Intolerant radical liberals getting worried

g under p

pandora wrote:

g under p wrote:

Well I gather then that Romney is your man to lead this country...good for you. In 2004 we had a somewhat wealthy challenger in Kerry (seen him several times on his yacht and sail boat in Nantucket harbour) who appeared to have a chance to beat Bush only to be beaten in a close race. That race seemed preordained as in the decision was already made and Bush was going to win no matter what to finish his 8 years.

This time around it appears to me to be the same with a strong challenge from Romney only to be beaten in a large electoral win with a close popular vote. This race also seems preordained that Obama will win and the candidates already know this somehow.

To me that's the strange world of our American politics/politricks...excuse me.

Peace

Oh boy oh boy...
please do not assume that Romney is my man. I like Obama, he is a great figurehead,
actually quite perfect at that, which fits nicely with your theory.

Instead of *gather* maybe i should have said *appears* Romney will be your man....again good for you. It does fit well with my theory doesn't it.

Maybe after you've made your choice in the voting booth on Nov 6th, would you care to chime in on whom you chose to vote for on that day?

Peace

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Enough excuses Barry

There is no excuse for the $5.5 trillion in new debt over the last four years. Or for the 23 million people struggling for work. Or for the record number of Americans living in poverty. We all know this cat is one and done.

Emoticon

Did the economic crises occur under Obama or under Bush? It occurred under Bush. Obama has just been left to deal with the mess. But then you know this already, even if you have a problem accepting the truth and prefer instead to indulge in fantasies, and 'facts' gained from Conservative news sources, and wacky Youtube clips.

So It's a good job you have us here to help.

Woot!

This is getting old and all the Democrats can say...
blame it on Bush but
the OP is talking about new debt about more unemployed
about more being forced into poverty.
These are things Obama created...
new and more and there is no excuse for that, Obama must own this
just as he owns the positive things that happened under his watch.

you keep saying you are voting independently, but all you have done is bash a whole group of people, "the blues". why is it that anyone voting for Romney is voting with their knowledge but anyone voting for Obama is voting down party lines? I'd say a good portion of people on both sides vote down party lines. where are you getting this information from to make these claims?

I would say that people voting for a particular party in the states vote down party lines because those party lines fall in line generally with their own personal beliefs, morals, and ideals. one could argue they are just being consistent. voting down party lines just means someone is willing to vote for their party even if it contradicts some of their own beliefs.

redrock

pandora wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/0 ... 96990.html

but I agree some like to manipulate others are just honest.

More 'honest' and detailed figures:

"1) In 2011, about 49 percent of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government. A big chunk of these households are retirees. And about 27 percent households benefited from a means-tested poverty program. A quick breakdown:

–Last year, about 29 percent of households received Medicare benefits and 31.6 percent received Social Security. (Obviously there’s a lot of overlap between those two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees.)

–Meanwhile, about 32 million households, or 27.1 percent, benefited from at least one means-tested poverty program. The biggest benefits here were Medicaid (19.5 percent), food stamps (12.7 percent) and subsidized lunches (11.2 percent). Again, there’s some overlap.

–Smaller benefits include public housing (5 percent of households), unemployment (4 percent), and veterans’ compensation (2.6 percent). Only 7 percent of households receive some sort of direct cash assistance, such as the TANF welfare program."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ix-charts/


Are you now also denying our elders the benefits they paid for all their lives allowing them to finally have a bit of a break?

Facts and figures. These from 'official' sources. Check what is behind a 'headline'. The charts in this article are very clear and easy to understand. Gives all kinds of breakdowns as to this 'half the population on benefits) malarky.

brianlux

catefrances wrote:

i dont own a car or any other sort of vehicle. i walk and take advantage of public transport where ever i can... as for ed.. if he said that and owns a car then i have zero respect for him regarding this issue.

"Uncle Ed" is my nickname for Edward Abbey. Although he did own cars he was referring to people who go to places to see nature from their car. He believed the only way to interact with the nature world was on foot. He also had a saying:

Little girls love ponies, boys love cars and trucks, grown men and women love to walk.

Best yet is someone like you who doesn't own a vehicle at all. You put the rest of us to shame and rightly so.

g under p

Byrnzie wrote:

usamamasan1 wrote:

Enough excuses Barry

There is no excuse for the $5.5 trillion in new debt over the last four years. Or for the 23 million people struggling for work. Or for the record number of Americans living in poverty. We all know this cat is one and done.

Emoticon

Did the economic crises occur under Obama or under Bush? It occurred under Bush. Obama has just been left to deal with the mess. But then you know this already, even if you have a problem accepting the truth and prefer instead to indulge in fantasies, and 'facts' gained from Conservative news sources, and wacky Youtube clips.

So It's a good job you have us here to help.

Woot!

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

This is getting old and all the Democrats can say...
blame it on Bush but
the OP is talking about new debt about more unemployed
about more being forced into poverty.
These are things Obama created...
new and more and there is no excuse for that, Obama must own this
just as he owns the positive things that happened under his watch.

you keep saying you are voting independently, but all you have done is bash a whole group of people, "the blues". why is it that anyone voting for Romney is voting with their knowledge but anyone voting for Obama is voting down party lines? I'd say a good portion of people on both sides vote down party lines. where are you getting this information from to make these claims?

I would say that people voting for a particular party in the states vote down party lines because those party lines fall in line generally with their own personal beliefs, morals, and ideals. one could argue they are just being consistent. voting down party lines just means someone is willing to vote for their party even if it contradicts some of their own beliefs.

You are batting 1000 HFD...ah it's time to go mow the fricking lawn.

peace everybody

Hugh Freaking Dillon

usamamasan1 wrote:

It's very easy to see. I am so stoked for the next American century! Driving I have had multiple people (yes, of course one was in a Prius) give me the finger just because I have a MITT sticker on my heavy. Love it. They scared, they mad, they intolerant.
“Have you been watching the Obama campaign lately?” the Republican presidential candidate asked the crowd, including motorcycle enthusiasts in town for the annual ‘Biketoberfest’ event. “They have no agenda for the future, no agenda for America, no agenda for a second term”
“It’s a good thing they won’t have a second term,” Romney continued to applause. “We have big ideas, bold ideas, a strong agenda. We are going to get America working again and that’s why you’re going to help elect the two of us.”



Believe in America

Emoticon


Woot!

I want someone, ANYONE, who thinks the state of the US economy is Obama's direct fault, to break down exactly how the economy got to where it is today. Cause and effect, please. Not just "Obama did with his bailouts and ridiculous spending". Actual reasons of why that spending occurred and why the bailouts happened, if it could have been avoided, and what the alternative could/should have been.

Thank you.

pandora

g under p wrote:

pandora wrote:

g under p wrote:

Well I gather then that Romney is your man to lead this country...good for you. In 2004 we had a somewhat wealthy challenger in Kerry (seen him several times on his yacht and sail boat in Nantucket harbour) who appeared to have a chance to beat Bush only to be beaten in a close race. That race seemed preordained as in the decision was already made and Bush was going to win no matter what to finish his 8 years.

This time around it appears to me to be the same with a strong challenge from Romney only to be beaten in a large electoral win with a close popular vote. This race also seems preordained that Obama will win and the candidates already know this somehow.

To me that's the strange world of our American politics/politricks...excuse me.

Peace

Oh boy oh boy...
please do not assume that Romney is my man. I like Obama, he is a great figurehead,
actually quite perfect at that, which fits nicely with your theory.

Instead of *gather* maybe i should have said *appears* Romney will be your man....again good for you. It does fit well with my theory doesn't it.

Maybe after you've made your choice in the voting booth on Nov 6th, would you care to chime in on whom you chose to vote for on that day?

Peace

yes but the theory makes me very sad
I will share if you will too...

pandora

redrock wrote:

pandora wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/0 ... 96990.html

but I agree some like to manipulate others are just honest.

More 'honest' and detailed figures:

"1) In 2011, about 49 percent of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government. A big chunk of these households are retirees. And about 27 percent households benefited from a means-tested poverty program. A quick breakdown:

–Last year, about 29 percent of households received Medicare benefits and 31.6 percent received Social Security. (Obviously there’s a lot of overlap between those two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees.)

–Meanwhile, about 32 million households, or 27.1 percent, benefited from at least one means-tested poverty program. The biggest benefits here were Medicaid (19.5 percent), food stamps (12.7 percent) and subsidized lunches (11.2 percent). Again, there’s some overlap.

–Smaller benefits include public housing (5 percent of households), unemployment (4 percent), and veterans’ compensation (2.6 percent). Only 7 percent of households receive some sort of direct cash assistance, such as the TANF welfare program."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ix-charts/


Are you now also denying our elders the benefits they paid for all their lives allowing them to finally have a bit of a break?

Facts and figures. These from 'official' sources. Check what is behind a 'headline'. The charts in this article are very clear and easy to understand. Gives all kinds of breakdowns as to this 'half the population on benefits) malarky.

the 50% is correct then some form of government aid

it matters not who what kind of aid it is still aid

and yes I would rather be working on lowering that for all age groups because as we see
countries go bankrupt

pandora

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

pandora wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Did the economic crises occur under Obama or under Bush? It occurred under Bush. Obama has just been left to deal with the mess. But then you know this already, even if you have a problem accepting the truth and prefer instead to indulge in fantasies, and 'facts' gained from Conservative news sources, and wacky Youtube clips.

So It's a good job you have us here to help.

Woot!

This is getting old and all the Democrats can say...
blame it on Bush but
the OP is talking about new debt about more unemployed
about more being forced into poverty.
These are things Obama created...
new and more and there is no excuse for that, Obama must own this
just as he owns the positive things that happened under his watch.

you keep saying you are voting independently, but all you have done is bash a whole group of people, "the blues". why is it that anyone voting for Romney is voting with their knowledge but anyone voting for Obama is voting down party lines? I'd say a good portion of people on both sides vote down party lines. where are you getting this information from to make these claims?

I would say that people voting for a particular party in the states vote down party lines because those party lines fall in line generally with their own personal beliefs, morals, and ideals. one could argue they are just being consistent. voting down party lines just means someone is willing to vote for their party even if it contradicts some of their own beliefs.

The blues are being bashed really I thought I was part blue :?
perhaps it speaks to how you listen.
Oh no never even thought those voting for Obama are only voting down party lines
that is not common sense, you see perhaps it is how you listen.
I never made that claim it is how you interpret my words.

pandora

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

interesting you say this:

pandora wrote:

I guess a new thing to put people down :?

what size car they drive :fp:

I drive a caddy... not good on gas but oh so comfy.
I drive a maximum of maybe 50 miles a week tops so not much gas-guzzling going on.

Can we try not to judge a person when we do not know their situation,
even if we do ...
leave them to their choices.

When we are constantly judging isn't that being intolerant?

RIGHT AFTER you said this:

pandora wrote:

Wow what a mean thing to say ... makes you feel better about yourself huh? :fp:
I guess this is expected of you.

oh, and I'm so glad your COMFORT is more important then the environment to you. :fp:

Did you notice I drive less than 50 miles a week and fill my car up maybe once every three weeks.
But I guess you are one of those who judge others so freely...
you know that only brings you into negative light.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

Did you notice I drive less than 50 miles a week and fill my car up maybe once every three weeks.
But I guess you are one of those who judge others so freely...
you know that only brings you into negative light.

and if you drove those 50 miles every 3 weeks in a smart car or a prius you'd fill up once every two months, if that.

redrock

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

pandora wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/0 ... 96990.html

but I agree some like to manipulate others are just honest.

More 'honest' and detailed figures:

"1) In 2011, about 49 percent of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government. A big chunk of these households are retirees. And about 27 percent households benefited from a means-tested poverty program. A quick breakdown:

–Last year, about 29 percent of households received Medicare benefits and 31.6 percent received Social Security. (Obviously there’s a lot of overlap between those two, since those programs mainly benefit retirees.)

–Meanwhile, about 32 million households, or 27.1 percent, benefited from at least one means-tested poverty program. The biggest benefits here were Medicaid (19.5 percent), food stamps (12.7 percent) and subsidized lunches (11.2 percent). Again, there’s some overlap.

–Smaller benefits include public housing (5 percent of households), unemployment (4 percent), and veterans’ compensation (2.6 percent). Only 7 percent of households receive some sort of direct cash assistance, such as the TANF welfare program."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr ... ix-charts/


Are you now also denying our elders the benefits they paid for all their lives allowing them to finally have a bit of a break?

Facts and figures. These from 'official' sources. Check what is behind a 'headline'. The charts in this article are very clear and easy to understand. Gives all kinds of breakdowns as to this 'half the population on benefits) malarky.

the 50% is correct then some form of government aid

This from a person who, in another thread, stated that half of the population was on food stamps.... :roll:

You still don't get it, do you? Have you even opened the link and looked at the charts (you didn't even have to read the words if you didn't want to)? YOu don't seem to understand/want to understand what 'aid' comprises as it doesn't seem to fit your agenda....

Some of this 'aid' has been paid for during a lifetime of work, just reaping the benefits of such. 'Aid' that people already pay for/have paid for via their taxes, etc. These aren't 'handouts', alms....

As said, this 50% makes great dramatic headlines and most will not see what is behind these. Especially when Romney states this incorrect fact (debunked) and says he couldn't give a shit about these people.

You're not too far from retirement age. When the time comes, are you going to return the money to the governement saying no thank you?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

pandora wrote:

The blues are being bashed really I thought I was part blue :?
perhaps it speaks to how you listen.
Oh no never even thought those voting for Obama are only voting down party lines
that is not common sense, you see perhaps it is how you listen.
I never made that claim it is how you interpret my words.

this is hilarious. Just to prove my own point, I searched your posts, and punched in "blues" and came up with 9 pages. Read several of the posts, and all of them were casting a bad light on them, saying they were hypcritical, intolerant, etc. All blanket statements about the democratic side of the debate.

proof is in the pudding. it's just laughable you claim otherwise. There's no "misinterpretation" here. it's in black and white.

Prince Of Dorkness

I openly point and laugh in the faces of the idiot conservatives who cry about how the mean old "dems blame Bush" and whine that "it's getting tired."

If I run you over in my car and paralyze you, and you come to me four years later in a wheelchair, I will get a big kick out of saying "that was FOUR YEARS AGO and you're STILL blaming me?!"

But we have seen the limited intellect of the types who don't care about how Mitt Romeny changes positions and fucks more people than a bisexual porn star, they don't care that his experience as a business man has been buying successful companies, bankrupting them and outsourcing the jobs to China and keeping hundreds of millions of dollars for himself and they don't care that he has himself angrily insisted that "government can't create jobs."

They like him because his middle name isn't Hussein.

That is all.

redrock

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

..... Mitt Romeny changes positions and fucks more people than a bisexual porn star....

You've got a way of saying things!

comebackgirl

redrock wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

..... Mitt Romeny changes positions and fucks more people than a bisexual porn star....

You've got a way of saying things!

Agreed

Wobbie

usamamasan1 is actually karl rove :shh:

comebackgirl

imalive wrote:

usamamasan1 is actually karl rove :shh:

I had a feeling about him...

g under p

redrock wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

..... Mitt Romeny changes positions and fucks more people than a bisexual porn star....

You've got a way of saying things!

It certainly grabs one's attention the way he says these things, a great way of leaving a lasting impression.

Peace

g under p

pandora wrote:

g under p wrote:

Well I gather then that Romney is your man to lead this country...good for you. In 2004 we had a somewhat wealthy challenger in Kerry (seen him several times on his yacht and sail boat in Nantucket harbour) who appeared to have a chance to beat Bush only to be beaten in a close race. That race seemed preordained as in the decision was already made and Bush was going to win no matter what to finish his 8 years.

This time around it appears to me to be the same with a strong challenge from Romney only to be beaten in a large electoral win with a close popular vote. This race also seems preordained that Obama will win and the candidates already know this somehow.

To me that's the strange world of our American politics/politricks...excuse me.

Peace

pandora wrote:

g under p wrote:

Oh boy oh boy...
please do not assume that Romney is my man. I like Obama, he is a great figurehead,
actually quite perfect at that, which fits nicely with your theory.

Instead of *gather* maybe i should have said *appears* Romney will be your man....again good for you. It does fit well with my theory doesn't it.

Maybe after you've made your choice in the voting booth on Nov 6th, would you care to chime in on whom you chose to vote for on that day?

Peace

yes but the theory makes me very sad
I will share if you will too...

I've said here a 100 times I'm going to vote President Obama without hesitation which will be crucial here in Florida.

Peace