Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- ********0
I hope my ring comes soon
Well.... It says right here..."I promise 100% transparency in my administration."
"I promise NO NEW TAXES on a family making less than $250K a year."
"I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills."
"I will remove earmarks for PORK projects before I sign any bill."
"I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year"
"I'll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!"
"I'll have no lobbyists in my administration"
Did you get yours yet?Me, neither. Demand is too great...
- Nice!Maury_Ballstein
- Yes, i'm sure he's the first Pres to not do what he said he would. Shocking.locustsloth
- Oh, I agree, they are all BS'ers, no doubt, just thought that I'd crack a joke or two.********
- fair 'noughlocustsloth
- Funny that you suggested getting a decoder ring. All Republican solutions seem to be based on fantasies from the middle of the last century.Josev
- middle of the last century.Josev
- ********0
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n…
I call BS, both sides being ridiculous.
- TheBlueOne0
"[The] real rate of return on government 5 year government securities is now negative. You want to stop and absorb that because I think it’s a bigger deal than most people realize.
Suppose the government had two choices. It could either pay for infrastructure improvements as it went along out of tax revenue or it could borrow money build the infrastructure now and then repay the money with tax revenues.
Ordinarily the question would be, does the advantage of building quickly outweigh the cost of the interest.
However, right now the interest cost is negative. The government saves money by borrowing now rather than waiting and paying cash. Let me say again because I have noticed that this goes against so much intuition that its hard for many people to wrap around when I first say it.
The government will wind up paying more if it decides to pay cash for a project than it will if it decides to borrow. This is irrespective of the return on the project itself or the advantages of avoiding delays or anything like that. It is simply that the cost of borrowing is negative.
It is cheaper than paying cash."
- fed gov. lends money to local municipal projects along with not increasing taxes its really money lots for road projects.74LEO
- fuck our roads are disasters, holy shit..********
- If we invested in our roads/infrastructure they wouldn't be "shit". And more people would be working to rebuild them. But then people like you would complain abouta the spending.Josev
- rebuild them. But then people like you would complain about the spending.Josev
- ********0
Direct Response to LocusWho said "Obama is not using the Operation Gun Runner scandal to pass gun regulation."
That is a FASLE and dangerous statement.
You're either brainwashed or you have no idea what is going on even though the evidence and story is there for your research. Something you seem to avoid.
Let me break it down for you because it is clear someone has told you what to think.
Operation Fast & Furious AKA GunRunner was 2009 Federal Stimulus Project that used FBI, ATF, Homeland Security and other govt agencies to buy American fire arms and smuggle them into Mexico and Drug Cartells hands.
At this same time US Govt officials said 'lax' US gun laws had cartel members coming across the border to buy guns. We later found out that was not true. In fact the US Govt was arming the Mexican Drug Cartels through Operation Fast and Furious and blaming it on lax gun laws.
http://aidwatchers.com/2011/05/a…
Drug Cartels admit buying weapons from US Gov.
Here is a story on the executive order.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/…"Here is a quote from the document"
"“In an effort to stem the illicit flow of weapons into Mexico, the Justice Department announced Monday that all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.
Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22."So whats going on here?
The DOJ and White House approved Operation Gun Runner in 2009 stimulis. While exporting weapons to mexico a drug cartel member killed a ATF Agent. When ATF tracked the gun used in the murder they found it connected to the 2009 Stimilus.
Then acting direct Kenenth Nelson was fired when he blew the whistle on operation fast and furious and has since become a whistle blower.
The Obama administration used a FASLE FLAG Gun Running Operation to Pass More Gun Laws. Plain and simple.
------------
This is the most openly corrupt government we have ever had. I really can't even fathom Locus statement because the facts bare other wise.
Here is a google search incase you complain about the links.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=p…Video Synopsis.
- < OVER VIEW OF OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS FOR LOCUS********
- < OVER VIEW OF OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS FOR LOCUS
- Ramanisky20
there.. there .. Viking .. its time for your afternoon pills
somebody get me a wet nap he is frothing at the mouth for fuck-sakkes
- ********0
http://www.foxbusiness.com/marke…
FUCK YOU GREENSPAN, I AM OUT OF WORK. FUCK RIGHT OFF, TIME TO DIE YOU OLD PIECE OF SHIT.
- TheBlueOne0
To the idiots who love to use the "OH NO THEM LIBRULS ARE TAKING AWAY ARE GUNS. WE NEEDZ THEM TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM THE EVIL LIB GUVERMINT"
In case you haven't noticed the government does not give a shit if you have a fucking personal pea shooter. You cannot harm them. They have tanks, robot drones, armored personal carriers, body armor. They can hack your cel phone and computer lines. They know where you are if they want to find you. They have fucking satellite cameras that can see you jerking off to this months Guns & Ammo from fucking space.They have anti-personal microwave ray machines for riot control. There is nothing about having "an armed citizenry just in case we need to have ourselves an inserection from them soshilists" argument that makes sense. Hasn't made sense since about 1917. The idea of an armed inserection against the US government is a little boy libertarian fantasy raised on too many pot fueled watchings of Red Dawn.
That said, I am in favor of the right to own a personal firearm. It's just the argument you fucking paranoid idiots make about having a gun to protect yourselves from a modern hitech military who can atomize you into blood and carbon in a second if it wanted to shows you are not living in what we call reality.
- also fuck them fancy fangled light bulbs
BonSeff - LOL, I like that, but I don't think anyone here said that.********
- also fuck them fancy fangled light bulbs
- TheBlueOne0
"This is the most openly corrupt government we have ever had. "
To say that following the criminal operation that was Bush / Cheney is pretty idiotic. Obama is certainly corrupt, but none moreso than any other post WW2 administration. But go ahead and prattle on in your all caps and personal stunning observations that somehow justify your bias if you must.
- seems someone is need of attention today.********
- cnaps you're an idiot
Ramanisky2 - Says the guy that posts like he ate a bad burritoTheBlueOne
- seems someone is need of attention today.
- ukit0
Wall Street Journal now tell us, "The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic" and urges Republicans to go ahead and raise the debt limit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB…
So you're saying a negotiation whose failure results in a total crash the economy wasn't such a smart idea? No shit, they might have spoken up at the beginning when Republicans started this nonsense.
What a bunch of idiots.
- scare tactics on both sides, it's just BS********
- econ wont crash. they can pay int on debt. they jsut wont be able to afford the hookers and dinner afterwards********
- Rupert Murdoch must be looking for some love from the Govt now that they've got the goods on him .Josev
- scare tactics on both sides, it's just BS
- moldero0
Future of the world, lead by countries who can afford to feed their own but choose not to, awesome. thank you right wing for lack of foresight with that whole outsourcing thing.- you forgot about a few variables. Corruption, No Middle Class and Corruption.********
- But I agree with the outsourcing thing, probably why I don't have a job right now, tbh, but it's apolitical********
- i agree, but the corruption thing, the states is just as bad, just other countries use less resources in covering it upmoldero
- bernaysmoldero
- yeah, we cover it better, through legal loopholes, agreed.********
- you forgot about a few variables. Corruption, No Middle Class and Corruption.
- BusterBoy0
You yanks are better off splitting the country in two.
- locustsloth0
Viking wrote:
• Direct Response to LocusWho said "Obama is not using the Operation Gun Runner scandal to pass gun regulation."
• You're either brainwashed or you have no idea what is going on even though the evidence and story is there for your research. Something you seem to avoid.
• Let me break it down for you because it is clear someone has told you what to think.Oh Viking. If you didn't act like such an ass, your behavior could almost be endearing, in a way. Almost.
Here both you've misrepresented my statement and attempted to belittle me, my intelligence and my character, all for the sake of trying to prove your point. More on this later, but lets go back to the matter at hand.My statement was:
"A good idea on paper that went wrong in practice, i guess. Though i don't buy the nypost's conspiracy theory of Obama trying to make a case for gun control" (copy and paste is both a handy and easy to use feature on all computers)
And specifically i was referring to this line, which seemed to sum up the article's (and seemingly, your) position:
"With the Obama administration wedded to the fiction that 90 percent of the guns Mexican cartels use originate here -- they don't -- many suspect that "Fast and Furious" was a backdoor attempt to smear domestic gun aficionados as part of its stealth efforts on gun control by executive fiat."First of all, the 90% figure is not fiction. It may not be a true and whole representation of the crime guns confiscated, it's not some ghost number pulled from the ether. That figure was given by an ATF agent in a congressional hearing as the number of Mexican crime guns that were submitted for tracing. Fact is that it's nearly impossible to accurately account for the origins of ALL the guns that are confiscated. But even by FactCheck.org's calculations, it's around 36%. This is based on data from 2007-2008 when a total of 29000 arms were confiscated, around 11K or which were submitted for tracing. Using the ATF figure of 90% of those submitted for tracing, that's still nearly 10K firearms. Nothing to sneeze at.
(source: http://www.factcheck.org/politic…)So as far as a 'backdoor attempt to smear gun afficianados' it seems the only backdoor attempt is the article's attampt to malign the two things. And you, Viking, provided the key to unlocking this.
The notion that you and the nypost article are proposing is that the 2009 Stimulus funded Operation Fast & Furious was being used, directly, to back up gun control legislation. However, the graph/study that you linked from aidwatchers.org (i'm assuming in an attempt to show how the gov is trying to link gun laws and Mexican gun crime, although the study/paper wasn't from the gov), it uses 2004 as the focal point for it's data as that is when the assault rifle ban was lifted in Arizona and Texas, but not in California, where the ban was kept on a state level. The graph you linked to shows that gun related crime went up in municipalities bordering the states that lifted the ban and stayed relatively flat in CA which kept the ban intact.
2004. With data ending in 2006. A full 3 years before the Stimulus or Fast & Furious. Indeed, 2 years before Obama was even elected. So even if, in some tinfoil hat world, the F&F program WAS for smearing gun rights toters, there is data THAT YOU LINKED TO AS AN EXAMPLE to show a correlation between lack of gun control and gun-related crime in neighboring areas.So let's now talk about the actual reforms Obama is seeking to inact. Quoted form the article, by you:
"all gun shops in four Southwest border states will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.
Under the new policy, federal firearms licensees in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico must report purchases of two or more of some types of rifles by the same person in a five-day span. The requirement applies to purchases of semi-automatic rifles that have detachable magazines and a caliber of greater than .22."Do you really find a problem with this? Please tell me a legitimate reason for one person to buy two or more .22 caliber semiautomatic rifles in a 5 day period. "Because they can and want to" is a bullshit reason. i am tired of people acting like infants, saying that they want to do something simply because a law has been passed saying they can't. Are you fucking 3 yrs old?
In addition, how many frickin ways are there to get around it? Buy a gun on Monday, by Saturday, you are in the clear. If you need that quantity of guns faster than that, you are up to something.
And it's not even that they are prohibited sale. It's that the licensees have to report it. And this is only true for FOUR STATES!!. Oh, yes, Obama is TOTALLY after all our guns. In those states. In five day increments.So here's the thing, Viking. Had you said " i know it's hard to believe, but here's some other facts to back up this possibility" i would have looked at the links and formed an opinion. But you chose for some reason to take backhanded slaps at me for no apparent reason. This makes me think that you're not actually interested in informing people of the things you purport are true. You merely want to make yourself feel like you are one of the few who 'know the truth'. Because any sane person would use rational explainations and cited resources rather than attempt to besmirch my character. My character that you apparently only know from this thread. And have forgotten that i attempted (and somewhat succeeded) in calming the back and forth namecalling by asking cnaps to simply state his position on things rather than citing faults in everything. Also forgotten was how i acknowledged common ground with YOU when you cited your positions.
If you want to feel special and smart by posting theories about how the Man is out to get us, fine. GO right ahead, i'll generally ignore you.
But brother, leave me the fuck out of it.Also, it's 'locust' and 'false'
- ukit0
"econ wont crash. they can pay int on debt. they jsut wont be able to afford the hookers and dinner afterwards"
Paying interest on the debt is great but what about the rest of the economy? Think about all the programs the government funds and what happens if you instantly cut that by 40%.
Social security checks, unemployment benefits, Medicare, tax refunds not going out. Millions of people who work for the government would be going unpaid through no fault of their own.
If you want to provoke mass chaos and some kind of radical far right transformation of society then it makes sense, otherwise not so much
- do it now or do it later. plus that extreme u paint wont happen. people will still get paid projected spending will need to be cut********
- get cut********
- its simply the gov wont be able to increase its borrowing no its output. it has income from taxes. means less movie dates********
- http://reason.com/ar… read this and see if it makes more sense********
- might as well say fuck it and try a different approach. yes there is doubt, but more of the same is proven to not help********
- we're getting fucked by the fools wanting to keep there job at providing handouts through our kids debt.********
- but then again if every other country is doing it we will get screwed being responsible. global bs is weird********
- Actually the article you linked confirms what I was saying. Without the ability to borrow we can only finance 60% of government spendingukit
- spending. Anyone who thinks that doesn't equal economic crash is living in a fantasy worldukit
- Doesn't matter if you think government should be cut by 40%, the way to do it is not by instantly shutting it downukit
- and the alternative is to live in fantasy were we keep living on credit?we can pay the bills jsut need to curb spending********
- not syaing people wont hurt from it but thats natural sicne we binged so long. a longer binge ='s more hurt********
- a today approach to increase debt only means harder impact on the future gens. thats effed up time to be responsible********
- and hey maybe it will help lower are war funds. wiser spending than corn ethanol subsidies. in the end it looks more promising than the same********
- more promising than the same ol stuff that leads to a larger edge********
- yes we can guess the possible outcomes and decide and differ. but more of the same .. or finally act liek men and deal with it. take the hurt from past ill decisions********
- with it. get the bond markets straight. lose bs ponzi schemes. this crash could be what we need********
- oh and the programs jsut wont stop. they have funds to protect. it wont lead to any chaos********
- lol, they will stop. If you can only fund 60% of course there will be disruptionukit
- Pretty silly to argue otherwiseukit
- u can say it will instanlty stop. no gov insight on funds needed for contingency. artiel stated times shit was delayed and world didnt end********
- world didnt end. i think it will be fine. they cut the movie dates and organic butter to pay main costs********
- this is too long to catch up on. any comments lets hit the main forum.********
- do it now or do it later. plus that extreme u paint wont happen. people will still get paid projected spending will need to be cut
- ukit0
"econ wont crash. they can pay int on debt. they jsut wont be able to afford the hookers and dinner afterwards"
Paying interest on the debt is great but what about the rest of the economy? Think about all the programs the government funds and what happens if you instantly cut that by 40%.
Social security checks, unemployment benefits, Medicare, tax refunds not going out. Millions of people who work for the government would be going unpaid through no fault of their own.
If you want to provoke mass chaos and some kind of radical far right transformation of society then it makes sense, otherwise not so much
- ukit0
@deathboy
The alternative is for both sides to sit down at the table and actually hammer out a compromise. Involving entitlement and tax reform which could also stimulate the economy.
If both sides acted like adults instead of spoiled kids they might have even reached a deal within the debt limit timeframe, but really it's kind of stupid to hold the country hostage to an arbitrary deadline like that. Take half a year or a year and get it done.
- and not raising the debt ceiling would also be a larger lever in figuring out tax reform/entitlements********
- and not raising the debt ceiling would also be a larger lever in figuring out tax reform/entitlements
- utopian0
Q: When will congress end the endless tax loops holes, tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Elitist Americans, Corporate America, Wall Street and Big Oil?
A: Never
- ********0
there isnt a compromise that will solve it. its live in credit fantasy or man up. the only compromises will be to continue fantasy and this senator gets these funds and this guy gets that. and thats not a compromise of whats good just good for the deal makers, the bond traders, the banks collecting interest on ss. Like any change there will be negatives but the positives are likely far greater.
We can deal with it or we can raise the debt ceiling and delay the inevitable ending for our kids to deal with. Its inevitable that what we spend we must pay. A delay "could" temporalily help if we really meant cut spending. but is that for real? How many times have we increased it since the 40s with the "we'll get right on that" mentality leading us to where we are. Has obama projected a less spending budget into 2020? No.
Its a matter of delaying the hurt until the future with more hurt. If your a family man can u want that for your kids because it helps the general economy now.
I say pull the reigns and start living for real. We're acting liek a dumb poor family with good credit expecting to win the lottery. its time for a reality check.
And yes i see your concerns and the other entertainment news networks saying. I dont buy it. We'll hurt but we'll pay debt to ss and those, but we may not be able to keep up the ponzi schemes and other social initiatives. Money stops going in gains stop going out. We may have to rethink what we "know" as right and just. I think its the best way to get bond markets and banks straight. Get the power back to the people and not the rich elite. rebuild a middle class that is forever getting eaten away by the 2 party system.
but than again i think theyll pass it because it hurts both parties not to have credit to sell for votes. goes against what they want to achieve. simply posturing and smokescreen. but that article is a good article vs the scare mongering shit of other networks.
But its all theory until proven and i just imply that we have tested raising debt ceiligns in order of a better future or to help economy. and the results have shown. what happens if we dont
- ********0
and come to think of it what what does all the fear mongering have u really scared about? in worst case scenario theyre correct and your gramps doesnt get his paycheck. what would u do? would u let him die? would he die? or would u help out at a burden because sometimes thats the cost of caring for something important to you? im just not sure what it is you're scared of?
- Aren't you short-selling your house or something like that?Josev
- akrok0
no matter if you red or blue, both are full of shit and you know it. still, some are more full of shit then others. but let's not go there.
yes, this hell started a long time ago. we know that too. don't blame it one just one party cause it's not really run by only one party, right?
so, based on that most of their performance are so bad or low.
if they wasn't working for the gov. they would been fired.their salaries should be cut to a freaking minimum. how's that for a saving. they should be glad they still have a job.
- working with many gov agencies i agree fully. theyre the most dumb corrupt types of people ive ever encountered********
- working with many gov agencies i agree fully. theyre the most dumb corrupt types of people ive ever encountered
