Some are still in the dark on Obama

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What you're too dull to understand is we've watched you support candidates as, one by one, they dropped out. Your support for Mitt is due to you not having any other option. That is the comical, albeit pathetic, part of it all. Your irrational fear of socialism has caused you to support any candidate opposing Obama without carefully evaluating the individual. That, in many cases, leads to disaster.

Remember the old saying, "One gets the government they deserve." Or that other saying, "Have sex in a hurry. Regret in leisure."

What you are too dull to understand is, I have evaluated each candidate that I have supported. My fears of socialism are not irrational, you are here literally defending Marxist socialist policy with every breath, you just refuse to acknowledge that's what it is. I support Mitt Romney because he is the only man on the face of the planet who can defeat Barack Hussein Obama in November. I really don't need any further reason, I don't believe Romney is a Marxist or Socialist, and I believe that Obama is.... simple as that for me. I prefer whatever form of GOP-type government Romney would give us, as opposed to the Marxist-Socialism we are certain to get more of under Obama. I prefer whatever direction Romney and the GOP will take the country, as opposed to where I know you and Obama want to take the country.

 

[apple0154]

Wow Apple, all of that bloviating and you never did answer me.

You stated: "Why does it make any difference from where a person gets money? Income is money coming in. All money should be taxed the same. "

Should the 48% who pay no income tax, be taxed the same too?
Should welfare recipients be taxed the same?

or... Did you misspeak?

No, I did not misspeak.

OK, try to follow along. A person has no money. They go to the government for help. The government gives them money for food, rent, etc.

Following so far?

OK. By what logic and common sense would it make to ask for some of that money back in taxes?

If people did have to pay taxes on welfare the government would give them less money to begin with. I don't understand how can such simple logic can pose a problem for you.

 

[apple0154]

What you are too dull to understand is, I have evaluated each candidate that I have supported. My fears of socialism are not irrational, you are here literally defending Marxist socialist policy with every breath, you just refuse to acknowledge that's what it is. I support Mitt Romney because he is the only man on the face of the planet who can defeat Barack Hussein Obama in November. I really don't need any further reason, I don't believe Romney is a Marxist or Socialist, and I believe that Obama is.... simple as that for me. I prefer whatever form of GOP-type government Romney would give us, as opposed to the Marxist-Socialism we are certain to get more of under Obama. I prefer whatever direction Romney and the GOP will take the country, as opposed to where I know you and Obama want to take the country.

You learned nothing from the Bush administration. From wars to near financial collapse and you don't care where Romney/the GOP takes the country. It's really sad, Dix.

On that note I'm going to bed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, I did not misspeak.

OK, try to follow along. A person has no money. They go to the government for help. The government gives them money for food, rent, etc.

Following so far?

OK. By what logic and common sense would it make to ask for some of that money back in taxes?

If people did have to pay taxes on welfare the government would give them less money to begin with. I don't understand how can such simple logic can pose a problem for you.

You're just addressing the welfare recipients, not the 48% who pay no income tax presently.

And why shouldn't welfare recipients have to pay something in? You said all income is the same, and regardless of the situation, a welfare check is income. It's not a "loan" is it? They don't pay it back, do they? Seems to me, the logic and common sense are found in your statement, that all income is the same and should be taxed the same. I would think the people who are getting the most direct benefit from the dollars, would be the ones to want to contribute most. In fairness, shouldn't the ones who are benefiting the most, put something in the game? I'm glad you said you didn't misspeak, because I think that might have been one of the brightest things you've ever said here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You learned nothing from the Bush administration. From wars to near financial collapse and you don't care where Romney/the GOP takes the country. It's really sad, Dix.

On that note I'm going to bed.

Well, what I hope that everyone learned from the Bush administration is, you can't replace them with a slick Democrat Marxist who really has nothing to offer but feel-good platitudes of Hope and Change. Because, when you do that, they end up spending twice as much in half the time, and don't solve any problems. Then, when it comes time for re-election, they run around pointing the finger at Bush, still... as if they have some magic solution they didn't try the first time or something.

I mean really guys, what do you expect people to do here? You continue to point fingers of blame at Bush and Republicans, but you have had the White House and most of Congress for the past 6 years, and you've done nothing to fix ANY of the problems, instead, you've made things worse. Now, you want to bitch and complain about Bush and Republicans and ask people to continue electing you to power, but you have demonstrated you can't solve the problems, all you can do is bitch and moan about Bush. Sorry, but I think most Americans are looking for SOLUTIONS not a continuation of endless Bush-hate and Bush-blame.

 

[Onceler]

Well, what I hope that everyone learned from the Bush administration is, you can't replace them with a slick Democrat Marxist who really has nothing to offer but feel-good platitudes of Hope and Change. Because, when you do that, they end up spending twice as much in half the time, and don't solve any problems. Then, when it comes time for re-election, they run around pointing the finger at Bush, still... as if they have some magic solution they didn't try the first time or something.

I mean really guys, what do you expect people to do here? You continue to point fingers of blame at Bush and Republicans, but you have had the White House and most of Congress for the past 6 years, and you've done nothing to fix ANY of the problems, instead, you've made things worse. Now, you want to bitch and complain about Bush and Republicans and ask people to continue electing you to power, but you have demonstrated you can't solve the problems, all you can do is bitch and moan about Bush. Sorry, but I think most Americans are looking for SOLUTIONS not a continuation of endless Bush-hate and Bush-blame.

But it's Bush's fault...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But it's Bush's fault...

Well now, we seem to be running out of options of what to do about Bush, aren't we? We've replaced him with the most liberal president in history, we gave complete majorities in both houses of Congress to the people who had all the brilliant non-Bush ideas, we even tried a few years of 'bipartisan' Congress, where both parties had some power, but still... all we have is this nagging Bush problem. It seems like the only real option we haven't tried yet, is a full Republican congress and white house.... I think maybe we should try that, and see if we can't fix the Bush problem once and for all!!

 

[Onceler]

Well now, we seem to be running out of options of what to do about Bush, aren't we? We've replaced him with the most liberal president in history, we gave complete majorities in both houses of Congress to the people who had all the brilliant non-Bush ideas, we even tried a few years of 'bipartisan' Congress, where both parties had some power, but still... all we have is this nagging Bush problem. It seems like the only real option we haven't tried yet, is a full Republican congress and white house.... I think maybe we should try that, and see if we can't fix the Bush problem once and for all!!

Well for starters, Republicans controlled Congress and the WH for most of the last decade.

And second - haven't you been saying for years that Obama has been "just like Bush?" What's all this "most liberal President" stuff?

 

[Jarod]

Anyone here remember when Ann Coulter said that if Romney were the nominee President Obama gets reelected.

 

[NOVA]

But it's Bush's fault...

There you have it.....even though Democrats, since 1/2009, controlled the entire US government for awhile and the presidency
and upper chamber the rest of the time, 4/2012........
Bush is still in control of what happens in Washington DC and is running the nation from a undisclosed location.......:lmao:

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well for starters, Republicans controlled Congress and the WH for most of the last decade.

And second - haven't you been saying for years that Obama has been "just like Bush?" What's all this "most liberal President" stuff?

For a very brief period, a few years ago, your first line was true. The 108th and 109th Congress' were majority Republican in both houses under a Republican president. This would mark the first time such a condition existed since Reconstruction. For nearly a century before the 108th, Democrats held either one or both houses of Congress, and/or the presidency. For many years, Democrats held majorities in both, AND the presidency. Your statement actually stopped being true with the 112th Congress.

Now it was a cute little trick a few years ago when it was true for a hot second, but it's not cute or true anymore. Anyone with more than half a wit, can look up which party has DOMINATED congress over the past century, and it sure as hell ain't the Republican party.

And second... I have never stated Obama was just like Bush. I did make the comment, when he was running for president, that his policies regarding the War on Terror, would be "just like Bush" and it turns out, I was somewhat wrong about that.... Obama actually EXPANDED and EXTENDED Bush's policies, BROADENED the Patriot Act, and never did close Gitmo...Bush always did what he said he was going to do, not the opposite... so Obama turned out to be nothing like Bush, although his policies re: the War on Terror, were equal to or greater than Bush.

 

[NOVA]

No, I did not misspeak.

OK, try to follow along. A person has no money. They go to the government for help. The government gives them money for food, rent, etc.

Following so far?

OK. By what logic and common sense would it make to ask for some of that money back in taxes?

If people did have to pay taxes on welfare the government would give them less money to begin with. I don't understand how can such simple logic can pose a problem for you.

So then you were wrong when you said, "Why does it make any difference from where a person gets money? Income is money coming in. All money should be taxed the same. "


Seems it does matter where the money comes from.....

You can't have it both ways.....

 

[zappasguitar]

For a very brief period, a few years ago, your first line was true. The 108th and 109th Congress' were majority Republican in both houses under a Republican president. This would mark the first time such a condition existed since Reconstruction. For nearly a century before the 108th, Democrats held either one or both houses of Congress, and/or the presidency. For many years, Democrats held majorities in both, AND the presidency. Your statement actually stopped being true with the 112th Congress.

Now it was a cute little trick a few years ago when it was true for a hot second, but it's not cute or true anymore. Anyone with more than half a wit, can look up which party has DOMINATED congress over the past century, and it sure as hell ain't the Republican party.

And second... I have never stated Obama was just like Bush. I did make the comment, when he was running for president, that his policies regarding the War on Terror, would be "just like Bush" and it turns out, I was somewhat wrong about that.... Obama actually EXPANDED and EXTENDED Bush's policies, BROADENED the Patriot Act, and never did close Gitmo...Bush always did what he said he was going to do, not the opposite... so Obama turned out to be nothing like Bush, although his policies re: the War on Terror, were equal to or greater than Bush.

"For a very brief period..."

If the very first words of the post are a lie...why should I continue reading?

It was nearly a decade...but what matters the truth to Dixie if he can spend a paragraph or two ridiculing Liberals.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"For a very brief period..."

If the very first words of the post are a lie...why should I continue reading?

It was nearly a decade...but what matters the truth to Dixie if he can spend a paragraph or two ridiculing Liberals.

Excuse me, Mr. Wizard, but we've had Presidents and Congresses for more than 200 years... I think a decade constitutes "a brief period" in that context. But even though the first words of the post were the truth, you should still not continue reading, because it will prompt you to respond, where you'll just end up looking more stupid and getting your ass PWNED again by me... so by all means, please stop reading!

 

[poet]

For a very brief period, a few years ago, your first line was true. The 108th and 109th Congress' were majority Republican in both houses under a Republican president. This would mark the first time such a condition existed since Reconstruction. For nearly a century before the 108th, Democrats held either one or both houses of Congress, and/or the presidency. For many years, Democrats held majorities in both, AND the presidency. Your statement actually stopped being true with the 112th Congress.

Now it was a cute little trick a few years ago when it was true for a hot second, but it's not cute or true anymore. Anyone with more than half a wit, can look up which party has DOMINATED congress over the past century, and it sure as hell ain't the Republican party.

And second... I have never stated Obama was just like Bush. I did make the comment, when he was running for president, that his policies regarding the War on Terror, would be "just like Bush" and it turns out, I was somewhat wrong about that.... Obama actually EXPANDED and EXTENDED Bush's policies, BROADENED the Patriot Act, and never did close Gitmo...Bush always did what he said he was going to do, not the opposite... so Obama turned out to be nothing like Bush, although his policies re: the War on Terror, were equal to or greater than Bush.

BS. Pure BS.

By most accounts, Bush was the worst president "ever".

 

[Phantasmal]

BS. Pure BS.

By most accounts, Bush was the worst president "ever".

He is the worst I have seen in my life time.

 

[Jarod]

For a very brief period, a few years ago, your first line was true. The 108th and 109th Congress' were majority Republican in both houses under a Republican president. This would mark the first time such a condition existed since Reconstruction. For nearly a century before the 108th, Democrats held either one or both houses of Congress, and/or the presidency. For many years, Democrats held majorities in both, AND the presidency. Your statement actually stopped being true with the 112th Congress.

Now it was a cute little trick a few years ago when it was true for a hot second, but it's not cute or true anymore. Anyone with more than half a wit, can look up which party has DOMINATED congress over the past century, and it sure as hell ain't the Republican party.

And second... I have never stated Obama was just like Bush. I did make the comment, when he was running for president, that his policies regarding the War on Terror, would be "just like Bush" and it turns out, I was somewhat wrong about that.... Obama actually EXPANDED and EXTENDED Bush's policies, BROADENED the Patriot Act, and never did close Gitmo...Bush always did what he said he was going to do, not the opposite... so Obama turned out to be nothing like Bush, although his policies re: the War on Terror, were equal to or greater than Bush.

Like when he said we would not be involved in nation building or when he said he would cut spending?

 

[apple0154]

You're just addressing the welfare recipients, not the 48% who pay no income tax presently.

And why shouldn't welfare recipients have to pay something in? You said all income is the same, and regardless of the situation, a welfare check is income. It's not a "loan" is it? They don't pay it back, do they? Seems to me, the logic and common sense are found in your statement, that all income is the same and should be taxed the same. I would think the people who are getting the most direct benefit from the dollars, would be the ones to want to contribute most. In fairness, shouldn't the ones who are benefiting the most, put something in the game? I'm glad you said you didn't misspeak, because I think that might have been one of the brightest things you've ever said here.

With what are you having difficulty understanding? There is a minimum a person must receive or they qualify for financial assistance. Why would the government give money to such a person and then ask for part of it back? It wouldn't make any sense.

The same idea applies to the 48% who are working. Everyone gets the same minimum deductions. Those who don't pay any income tax don't earn over the minimum deduction level. They have nothing to put in the game. If, as you claim, they are benefiting the most why doesn't everyone work for low wages?

If low wages and welfare are such good deals why don't we see people quitting their jobs?

Again, common sense and logic just glide right past you.

 

[Granule]

"For a very brief period..."

If the very first words of the post are a lie...why should I continue reading?

"If the very first words...."

Why should I continue reading if you don't care enough to comment on his entire paragraph? Clearly, you misunderstood the gist of that message. Generally speaking, Liberals are always bigger liars than Conservatives, Zappa. It's important that you understand this.

 

[apple0154]

Well, what I hope that everyone learned from the Bush administration is, you can't replace them with a slick Democrat Marxist who really has nothing to offer but feel-good platitudes of Hope and Change. Because, when you do that, they end up spending twice as much in half the time, and don't solve any problems. Then, when it comes time for re-election, they run around pointing the finger at Bush, still... as if they have some magic solution they didn't try the first time or something.

I mean really guys, what do you expect people to do here? You continue to point fingers of blame at Bush and Republicans, but you have had the White House and most of Congress for the past 6 years, and you've done nothing to fix ANY of the problems, instead, you've made things worse. Now, you want to bitch and complain about Bush and Republicans and ask people to continue electing you to power, but you have demonstrated you can't solve the problems, all you can do is bitch and moan about Bush. Sorry, but I think most Americans are looking for SOLUTIONS not a continuation of endless Bush-hate and Bush-blame.

Obama has offered solutions but we saw the Repubs constantly blocking him. Look at ObamaCare. While trying to please the Repubs and getting rid of a government option the Repubs still fight against the plan. Obama learned a lesson. Just go ahead with a plan and never mind if the Repubs are on board. That's the hope and change you'll see if Obama wins a majority.

At least be honest about it. Have the Repubs endorsed any Obama plan? Has Obama had the opportunity to implement any specific plan without the Repubs ranting and raving and demandng so many changes? The Repubs demand a number of changes and then blame Obama when the plan doesn't work, a plan that has been altered due to the Repub's demands.

If Obama wins a majority you'll see change. Change made possible without the interference of the Repubs. Then if the plans do not work, then one can blame Obama. Of course, if reality is any judge we know a proper medical plan will be wildly embraced by the citizens just as every other government medical plan has been embraced by the respective citizens, without exception. And, of course, the Repubs are acutely aware of that. They know if/when Obama gets a chance to implement a proper medical plan the idea of a "pay or suffer" medical nightmare scheme will never be tolerated by the citizens again.

You want to see solutions? Let Obama make the necessary changes without Repub interference. Don't judge good plans that are deliberately hijacked by the Repubs and their greedy backers.

Use some common sense and logic. There is not one country with a government medical plan where the citizens are trying to revert to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one country. Not one exception out of dozens. The lies spread by the Republicans regarding government health care have absolutely no basis in reality.