114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:08 pm
@okie,
From most people's reading of your posts, that's the same conclusion most of us has of you; you hate the US and the Constitution. You think your opinion matters when it comes to our Constitution and our laws; it doesn't. What matters is that there is no evidence of wrong-doing by our president that meets the level of impeachment or not living by the Constitution - that he swore to uphold in office at his inaugural.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:09 pm
@okie,
Quote:
n apology or you can shut up, pom. I am sick of your insults. If you have no better intellect than accusing others of racism, you are one pathetic individual, and I mean that. And what you just said about Sarah Palin is not flattering of you as a person, pom.


Apparently, the truth hurts you. Apology??? What apology! Why should I become a hypocrite?

Let's face it, the KKK represents conservatism just as the Tea Party and the John Birch Society does.

What did I just say about palin? That she's potty. She is! She is a horrible manipulator, a liar, a dumb bell and she isn't playing with a full deck.

In case you missed it, potty was a pun on dotty as well as a pun on Tea Pot.

I am ashamed that palin is an American woman.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:12 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
What I have said is that there is too much government interference or regulation, so again you purposely mis-represent or lie about what I think.


Same meaning; where's the mis-representation? And yet, you want to impose your interpretation of what that means?
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:13 pm
@okie,
You wrote:
Quote:
Do you not believe that zoning is appropriate or common?


When have I ever implied such a thing? Please cut and paste directly from any of my post, and show it here.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:14 pm
@okie,
I am not reading your tripe. You can not read beyond the fifth grade level, so why should anyone take you seriously.

You also never proved anything. In fact, you have no idea how to prove a position.

I cut and pasted your inane remarks which you denied.

To apologize to you would be to lie.

Did you notice when you were pumping me about my divorce because you are an effeminate curious little git, you said horrid things about me and I didn't ask for an apology.

You are obstinate and stupid. And I am laughing.


0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:14 pm
@plainoldme,
Yes, an apology would be appropriate for you, for all that you have thrown out without one iota of evidence.

The KKK does not represent conservatism like the Tea Party, that is silly. In fact, if you care to find one of the most prominent KKKers in Congress of late, it was Robert Byrd, a Democrat, pom.

Palin is a true American. She puts you to shame, pom, and you should be hanging your head in shame for throwing out insults at her. In regard to lying, you are the liar, as proven right here on A2K, as I have pointed out your lies about what I have said here. If you had an ounce of honor and decency, you would apologize for throwing out false accusations here.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
What I have said is that there is too much government interference or regulation, so again you purposely mis-represent or lie about what I think.


Same meaning; where's the mis-representation? And yet, you want to impose your interpretation of what that means?

Same meaning? You said: "he believes in capitalism without government interference" Do you have any logic at all? Too much interference is the same as any at all? Are you sane, ci? It would have been accurate if you had said "he believes in capitalism without too much government interference." That would be accurate. And you tell me there is no difference between your statement and the correct one, it really makes me wonder about your intelligence or reasoning power, or are you purposely lying about what I say here? I am beginning to think that is a real possiblity, because anyone with any sense at all could read with some comprehension I think.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:20 pm
@okie,
A-HOLE! DEMOCRATS ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONSERVATIVE AND ROBERT BYRD CHANGED HIS MIND COMPLETELY. He grew up and you haven't. Reading your posts reminds me of voices from the playground. You are permanently stuck in fifth grade, in terms of your social skills, reading level and general comprehension.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:20 pm
@okie,
Yes, I'm sane. When you advocate for laissez faire in capitalism (too much government regulations), then deny land owners to build what they wish, you have contradicted yourself. You want to add specific regulation to one group that doesn't apply to other groups.

Simple contradiction.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:21 pm
@plainoldme,
I never belonged to the KKK and never will.

How about you growing up, pom, is that ever going to happen?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:22 pm
@okie,
I don't care that palin only married her husband because she had a bun in her oven -- her oldest son whom she shunted off to the military because he committed arson -- but that she was hypocritical about being pregnant. Save her parents the expense of a wedding indeed. How immature.

That woman only got through college on one night A's.

Glad you admire her! She suits you.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I'm sane. When you advocate for laissez faire in capitalism (too much government regulations), then deny land owners to build what they wish, you have contradicted yourself. You want to add specific regulation to one group that doesn't apply to other groups.

Simple contradiction.

No I have not contradicted myself, you goofball. How many times have I pointed out that you cannot build anything anywhere in this country. There is something called zoning regulations virtually everywhere in this country. Do you want to allow a Walmart next to your house? If they own the land, why not?

I ask again, are you sane? Can you debate an issue intelligently?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:24 pm
@okie,
We're talking about NYC; that's been the topic of most discussions for the past month on a2k.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:26 pm
@okie,
Zoning regulations are not the issue.

I would think since the families who lost loved ones in 911 approve the mosque that you would cease and desist, clamp your pie hole, shut up about it.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:29 pm
@plainoldme,
Zoning is a big part of the issue, most definitely. That fact should be self evident.

Look, if New York City decides its okay according to their zoning, then go ahead, but that does not force me to agree with their decisions if I were in their position to make that same decision, okay.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:41 pm
Quote:
Posted by Joshua Holland at 11:31 am
August 16, 2010
comments35 COMMENTS
Media Repeat Unsubstantiated Claim that 9/11 Families Oppose Muslim Community Center
Posted by Joshua Holland on @ 11:31 am
Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/08/16/media-repeat-unsubstantiated-claim-that-911-families-oppose-muslim-community-center/

I’ve read so many straight news stories claiming that families of 9/11 victims oppose the Park51 project (formerly Cordoba House), that I’d come to accept it as fact, at least to a degree. I figured that some of the 9/11 survivor groups had come out against the project and reporters were just too lazy to point out that those groups in no way represented “9/11 families,” whose opinions on the matter is presumably quite diverse.

I didn’t give it much more thought because it’s not relevant. Victims of violent crime are entitled to irrational, emotional responses to things like this. The rest of us aren’t.

But today Josh Marshall points out that there’s no evidence to support the claim in the first place.

…as evidence of [9/11 families'] opposition you’ll frequently see quotes from a woman named Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot aboard the plane flown into the Pentagon on 9/11…

Marshall states the obvious: Burlingame has every right to her opinion.

That is not the same, however, as turning a blind eye when lazy journalists present her as representing or even being representative of the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks. The most cursory googling shows that she’s been advocating a string of right-wing positions going back over the last decade. Indeed, she’s the cofounder with Liz Cheney of Keeping America Safe.

Also very worth noting is that none of the 9/11 Families groups who actually seem to be membership organizations made up of families of the victims seem to have taken positions on the mosque issue at all. I looked at the websites of several such organizations. And they each contain ‘about’ pages with some information about the organization, its membership and in most cases boards of directors. The website of Burlingame’s group, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, contains no such information. But it’s [sic] statement of purpose does give some sense of viewpoint: “The war against sharia is a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.”

Is it just me, or there something kind of perverse about astro-turfing the survivors of 9/11 victims?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Sep, 2010 08:42 pm
@okie,
You live about 1,500 miles from NYC. You know no one there, at least not personally. You hated it because it was full of museums, libraries, symphony orchestras and fine dining restaurants and have vowed you would never return.

So, why do you care about something that many residences of the place, that love it and refuse to live anywhere else approve of?

Don't you know when you opinion doesn't matter?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 08:47 am
@parados,
WE MUST:
1. Impeach and remove presidents who do not comply with their oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution?
parados posted:
1. No because the Constitution does not list that as reason for impeachment.

Failure of the President to comply with his oath of office is a "high crime and misdemeaner."
Quote:

Article II.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


2. Limit Congress's powers to tax to those powers granted it by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8;
parados posted:
2. No because the power to tax is NOT only in Art 1 Section 8.

The power to tax for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is granted the federal government only in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. No where in the Constitution, not even in Article I, Section 8, is the federal government granted the power to tax for the purpose of transfering wealth from those who earned it to those who have not earned it.

3. Continue the 2010 tax system until a simpler flatter and fairer tax can be adopted;
parados posted:
3. No because the GOP passed a bill already that was signed by a GOP President.

The GOP President did not sign a bill that continued the 2010 tax system beyond 2010 until a simpler flatter and fairer tax can be adopted.

4. Rescind these federal expenditures
--Fanny & Freddie Mae
--Tarp and Stimulus
--Obama Healthcare
--Ear marks;
parados posted:
4. Since you are listing items that aren't expenditures, I don't agree because you make no sense ican.

These items are costing the federal government some of its revenue. Consequently, these items are expenditures.

5. Close USA's borders to illegal immigration;
parados posted:
5. Obama has done more than GW Bush did. How do you propose to close them ican so that NO illegals can get across? It can't be done.

Obama has not done enough! In fact he has restricted more being done. He has filed a lawsuit against the government of Arizona to prevent it from arresting immigrants discovered to be illegal immigrants when they are detected to have violated other laws. So all Obama has to do is drop that lawsuit so that Arizona and all the governments of all the other states can do what the government of Arizona wants to do.

6. Permit drilling for oil off shore and in 19 hundred of the 19 million acres of ANWR.
parados posted:
6. No.

Yes, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

7. Before submitting any bill for the president to sign, Congress shall specify wherein the Constitution Congress is granted the power to pass that bill;
parados posted:
7. No that violates the Constitution

Yes it would violate the Constitution, if not done AFTER the Constitution is amended to permit it to be done.

8. Replace these federal expenditures with tax exemptions
--Medicare
--Medicare
--retirement insurance
parados posted:
8. That doesn't even make sense ican?
How do you propose to turn SS into a tax exemption?

Allow anyone who chooses to keep what he or she is currently having deducted from his income to pay for these things, and buy them instead from private insurers or savings plans, while deducting their cost from his personal income tax.

9. Prohibit Congress from passing any law that
--requires a person to join a union in order to obtain any job
--denies employees in any shop secret ballots to vote in union elections;
parados posted:
9. Again you violate the Constitution ican.

Yes it would violate the Constitution, if not done AFTER the Constitution is amended to permit it to be done.

10. Prohibit federal expenditures from exceeding federal revenues without the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures.
parados posted:
10 That violated the Constitution ican

Yes it would violate the Constitution, if not done AFTER the Constitution is amended to permit it to be done.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 12:36 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
Failure of the President to comply with his oath of office is a "high crime and misdemeaner."

Says you but you have provided ZERO evidence to support it.

1. You have provided no evidence that would survive scrutiny that Obama has failed to comply with his oath of office.
2. You have provided no evidence that failure to comply with the oath is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Quote:
The power to tax for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is granted the federal government only in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. No where in the Constitution, not even in Article I, Section 8, is the federal government granted the power to tax for the purpose of transfering wealth from those who earned it to those who have not earned it.
And you completely ignore the meaning of "general welfare" as defined by the Courts. Your argument is meaningless from a legal standpoint ican. The courts would laugh at you ican. You don't get to decide what is necessary for the "general welfare". Congress does. They decided and it stands legally as contributing to the "general welfare". You can whine and act like an idiot but it doesn't give your argument any weight. It only shows you are an idiot.

Quote:
The GOP President did not sign a bill that continued the 2010 tax system beyond 2010 until a simpler flatter and fairer tax can be adopted.
Gee.. that is why the 2010 tax system won't continue into 2011. It was Bush that signed the bill that didn't continue the 2010 tax system into 2o11.

Quote:
Obama has not done enough!
Yeah.. he's done more than any other president but you just hate him to much to give him any credit. You are a moron ican.

Quote:
Yes, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It won't do squat to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. If that was your issue ican then push for a 55mph speed limit. It will do a lot more to reduce our dependence and a lot quicker than drilling in Anwar will. But you are lying about what the real issue is here aren't you ican. It's what disciples of Saul Alinsky do, isn't it?

Quote:
Yes it would violate the Constitution, if not done AFTER the Constitution is amended to permit it to be done.
Oh, you were hiding the issue again?


Quote:
Allow anyone who chooses to keep what he or she is currently having deducted from his income to pay for these things, and buy them instead from private insurers or savings plans, while deducting their cost from his personal income tax.

What? How many people pay more in income tax than the receive in SS benefits ican? Again, you are a complete moron.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 12:39 pm
@okie,
Quote:
How many times has he accused me of hating the constitution? How many asinine insults do I have to sit here and take?

Are you having problems actually disputing what I say okie?

Why don't you whine some more about how Obama is a Marxist and how marxists hate America and then tell us you never said Obama hates America.

You are a lying piece of dung okie. If you don't like it being pointed out then maybe you should stop being a lying piece of dung.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 08:19:56