okie
 
  0  
Tue 14 Sep, 2010 04:16 pm
@ican711nm,
plainoldme wrote:
You use outsized type when addressing me again and I will search you down and punch your lights out.

When you wrote to ican the above, is that supposed to be taken as a personal bodily threat? Are you sane, pom?
rabel22
 
  1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 10:43 am
@okie,
pom is sane, but i think that you and Ican are nuts.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 10:45 am
@talk72000,
You Leftist Liberals frequently repeat your falsities!

So we Rightist Liberals frequently repeat truths that rebut your repeated falsities.

Massagato ... ??? Whodat? Whatdat?
JTT
 
  0  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 11:53 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
So we Rightist Liberals


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
JPB
 
  4  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:05 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

You Leftist Liberals frequently repeat your falsities!

So we Rightist Liberals frequently repeat truths that rebut your repeated falsities.

Massagato ... ??? Whodat? Whatdat?


I represent that, thanks!

I've no doubt that you aren't possum (Massagato), ican. That's a bucket some folks try to throw over anyone who fits a certain stereotype.
JPB
 
  2  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 12:06 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

You use outsized type when addressing me again and I will search you down and punch your lights out.


lovely
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 02:30 pm
Quote:
Walter E. Williams for Townhall.com 9/15/10
Liberal Crackup
Charles Krauthammer, in his Washington Post column (8/27/10), said, "Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed," pointing out that overwhelming majorities of Americans have repudiated liberal agenda items such as: Obamacare, Obama's stimulus, building an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero, redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, lax immigration law enforcement and vast expansion of federal power that includes unprecedented debt and deficits.

The nation's elite and the news media see being against the Obama-led agenda as being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, mean-spirited and insensitive. Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, has a different twist expressed in "It's Witch-Hunt Season" (8/29/10). Krugman says that the last time a Democrat sat in the White House, Bill Clinton, he faced a witch-hunt by his political opponents. "Now," Krugman says, "it's happening again -- except that this time it's even worse," asking, "So where is this rage coming from? Why is it flourishing? What will it do to America?"

Professor Krugman and others among America's elite blame some of the rage on talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. They are only partially correct. What talk shows have accomplished is they've ended the isolation of many ordinary Americans. When the liberal mainstream media dominated the airwaves, Americans who were against race and sex quotas were made to feel as though they were racists and sexists. Americans who were against big government were portrayed as mean-spirited and uncaring. What talk radio and the massive expansion in non-traditional media have done is not only end the isolation, but more important, the silence amongst ordinary Americans.

Krugman says that what we're witnessing is "political craziness." Therefore, the overwhelming majority of Americans who think our borders ought to be secure and think we should have the right to determine who enters our country are politically crazy. Americans who can find nothing in the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the power to take over our health care system are politically crazy. Americans who think a mosque should not be built in the shadows of the Muslim-destroyed World Trade Center are simply religious bigots. By the way, those who oppose the building are not saying there's no legal or constitutional right to do so any more than they would say a person has no legal or constitutional right to curse his parents, but neither is a good idea. In Thomas Sowell's column on the topic (8/31/10), he reminds us that "If we all did everything that we have a legal right to do, we could not even survive as individuals, much less as a society."

Krugman predicts that political craziness, and by inference crazy Americans, will result in a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and play chicken with the federal budget. Chicken with the budget is precisely what Defundit.org has called for. Already they've obtained the pledges of 165 congressional candidates not to fund any part of Obamacare.

While America's liberal elite have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision and, as such, differ only in degree but not kind. Both denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are for control and coercion by the state. They believe they have superior wisdom to the masses and they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. They, like any other tyrant, have what they see as good reasons for restricting the freedom of others.

Their agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Free markets imply voluntary exchange. Tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrants think they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning control and regulation.

Why liberalism has become an ugly sight, as Krauthammer claims, is because more and more Americans have wised up to their agenda.

Advocate
 
  1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 04:42 pm
@ican711nm,
Right, Walter Williams will always give you the scoop. I wonder whether he is still on the payroll of the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 05:38 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
When the liberal mainstream media dominated the airwaves,


A big fat lie; has never happened. Though, admittedly, it is a common big fat lie similar to, America invades sovereign nations to save the oppressed.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 05:40 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
vast expansion of federal power that includes unprecedented debt and deficits.


Not keeping up 'cause I really could give a fat ****, but has Obama come anywhere close to the unprecedented debt rung up by Bush and his band of crooks?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:24 pm
@ican711nm,
Everytime I see one of ican's childish posts, this song starts playing in the background:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ul6SVZsy10
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Wed 15 Sep, 2010 07:27 pm
Does anyone know what "idiosy" means?

Is it a square dance call?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 11:02 am
Cyc..., pla..., cic..., par... are continuing to repeat their frivolous falsities,
so I will continue to post my tenacious truths.

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%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 11:23 am
I like this idea that someone here on A2K has already suggested. It is an alternate approach to end the depression that Obama should have adopted and should now adopt.

To end the current depression, Obama should terminate additional Stimulus Tarp, et cetera fed expenditures, and reduce taxes enough to reduce fed revenue in the first two years thereafter an amount equal to what would be the deficit, if additional Stimulus Tarp, et cetera expenditures were continued.

This will of course permit the private sector more money to spend and invest privately. This in turn will of course increase federal revenues after that first two years that would be obtained from the increasing private revenues that would result in the third year and thereafter from the lower tax rates.
talk72000
 
  2  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 11:30 am
@ican711nm,
The Republicans let the fox oversee the hen house. With all the chickens gone the fox is not to blame but the farmer. That is your rationale.
ican711nm
 
  -3  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 04:28 pm
@talk72000,
My response is that Bush caused the depression and Obama is making it far worse.

Bush is to blame for causing it and Obama is to blame for making it far worse.

Quote:
Business Leaders Explain How to Create Jobs: Arthur B. Laffer
Columnist Donald Lambro asked America's major business associations, chief executive officers and top economic analysts to name the three best ways to create jobs and expand the U.S. economy. Here's what economist Arthur B. Laffer had to say:

The United States should move toward a true flat tax where taxes on things such as income, corporations, payroll and Medicaid are eliminated in favor of two flat-rate taxes of 11 percent on business net sales (value added) and personal unadjusted gross income (with some deductions). A true flat tax with a rate of 11 percent would be static revenue positive by about 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and would spur enormous economic growth.

Once a flat tax is put into law, America should also have a federal, state and local tax amnesty program to bring tax cheats into compliance with the new tax codes. It is estimated that such a tax amnesty program would raise a one-time amount of somewhere between $600 billion and $800 billion, and $50 billion annually on an on-going basis.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve should do what needs to be done to return to responsible monetary policy. This entails selling upwards of $1 trillion in Federal Reserve assets to contract bank reserves back to where total reserves are approximately equal to required reserves. Such actions will help ensure a stable value of the dollar going forward.

Tax reform, along with spending restraint, sound money, free trade and a rational regulatory policy would lead to a period of exceptional prosperity and asset appreciation.

Source: Donald Lambro, "Business Leaders Explain How to Create Jobs," Human Events, August 5, 2010.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -4  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 04:32 pm
Talk72000, you continue to repeat your frivolous falsities,
so I will continue to post my tenacious truths.

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%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year.......FEDERAL OUTLAYS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980.......$0.591 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$1.064 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$1,.382 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$1.789 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$2,931 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$3,399 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………FEDERAL DEFICITS
1980.......$0.074 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$0.155 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$0.291 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......SURPLUS $0.236 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$0.410 trillion [BUSH43]
2010........$0.160 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Year………GROSS FEDERAL DEBT
1980.......$0.909 trillion [CARTER]
1988….….$2.601 trillion [REAGAN]
1992........$4.002 trillion [BUSH41]
2000.......$5.629 trillion [CLINTON]
2008.......$9.654 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$10.954 trillion [OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)


talk72000
 
  1  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 04:52 pm
@ican711nm,
You're a broken record and needs to be replaced.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 05:06 pm
This is an interesting article I noticed today. I wonder, did Michelle say it or not, what is the truth? Somehow, I'm not convinced yet that the denial is accurate, but maybe so? I will confess that I think it might not be out of character for her to say something like that, and after all, was it just made up in the Bruni biography book? That seems a little hard to believe.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/life-hell-michelle-obama-reveals-french-lady/

"Maybe life in the White House isn't so bad after all.

First lady Michelle Obama's office and the French Embassy both denied on Thursday that Obama ever told French first lady Carla Bruni that being first lady of the United States is "hell," as reported in an eye-catching excerpt of a new biography of Bruni.
http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/bruni_obama_397x224.jpg

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 16 Sep, 2010 05:35 pm
@okie,
Does it matter?

There's a lot going on all the time, busy busy busy, being the first lady. I'm sure that sometimes it does suck.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1786
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/15/2025 at 01:42:49