrodden, abused, victimized, dysfunctional lost wayward soul. But it's his choice to be that way. I shouldn't HAVE to pay for other people's self-destructive behavior.

I'd paying for the repeated and unwanted rehab of a PDAVDLWS who'll just (and in SS, this is totally appropiate) in the words of Steely Dan, just "Go back, Jack, and Do It Again". What if your son (used here only as an example of liability, not of family relationship per se) got so hacked at someone he went over to their house and threw a rock through their window, and you had to pay for it. Great. Now, what if he kept going over there and kept breaking windows, and the government told you you cannot stop him, he has a right to do what he wants, yet you were still required to pay for the damages incurred time after time? Youldn't you get tired of paying for it?
I'm not talking here about shelters, abused victims, that sort of thing you mention. I am talking about deliberate behavior of one's own choice. I've emphasized that point in each of my responses, and you seem to have missed it. Personal responsibility and accountability. It's an old-fashioned notion, and under ObamaCare it will fade into a Norman Rockwell image of nostalgia.

Edited on May 29, 2009 at 8:02 AM Permalink

Reply by Unique5565GOLD on October 22, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Permalink

offline

Reply by kkiddGOLD on October 22, 2009 at 11:18 PM

im sorry i apologize if Im mistaken...but wasnt the country bankrupt before obama...and we had a surplus before gwb right? just asking.....

Permalink

offline

Reply by pamplemusGOLD on October 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM

yeah kidd, we threw the bums out, and installed a whole new set of bums. was someone thinking that change really meant change? silly voters!!!

Permalink

offline

Reply by kkiddGOLD on October 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM

pamplemus wrote:yeah kidd, we threw the bums out, and installed a whole new set of bums. was someone thinking that change really meant change? silly voters!!!

yeah no shit.....i just find it funny that people are so furious about it all rofl...i mean...like something devine was going to happen....the only good "change" has been the foriegn attitude towards us...and that is good...but i mean....you cant claim one guy is for small govt when he spent more than anyone.....and then say the other wanker is for large govt, when he really hasnt spent too much yet...i mean...this crap is all talk, its not like the senate could get thier heads outta thier ass to pass anything anyway....and sure you could say the bailout was spending, but i mean...the bailout was being worked on DURING the election...not after...so i dunno...dont really care either

Permalink

offline

Reply by pamplemusGOLD on October 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM

he hasn't spent too much yet? you are kidding right? i mean, tell me the obama tatt on your ass has not affected your perception that much...

Permalink

offline

Reply by kkiddGOLD on October 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM

pamplemus wrote:he hasn't spent too much yet? you are kidding right? i mean, tell me the obama tatt on your ass has not affected your perception that much...

comparitively speaking.....no i dont think he has....i mean its not like its even real money...they print it themselves rofl.....if you compare what he has spent, and what others have spent....im not sure of the numbers....but like i said, i discount the bailouts...because ANYONE who wouold have got elected would have had the bailout...i mean mcain and him cut the election hoopla short remember? so not counting that....

Permalink

Reply by paisan37GOLD on October 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM

paisan37 holidays suck

bring back bill

Permalink

offline

Reply by pamplemusGOLD on October 24, 2009 at 11:03 AM

bring back madison

Permalink

offline

Reply by KatKaraoke on October 25, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Arizonagal wrote:Is Obama Bankrupting our Sovereignty as well?
Yes.

Edited on October 25, 2009 at 8:47 PM Permalink

Reply by wizard_of_iceGOLD on November 1, 2009 at 8:57 AM

Unique5565 wrote:Anything that has to do with bankruptcy has already happened under the Stupid azz Republicans.. Dam give PRESIDENT OBAMA a chance to make a differences in more than one way...
I AM A HUGE OBAMA SUPPORTER AND ALWAYS WILL BE

I cannot give him any more chances...he has already proved himself either a fool or evil.

Permalink

offline

Reply by -Dale-PATRON on November 11, 2009 at 2:47 AM

Unique5565 wrote:Anything that has to do with bankruptcy has already happened under the Stupid azz Republicans.. Dam give PRESIDENT OBAMA a chance to make a differences in more than one way...
I AM A HUGE OBAMA SUPPORTER AND ALWAYS WILL BE

Well, as with anyone he will have to earn my support. I don't toss it to any individual based on looks, speaking ability or promises.

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on November 11, 2009 at 1:15 PM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

paisan37 wrote:bring back bill

Now there was someone with scandals you could really sink your teeth into! Whitewater, the Mena airport coke deals by his brother Roger, Zippergate, Zippergate II, Zippergate III and Zippergate IV, donors sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom, he really made talk radio fun to listen to back then. Obama is just a different animal altogether. He could run naked down Pennsylvania Ave and all reporters would say is how fit and trim he looks at 47.

Edited on November 11, 2009 at 1:16 PM Permalink

Reply by walkingstickGOLD on November 11, 2009 at 1:26 PM

And he does.

Permalink

Reply by CoconutDaveGOLD on November 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM

CoconutDave wonders why people who tweet don't just get back to work

Ewwwwwww... how creepy of you to notice LOL

Permalink

1 2

Please create a new SingSnap account or login to your existing one to reply to this topic