RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 5:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkMaster88 So...what's the difference how he grew up? Shall we get into Obama's childhood and life? Envy anyone? Is that all you've got? Yepper....That's all they got. Facts are irrelevant....positions are what matters.

DarkMaster88 -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 5:31:10 PM)
An Important Reminder why NOT to vote for Obummer. Go ahead Libs...tell me this is acceptable. Here's some more good stuff Obama and Hillary have in store for us in a second term. Giving our sovreignty away to the UN. Awesome! A "Robin Hood" tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while traveling, you'd be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN. A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO). A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don't delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty - up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session - offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world. A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world. A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output. These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit. Is there any organization less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. And where would the money go? To so-called less developed countries. The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa, and South Asia). But don't think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty. Foreign aid doesn't work. It really just puts a pot of money on the table in third world countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace. Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes, or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money. Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of northern hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 5:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkMaster88 An Important Reminder why NOT to vote for Obummer. Go ahead Libs...tell me this is acceptable. Here's some more good stuff Obama and Hillary have in store for us in a second term. Giving our sovreignty away to the UN. Awesome! A "Robin Hood" tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while traveling, you'd be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN. A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO). A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don't delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty - up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session - offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world. A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world. A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output. These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit. Is there any organization less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. And where would the money go? To so-called less developed countries. The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa, and South Asia). But don't think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty. Foreign aid doesn't work. It really just puts a pot of money on the table in third world countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace. Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes, or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money. Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of northern hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs. (You left out the best one....a new 3.8% tax on AGI for Medicare that starts on January 1, 2013). That's kind of a neat one....not only affecting those who can least afford it but...unlike SSI, there's no upper limit. Cool huh? Dem's....don't forget to tell Mom and Dad about that one at Thanksgiving or Christmas :) And...remember to send Obama a thank you card for that....he's been feeling a bit unloved lately.

slvemike4u -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 5:47:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkMaster88 An Important Reminder why NOT to vote for Obummer. Go ahead Libs...tell me this is acceptable. Here's some more good stuff Obama and Hillary have in store for us in a second term. Giving our sovreignty away to the UN. Awesome! A "Robin Hood" tax on financial transactions. Every time you buy or sell a stock or a bond or exchange money while traveling, you'd be hit with a financial transactions tax (a percentage of your transaction) that would go to the UN. A global tobacco tax with the funds to flow to the World Health Organization (WHO). A UN-imposed tax on billionaires all over the world. And don't delude yourself for a moment that it is only the 1600 current billionaires who will be hit. Once the precedent of a UN tax on US citizens is approved, it will gradually grow downwards to cover more and more Americans. Again the funds will go to the UN. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty - up for Senate ratification in December of the lame duck session - offshore oil and gas wells would have to pay a proportion of their revenues to the International Seabed Authority, a UN-sponsored organization, which would distribute the loot to the third world. A carbon tax on all U.S. or other foreign commercial or passenger aircraft flying to Europe. Nominally to fight climate change, these revenues would also go to the third world. A mandatory assessment to be imposed on the U.S. to compensate third world nations for the costs of reducing their carbon output. These taxes are, of course, only the first steps. Once the principle is established of UN taxation of American citizens, the sky is the limit. Is there any organization less worthy of our trust to spend our money wisely than the United Nations? Beset by almost constant scandal, bereft of any in-house oversight or even audit, the UN is one of the most corrupt of all international organizations. And where would the money go? To so-called less developed countries. The taxes are part of a global plan of redistribution of wealth from the Northern Hemisphere (US, Europe, Japan) to the Southern Hemisphere (Latin America, Africa, and South Asia). But don't think that this flow of wealth will reduce poverty. Foreign aid doesn't work. It really just puts a pot of money on the table in third world countries that automatically goes to whoever controls the presidential palace. Coups, civil wars, revolutions, and all sorts of violence usually ensue as various factions, tribes, or ethnic groups try to get their hands on the money. Real reduction in poverty can come only through foreign direct investment and trade, not via massive exports of northern hemisphere wealth to countries controlled by corrupt oligarchs. Dick Morris....is that you ? Wow,we got THE Dick Morris on CollarMe [:)]

defiantbadgirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 9:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkMaster88 OK..WOW! Unions...please show me one productive Union the union oil refinery my father retired from ...teachers union? Where if you suck you have tenure and it's almost impossible to get fired. Job security. Think how much better shape the economy would be in if more workers had that. Let's let government run healthcare...they have such a sterling track record. I'd say the government has a better track record than private insurance companies that profit from refusing to pay for health care. At least the Affordable Care Act makes refusal to pay for "pre-existing conditions" and lifetime limits illegal. By the way, raising the minimum wage doesnt work..businesses have expenses (obviously from your post you haven't run one). Raising wages is an expense, if they can't afford it, they don't hire, or lay people off. CEO's are a much bigger expense. How many CEO's are willing to take pay cuts to avoid laying people off? Medicare...its a choice of vouchers or the current program...you're misstating the program to make your absurd emotional arguments. What happens when the retired people who chose vouchers reach their lifetime limit? Republicans want to repeal the law that prohibits that. Justice Ginsburg....you mean the justice who said that Mothers Day and Fathers Day are discriminatory, and that the age of consent should be 12??? Awesome. I seriously doubt Ginsberg said that. Are you aware that in some states 13 year olds can be tried as adults? Some people think it makes no sense that an 18 year old is old enough to die for his country but too young to have a beer. Planned Parenthood...who gets my tax dollars to fund abortions, was founded by Margaret Sanger, a racist. The main focus of PP was to weed out the underclasses of society so they couldnt reproduce. Nice! It's also nice that you libs have such compassion for pedophiles and murderers and are against the death penalty, but can pull a child's head out of the womb and suck it's brain out at 8 1/2 months. Or throw a live child from a botched abortion in a linen closet to suffer and die. Priceless. You're the compassionate ones. No doctor would throw a live child in a linen closet to die. Other developed countries think the death penalty is barbaric. As for sex crimes, our laws are out of control. In some states, people have to register as sex offenders if they're caught urinating outside (indecent exposure).

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 10:00:31 PM)
quote: Let's let government run healthcare...they have such a sterling track record. They said it would cost under a trillion dollars....now the estimate is 2.1 trillion...only off a trillion right?? 63% of the American people didn't want it, passed on a reconcilliation vote in the middle of the night. 10 years of taxes collected to pay for the first 6 years....does that make sense to you??? Seriously. 2.1 over 10 years. quote: Abortions....how about BE RESPONSIBLE. Develop a 100% effective form of birth control that isnt permanent and you would have a great argument. quote: Justice Ginsburg....you mean the justice who said that Mothers Day and Fathers Day are discriminatory, and that the age of consent should be 12??? According to Lindsey Graham Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091501867_pf.html So what was Graham's source? According to Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop, it was Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, a booklet co-authored by Ginsburg and published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1977. The booklet's existence has been a hot topic among conservative homophobes for some time; see, for instance, here, here, and here. I haven't got the booklet itself—we'll get to its specific language, as related (no doubt accurately) by Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School, in a moment—but Edward Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, has posted a 1974 paper coauthored by Ginsburg (under the aegis of the Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project) titled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law." This paper was an earlier version of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code. In an item about the 1974 paper posted last year on National Review Online, Whelan put the pro-pederasty accusation at the bottom of a list of other ridiculously distorted examples of Ginsburg's "extremist views" at the time—a tip-off that he knew he was on shaky ground. (Whelan didn't mention the age-of-consent point at all in a more recent rundown of the paper's most supposedly damning bits.) Here is Whelan's throwaway line in his National Review Online post: Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12. [See pages 69-71 and the specific recommendation regarding 18 U.S.C. § 2032 on page 76.] * When we go to these pages, we find nothing of the sort. "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" is a paper advocating that federal statutes be rewritten so that, wherever possible, gender-specific references be replaced with gender-neutral references. That's the entire point of the paper, and, apparently, it's the entire point of Sex Bias in the U.S. Code as well. The paper's discussion of statutory rape objects to the fact that the relevant federal laws define the victim as female and the offender as male. Ginsburg and her coauthor argue that the law should be rewritten to outlaw sexual abuse of any minor, male or female, by any person who is significantly older, male or female (thereby obviating the absurd possibility that a 13-year-old boy would be prosecuted for seducing a 15-year-old girl). I would be very surprised if Sen. Graham disagreed with a word of this. In the course of making this point, Ginsburg's 1974 paper praises and then quotes a draft Senate bill that never became law. The proposed law has, she writes, "a definition of rape that, in substance, conforms to the equality principle." She then quotes the bill's language: "A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and: (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force; or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than twelve years old." Yes, the language Ginsburg quotes with approval puts the age of consent at 12, which does seem awfully young. But she isn't addressing herself to the age issue; she's addressing herself to the gender issue. Is her praise meant to constitute an endorsement of the entire bill? Of course not. Ginsburg makes this explicit in a footnote in which she complains that even this language "retains use of the masculine pronoun to cover individuals of both sexes," which at the very least is confusing if it's intended to outlaw statutory (and other) rape by women, too. I would further guess that neither Ginsburg nor her feminist cohorts at the Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project were particularly crazy about the quoted language's get-out-of-jail-free card for married men who raped their wives. With this in mind, let's proceed to the language in Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, as described by the eminently reliable (though in this instance, I believe, analytically faulty) Eugene Volokh. Once again, Ginsburg objects to the fact that the law, as written, makes gender distinctions that she doesn't consider legitimate: "[T]he immaturity and vul[n]erability of young people of both sexes could be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions." According to Volokh, on page 102 Ginsburg makes the following "suggestion": 18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. From this, Volokh concludes that Ginsburg does indeed favor lowering the age of consent to 12. Exasperatingly, though, Volokh leaves out precisely how Ginsburg has worded her "suggestion." Since the topic, once again, is sex bias rather than age bias, I think that's important to know. Even if Ginsburg's "suggestion" is unqualified, it ought to be clear that, even in the swingin' 1970s, nobody would have proposed lowering the age of consent to 12 without offering up some sort of argument as to why this should be done. Yet Volokh does not cite any language elaborating on the point. From this I conclude that none exists. At the very worst, Ginsburg would seem to be guilty of a sloppy cut-and-paste job that muddied her meaning. Here's how she frames her recommendation in the 1974 paper (page 76): A sex neutral definition of rape, such as the one set forth in S. 1400, § 1631, should be added to Title 18 or Title 10 and referred to throughout for the definition of the offense. What, then, is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's true crime? In discussing how to rewrite the federal law addressing statutory rape, Ginsburg failed to state an opinion about what the age of consent should be. Perhaps she didn't address the issue, even parenthetically, because she really didn't have an answer. (Maybe she thought it should be higher than 16!) More likely, though, Ginsburg didn't address the age-of-consent issue because it wasn't relevant to her topic. Say it with me: She wasn't writing about age; she was writing about gender! One final puzzle: Even though Volokh finds the defendant (Ginsburg) guilty, he's uncovered one bit of evidence that seriously undermines his argument. What follows is a quote from Volokh, not Ginsburg: S. 1400 §1633 provided (at least in the version that I could find), that "sexual abuse of a minor" (essentially statutory rape) be limited to victims who are under 16, and who are "at least five years younger than" the defendant. Whaa? S. 1400 kept the ageof consent at 16? Then why did Ginsburg write in the 1974 paper that it lowered the age of consent to 12? Wait a minute! Could all this Sturm und Drang be over…a typo? A typo that, mysteriously, was transposed from Ginsburg's 1974 paper to the 1977 booklet? That would be too rich. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2005/09/lindsey_grahams_smear.2.html quote: but can pull a child's head out of the womb and suck it's brain out at 8 1/2 months. Partial birth abortion... the method you describe is inside the uterus, not outside, and is limited to cases where the mothers life is in danger As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[18] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability". quote: Or throw a live child from a botched abortion in a linen closet to suffer and die. How about actually citing a source for this that doesnt involve a right to life link or conservapedia. quote: You're worried about women's rights? Yes, I am worried about women's rights here, in the US. quote: That's right, Hillary is a feminist Icon that let her husband cheat on her for years. Now THATS laughable considering the BDSM site we are on. Really? You want to use THAT as an argument??? quote: Do some homework and come here with facts, not emotional resopnses. I did. I just wish you would take your own advice.

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 10:15:26 PM)
quote: (You left out the best one....a new 3.8% tax on AGI for Medicare that starts on January 1, 2013). Yep A 3.8% surtax will be levied on net investment income for individuals with adjusted gross income (AGI) above $200,000 and married couples filing jointly with AGI above $250,000. For 97% of all households–individuals whose current taxable income falls below $200,000, or couples with a joint income below $250,000–the tax is irrelevant; it only applies to persons above those income thresholds. (Note, however, that the tax also applies to trusts, with a much lower threshold.) A new 0.9% Medicare tax will apply on earned income above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. The floor beneath itemized medical expense deductions will rise from 7.5% of AGI to 10% of AGI (for people over the age of 65, this change won’t kick in until 2017). Allowable contributions to health flexible spending accounts will be capped at $2,500 per year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/greggfisher/2012/07/20/start-planning-for-higher-taxes/ ooooo and a nice example is included...... This formula is most easily explained by way of example. Let’s say a husband and wife complete their tax forms and calculate that they have AGI of $400,000 in 2013, which is $150,000 over the $250,000 income threshold. Moving to the second test, let’s suppose that they earned interest income amounting to $40,000 and had capital gains of another $40,000 from selling stocks. But they had also sold some stocks at a loss, amounting to $15,000, so their net investment income totals $65,000 ($40,000 plus $40,000 less $15,000). That’s obviously lower than $150,000, so that is what the 3.8% Medicare Contribution is levied on. Their MC tax comes to $2,470 in this case. Now suppose, in a different scenario, the same couple had only earned $265,000 in that same year, with the same amount of net investment income of $65,000. In this case they would pay taxes on only $15,000 ($265,000 – $250,000) of their investment income, or a tax of $570.

popeye1250 -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/8/2012 11:06:40 PM)
DYB, no,...I'm not independently wealthy. (Where the HELL did you get that?) And no, I got no deferrment from the draft during Vietnam, I had a high number and wouldn't have been drafted but I joined the U.S. Navy anyway. I "wanted" to go to Vietnam. After getting out and being denied employment on the Boston, Mass Fire Dept due to all the "affirmative action" hires I joined the U.S. Coast Guard. That's right, I joined the military again. Oh, which branch were you in? Defiant, re post 24 you make some good points. The problem that we have with "Washington" is that we get congressmen and senators who,...."do what "they" think is right and not what their constituents tell them to do! If you're in public office and you ignore The People you'll always get in trouble. It's simple, just LISTEN to the voters and do what they tell you to do and you'll never go wrong! Never. Oh, and I'm pro-union, I was in a union, I have two brothers who are in unions, the Teamsters and the Firefighter's union. They're both very tough guys and they'd kick the crap out of me if I said anything anti-union. And, I have about as much "Republican blood" in me as Elizebeth Warran has "Cherokee blood" which is to say, none! But, I've been saying that in here for the last five years but some people in here just don't listen. (I guess they have the "need" to put people in neat little boxes.) Oh, on the radio yesterday a lady talk show host said that the Obamas have a "dog walker" who does nothing but take care of their dog "Bo" and costs the taxpayers $102 K in salary paid for by taxpayer dollars. And she said Michele Obama has something like 15 "personal assistants" and who knows how much they're costing the taxpayers. Is any of that true? So what do you think about Gary Johnson? (I can't quote posts in here for some reason. Or "reply" to individual posts.)

defiantbadgirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 12:28:49 AM)
I just read Gary Johnson's website that tells where he stands on issues. On health care he's for less government regulation. Lack of government regulation is what lead to pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and escalating prices to begin with. Without government regulation, health insurance companies are extremely greedy. Health care cost is lower in countries with single-payer. Personally, I hate for profit health insurance companies. I think the government would be less likely to refuse to pay for treatment because unlike private insurance companies, they wouldn't be trying to maximize profit. I do agree with Johnson that parents should be able to choose which school their children attend. I agree that the troops should be brought home. I agree that border control should intensify, but I disagree about simplifying legal immigration at this time. I think immigration should cease until the economy is strong again. I have a big problem with what he says on the economy. Under cut spending, it says "Revise the terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation's future." Social Security is self-sustaining. Social Security is deducted from worker's paychecks. The fact that he includes social security in cutting spending is a huge turn off. Another thing I have a big problem with is his attitude on free trade. According to his website, he thinks we should "Eliminate needless barriers to free trade." We need more barriers, not less. We need to get out of these free trade agreements. I want fair trade or no trade at all. Gary Johnson source: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 5:23:39 AM)
quote: And she said Michele Obama has something like 15 "personal assistants" and who knows how much they're costing the taxpayers. Is any of that true? http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/04/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-first-lady-michelle-obama-has-43-h/

DomYngBlk -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 5:31:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 DYB, no,...I'm not independently wealthy. (Where the HELL did you get that?) And no, I got no deferrment from the draft during Vietnam, I had a high number and wouldn't have been drafted but I joined the U.S. Navy anyway. I "wanted" to go to Vietnam. After getting out and being denied employment on the Boston, Mass Fire Dept due to all the "affirmative action" hires I joined the U.S. Coast Guard. That's right, I joined the military again. Oh, which branch were you in? Defiant, re post 24 you make some good points. The problem that we have with "Washington" is that we get congressmen and senators who,...."do what "they" think is right and not what their constituents tell them to do! If you're in public office and you ignore The People you'll always get in trouble. It's simple, just LISTEN to the voters and do what they tell you to do and you'll never go wrong! Never. Oh, and I'm pro-union, I was in a union, I have two brothers who are in unions, the Teamsters and the Firefighter's union. They're both very tough guys and they'd kick the crap out of me if I said anything anti-union. And, I have about as much "Republican blood" in me as Elizebeth Warran has "Cherokee blood" which is to say, none! But, I've been saying that in here for the last five years but some people in here just don't listen. (I guess they have the "need" to put people in neat little boxes.) Oh, on the radio yesterday a lady talk show host said that the Obamas have a "dog walker" who does nothing but take care of their dog "Bo" and costs the taxpayers $102 K in salary paid for by taxpayer dollars. And she said Michele Obama has something like 15 "personal assistants" and who knows how much they're costing the taxpayers. Is any of that true? So what do you think about Gary Johnson? (I can't quote posts in here for some reason. Or "reply" to individual posts.) Well you call yourself a friend of Mittens. I figured you were a fat cat from Boston too. And, no, no branch of the military for me. I asked cause while you were getting your ass shot at ole Mitt was glad you were over there. In fact, he was able to lay the beaches of France writing poetry. Did you write poetry while you was over in vietnam pops?

searching4mysir -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 6:55:23 AM)
quote: Republicans are the ones AGAINST UNIONS and even AGAINST RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE! Probably because neither actually work to accomplish good.

mnottertail -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 6:57:25 AM)
But thats not the reason why, because they are servile and craven corporate capitulists, and these are irritating to corporations (which exist to do no good). And republicans are behind that 100+%

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 7:07:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: searching4mysir quote: Republicans are the ones AGAINST UNIONS and even AGAINST RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE! Probably because neither actually work to accomplish good. [sm=rofl.gif]

DarkMaster88 -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 4:41:50 PM)
I stand corrected on Judge Ginsburg...nice job of cherry picking. You rebutted about 2% of my assertions. By the way, botched abortion babies were being thrown in a linen closet in Chicago hospitals..which provoked the Born Alive Protection Act, which was voted on in the Illinois Legislature. I'll let you read up on it and make your own decision. An Illinois nurse named Jill Stanek testified before the Health and Human Services Committee that she had discovered that babies were being aborted alive and allowed to die in soiled utility rooms. One baby was accidentally thrown into the trash. Though Obama never showed up at the committee hearings, he voted against the bill – not once, but twice. Kinda barbaric isn't it? I'll admit newsbusters is conservative, but there are plenty of links out there. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2012/05/16/multiple-mistakes-about-obama-and-born-alive-act-new-book-amateur#ixzz28qctddWo http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/did_obama_lie_about_born_alive.html http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

fucktoyprincess -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 6:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl This is an important reminder if you care about jobs. Republicans in Congress repeatedly voted NO on jobs bills because making President Obama a one term president was more important to them than the US economy! Therefore, they have already proven two things. 1. Their party is more important to them than this country. 2. They don't care about jobs. So if you really care about jobs, vote Democrat! This has been true for much longer than Obama's presidency. Most of my life this has been true. People need to start paying attention. I'm not holding my breath. Tried that once. I don't want to die.

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/9/2012 7:00:19 PM)
quote: I stand corrected on Judge Ginsburg...nice job of cherry picking. The only cherry picking on that issue was your sources. quote: An Illinois nurse named Jill Stanek testified before the Health and Human Services Committee that she had discovered that babies were being aborted alive and allowed to die in soiled utility rooms. One baby was accidentally thrown into the trash. Though Obama never showed up at the committee hearings, he voted against the bill – not once, but twice. Kinda barbaric isn't it? Stanek gained initial prominence in 1999 when she testified that, while she worked as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, infants that survived induced labor abortions were abandoned to die in a utility room.[5] These allegations led to a formal investigation by the Illinois Department of Public Health, which stated that the hospital violated no state laws. Shortly thereafter, Advocate Health Care changed its policy on induced labor abortions, barring its use against fetuses with non-lethal developmental issues.[6] Jill Stanek (born 1956) is an American pro-life activist from Illinois, best known for her allegations regarding "live birth abortions" that she publicly testified were being performed at Christ Hospital in the Chicago suburb of Oak Lawn.[1] More recently, she has received national attention for accusing President Barack Obama of supporting infanticide while a member of the Illinois State Senate.[2] Lets call it what it really is. She is a pro lifer who would do anything to push her agenda.. Its no different than offering up a life news site. Now, here is what bothers me about Ms Jill. Why did she allow all these occurrences to happen? She could have called the Board of Nursing, the Dept of Health, even the news... and yet she allowed these "closet" babies to occur? Come on. First link, written by Jill. Second link written by a conservative writer who also wrote a book called "Moral Equivalence in the Middle East" Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. The term originates from a 1906 address by William James entitled The Moral Equivalent of War, subsequently published in essay form in 1910.[1] The Factcheck link... Obama’s critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies’ welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden. Speculate away.

DarkMaster88 -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/10/2012 5:14:41 AM)
Nice opinion piece..well done. I'm missing the proof that she was lying, except the fact that you think so. Oh I guess anyone that goes against Dear Leader has to be lying, because the administration never lies. I get it, your opinions trump my facts...but then Liberialism is based on emotion. I guess since Obama was the only legislator out of 100 that voted against the bill, there must have been a 99 to 1 conservative pro-life majority in the legislature. LOL Moral Equivalence-used by Liberals excuse pedophila and to equate barbaric cultures with ours..."Honor Killings are their moral values, so its OK." "Sharia Law can be recognized in our court system." We cant judge. Yup...you guys use it often. Here is a small list of amazing conspiracies and lies against Obama perpetrated by those evil conservatives...better get busy and go to that impartial source Slate Magazine and dig up some quotes...or maybe wikipedia. Or better yet, just give me your opinion. Getting our troops killed in Afgahnistan with ridiculous rules of engagement Fast and Furious New Black Panther Voting Rights Scandal Solyndra, among many other "green" companies Transparency during the Health Care Debates Held in contempt three times for not allowing off-shore drilling, while subsidizing drilling in other countries The USDA meeting with the Mexican Government 30 times to help illegals access food stamps Disabling credit card security to accept foreign campaing donations Suing states for protecting the borders Suing states for voter ID laws Abrogation bankruptcy laws Threatening a private business (Ford) after it mocked the bailouts in its ads 16 million Obamaphones with the business going to a prominent campaing finance bundler Paying Oregon a five million dollar bonus for signing up people on food stamps Proposing budgets that neither party would vote on

tazzygirl -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/10/2012 5:58:00 AM)
quote: Nice opinion piece..well done. I'm missing the proof that she was lying, except the fact that you think so. Oh I guess anyone that goes against Dear Leader has to be lying, because the administration never lies. I get it, your opinions trump my facts...but then Liberialism is based on emotion. You have yet to show me any proof that she was telling the truth. The fact that the hospital was investigated and they found no wrong doing should have been your first clue to her claims. quote: I guess since Obama was the only legislator out of 100 that voted against the bill, there must have been a 99 to 1 conservative pro-life majority in the legislature. LOL The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide? In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one. What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden." quote: Moral Equivalence-used by Liberals excuse pedophila and to equate barbaric cultures with ours..."Honor Killings are their moral values, so its OK." "Sharia Law can be recognized in our court system." We cant judge. Yup...you guys use it often. Im a liberal. WTF is excusing pedophilia? Honor killings are "Ok"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing_in_the_United_States Try again.... Sharia law? http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/2012/03/26/U-S-system-under-no-threat-from-Sharia-law-scholar-says.html quote: 16 million Obamaphones with the business going to a prominent campaing finance bundler LOL We just had a thread on this. I welcome you to look it up and discover for yourself the links showing this program started under Reagan and expanded under Bush. It was already in effect when Obama took office. quote: Threatening a private business (Ford) after it mocked the bailouts in its ads http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/28/white-house-ford-deny-claim-that-bailout-ad-was-pulled-under-pressure/ Not according to Ford. quote: Paying Oregon a five million dollar bonus for signing up people on food stamps Wow, Obama was doing that back in 2006?? http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/2006-processing_rate.htm Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner today announced that a total of $18 million will be awarded to States that provided exceptional administration of the Food Stamp Program in FY 2006. "As we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Food Stamp Act, we recognize the meaningful work and significant efforts of our state and community partners to improve the nutritional health and wellbeing of children, the elderly and their families," said Conner. "I commend these States for their outstanding efforts to alleviate hunger for our most vulnerable citizens." As authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, USDA awards $12 million in high performance bonuses among the eight States that have excelled in the area of program access. These States have the best, or most improved, program access index. The index is the percentage of households below 125 percent of poverty that are participating in the program. The following States will receive awards for best program access index: Maine, Missouri, Tennessee, and Oregon. The following States will receive awards for most improved program access index: Massachusetts, Mississippi, Vermont, and Maryland. [U.S. Department of Agriculture, 9/20/07] Ya know... honestly... stop listening to the talking heads and do your own research. As for the rest... meh... Im done trying to teach you that everything you hear isnt always factual.

Lucylastic -> RE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER (10/10/2012 6:25:30 AM)
heh, thanks for that Tazzy your response was incredibly informational, much more factual than who you responded to:) interestingstuff Lindsey graham is a bit of a dick huh

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875