Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

Claiming black men are responsible for the actions of white men is yet another sign of a Nazi racist.

By the way ican... you still haven't explained why Clinton is responsible for the 2001 spending but Obama is responsible for the 2009 spending. Do you think Bush was President for only 7 years?

It is only becoming more and more obvious as we collect evidence that okie is a Nazi racist no matter how much he tries to hide it.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I am curious how you think the great depression ended ican. Did it end because the US government stopped spending money?

0 Replies

Polls close in Illinois in about an hour. Republicans and Democrats will be choosing candidates in primaries to face off in November for Governor and for the Senate seat once held by President Obama.
A whole bunch of folks running in total.
Any reporting from there will be appreciated, starting with the weather and projected turnout.
Are they open primaries, or do folks only get a ballot for one or the other parties with which they are registered?
Thank you.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

I read turnout was low due to snow. That was a few hours ago. 33%....eeeek!

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Sadly, Irishk, 33% strikes me as not too bad. Americans tend to be slackers when it comes to voting. Being only a set of primaries, in winter, with a bunch of candidates, 33% may not be bad.
You realize, I hope, that in Illinois some people are so enthusiastic about voting that they do so for years after they are dead.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

You realize, I hope, that in Illinois some people are so enthusiastic about voting that they do so for years after they are dead.

LOL...I do recall hearing that somewhere Smile

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Because they are well organized?

1 Reply

@roger,

You're bad! Laughing

0 Replies

Roosevelt did not end his unemployment depression by having the government GIVE services, products, and commodities to businesses and individuals. Roosevelt began ending his unemployment depression in 1941 by having the government BUY services, products, and commodities from businesses and individuals to defend the USA.

Quote:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 1920 TO 1944
YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE | YEAR….. %RATE |
1920……… 5.2….|1928….…. 4.2…...|1930….…. 8.7…...|1932…… 23.6 ….|1934…... 21.7…...|
1936……… 16.9….|1938….…. 19.0....|1940….…. 14.6....|1942….…. 4.7….|1944….….. 1.2.…|

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

I read it as:
Gov: (D) Pat Quinn vs (R) Kirk Dillard
Sen: (D) Cheryle Jackson vs (R) Mark Kirk

0 Replies

The following is true for the years 1980 through 2009:
Table 1.1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Receipts……$Outlays…$ReceiptsMinusOutlays
…
1980….517,112,000….590,941,000…..- 73,830,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981….599,272,000….678,241,,000…..- 78,968,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982….617,766,000….745,743,000….- 127,977,000
1983….600,562,000….808,364,000….- 207,802,000
1984….666,486,000….851,853,000….- 185,367,000
1985….734,068,000….946,396,000….- 212,308,000
1986….769,215,000….990,441,000….- 221,227,000
1987….854,353,000….1,004,083,000….- 149,730,000
1988….909,303,000….1,064,481,000….- 155,178,000
1989….991,190,000….1,143,829,000….- 152,639,000 [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1990..1,032,094,000..1,253,130,000….- 221,036,000
1991..1,055,093,000..1,324,331,000….- 269,238,000
1992..1,091,328,000..1,381,649,000….- 290,321,000
1993..1,154,471,000..1,409,522,000….- 255,051,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..1,258,721,000..1,461,907,000….- 203,186,000
1995..1,351,932,000..1,515,894,000….- 163,952,000
1996..1,453,177,000..1,560,608,000….- 107,431,000
1997..1,579,423,000..1,601,307,000…..- 21,884,000
1998..1,721,955,000..1,652,685,000….+ 69,270,000
1999..1,827,645,000..1,702,035,000…+ 125,610,000
2000..2,025,457,000..1,789,216,000…+ 236,241,000
2001..1,991,426,000..1,863,190,000…+128,236,000 [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002..1,853,395,000..2,011,153,000…- 157,758,000
2003..1,782,532,000..2,160,117,000…- 377,585,000
2004..1,880,279,000..2,293,006,000…- 412,727,000
2005..2,153,859,000..2,472,205,000…- 318,346,000
2006..2,407,254,000..2,655,435,000…- 248,181,000
2007..2,568,239,000..2,730,241,000…- 162,002,000
2008..2,521,175,000..2,931,222,000…- 410,047,000
2009..2,699,547,000..3,107,355,000…- 407,408,000 [OBAMA 2009 - ?]

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year................USA Civil Population......USA Total Civil Employed
1980...................... 167,745,000.................99,302,000 [CARTER 1977-1981]
1981...................... 170,130,000………….....100,397,000 [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1982..................... 172,271,000.................99,526,000
1983..................... 174,215,000...............100,834,000
1984..................... 176,383,000...............105,005,000
1985..................... 178,206,000………........107,150,000
1986..................... 180,587,000...............109,597,000
1987..................... 182,753,000...............112,440,000
1988..................... 184,613,000...............114,968,000
1989..................... 186,393,000...............117,342,000 [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1990..................... 189,164,000...............118,793,000
1991..................... 190,925,000...............117,718,000
1992..................... 192,805,000…….….......118,492,000
1993..................... 194,838,000...............120,259,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..................... 196,814,000...............123,060,000
1995..................... 198,584,000………….....124,900,000
1996..................... 200,591,000...............126,708,000
1997..................... 203,133,000………….....129,558,000
1998...................... 205,220,000...............131,463,000
1999..................... 207,753,000...............133,488,000
2000..................... 212,577,000...............136,891,000
2001..................... 215,092,000………………136,933,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]
2002...................... 217,570,000...............136,485,000
2003..................... 221,168,000...............137,730,006
2004..................... 223,357,000...............139,252,000
2005..................... 226,082,000………….....141,730,000
2006...................... 228,815,000……..........144,427,000
2007..................... 231,867,000...............146,047,000
2008..................... 233,788,000...............145,362,000
2009..................... 235,810,000...............139,959,000 [OBAMA 2009 - ?]

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Total USA jobs increased by more than one million from December 2006 to December 2007.
Total USA jobs decreased by almost three million from December 2007 to December 2008.
Total USA jobs decreased by more than five million from December 2008 to December 2009.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Receipts…....…$Increase
1981….599,272,000... -----------------
1989….991,190,000 ... 391,918,000 [Reagan 1981 to 1989]
1993..1,154,471,000... 163,281,000 [Bush41 1989 to 1993]
2001..1,991,426,000... 836,955,000 [Clinton 1993 to 2001]
2009..2,699,547,000... 708,121,000 [Bush43 2001 to 2009]

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year.............Total Civil Employed.......Increase
1981.................. 100,397,000........... ----------------
1989................. 117,342,000.......... 16,945,000[REAGAN 1981 - 1989]
1993................. 120,259,000........... 2,917,000 [BUSH41 1989-1993]
2001................ 136,933,000........... 16,674,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2009................ 139,959,000............ 3,026,000 [BUSH43 2001-2009]

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're relying on unsourced allegations made during the HUAC hearings, in order to damn someone as a socialist? And then to attack Obama with it?

Unsourced allegations? Nonsense and you know it. Unless you would consider Obama's own admissions about his church or about Frank Marshall Davis, for example. Some of you guys arguments are frankly bizarre. If I said the sun came up in the morning, you would call it unsourced evidence, that is if it exposed your politics or Obama's politics for what they are. You cannot and will not be honest about your political affections, and you will always defend Obama, no matter how overwhelming the evidence is.

Quote:

What a ******* joke. Every piece of 'evidence' that you have brought up is either hearsay or circumstancial. None of Obama's actual actions match the rhetoric you provide, at all. How long are you going to keep pretending that this resembles an actual argument in any way?

So Obama having the childhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, that hearsay? And listening to Jeremiah Wright and attending the church is hearsay? And Black Liberation Theology is hearsay? And beginning his political career in Ayers home is hearsay? And community organizing by following Saul Alinsky's teachings is hearsay?

You are either very very dishonest, or you do not reside in reality, cyclops. I rather believe you are being dishonest in this discussion. If you are so proud of Marxism, what is your problem anyway? Stand up and be counted.

Quote:

Should I remind you that the Bush family had extensive dealings with Nazi Germany - and therefore the Bushies are clearly Nazis or had fascist sympathies? By your logic, you would have to agree that this is true.

Cycl0ptichorn

What a crock, cyclops! You are apparently referring to some vague financial connection that Bush's grandfather may have had with business ventures that did business with German businesses before the war. And of course it apparently means nothing to you that Bush's father flew many combat missions and was shot down while involved in fighting the Nazis, and could very well have lost his life, but as I said, this doesn't mean anything to you, you will instead make some bizarre accusation, in an effort to defend Obama. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, you are really going for it these days. To compare that to Obama's assoiciations is utterly and completely nonsensical, which is what your posts are becoming most of the time anymore.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

But you are associated with ican who has been publicly identified as a Nazi racist....
B y the way the HUAC also called Reagan to testify about his association with Communists. I guess that proves Reagan was a Commie.

You are a liar, Parados. Hows that for not sugarcoating anything anymore. And everything I have said about Obama's relationships are true, they have been thoroughly and well documented.

1 Reply

I have about concluded that you cannot reason with leftists and radicals. They must be defeated at the ballot box, and that starts with the elections later this year. We need conservative, reasonable, and sensible Americans that love this country, that promise to govern with common sense rather than leftist and radical policies, and the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts serves notice that we can be successful this coming fall. And then in 2012, we can return another radical to his home ground, to get a different job, maybe do more community organizing in Chicago. We need responsible politicians in Washington, that believe in liberty, freedom, and capitalism.

0 Replies

In my points of evidence about Obama's Marxist ties, I forgot this important one, his membership in the "New Party, which I had almost forgotten, but that one is a very crucial dot in the connection of dots, it is real and it is very significant, it tells us alot about Obama after he began his political career. Again, this is not hearsay, this has been documented, and it is factual. This is not what somebody else said about Obama, it is what Obama did.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/obama-socialist.html

"OBAMA,"NEW PARTY MEMBER" AND DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST ASSOCIATION
The New Party, ACORN, and the Arab American Action Network are not by any stretch of the imagination mainstream political or social organizations. They are radical anti-capitalist, pro-Marxist, and in the case of the AAAN a group supporting the terrorist activities of the Palestinians. The New Party is an unabashed Marxist "fusion" party from which Barack Obama actively sought out and received an endorsement for his state senate candidacy. [1]

Four political candidates were "there" seeking NP support. Barack Obama won the 1996 election, by using legal technicalities to get all his opponents disqualified-but he still used New Party volunteers in his campaign. [2]

Obama sought the New Party endorsement, which required him to sign a contract that he would keep up his relationship with the New Party. "

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

okie,
you are rapidly becoming a one trick pony.
Obama is not by any stretch a marxist, nor would I say he is a radical.
Yes, he does have some radical ideas, but every President did.

As for no experience, can you name any first term President that had previous experience running the country?
And even those that moved up from VP didnt have the "big chair" experience that you seem to think Obama should have.

Hey mysteryman, what do you have to say about what I have just posted about Obama being a member of the "New Party," when running for State Senate. Read the above post, then tell me that I am a one trick pony if you want, but I think you need to face up to whether what I am saying is true. Face it, mm, we all need to face it, in terms of who Obama is at his core. I am trying to wake people up. Enough people did not wake up before he was elected, but it is crucial that enough people wake up now and soon. And if conservatives like you do not, we are in trouble. I respect your opinions, and I think when confronted with serious facts, you will rise to the occasion and face the reality of it. How about it?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know