We all know that Pres. Obama was born on Krypton.
Seriously, it's results that count. My take: so far, so good.
Printable View
We all know that Pres. Obama was born on Krypton.
Seriously, it's results that count. My take: so far, so good.
Human greed and desire for wealth and power is too strong to allow capitalism to go insufficiently regulated. The widening income inequality and consumer abuses over the past decade point to the need for more government involvement, not less.
[QUOTE=Esten]Human greed and desire for wealth and power is too strong to allow capitalism to go insufficiently regulated. The widening income inequality and consumer abuses over the past decade point to the need for more government involvement, not less.[/QUOTE]Nobody is going to disagree with your first statement.
About your second one, are you talking about the U. S.? If so, after the last election, now that the plaintiff's bar controls the national government, what's the problem? The biggest consumer abusers in the U. S. are lawyers, not capitalists. Examples from the present and past: private planes, silicone breast implants, hurricane insurance, and obstetricians. These products or individuals from time to time have been high-priced, unavailable, in short supply, or driven out of business in the U. S. because of the lawyers, like the ones who today control the Democratic Party.
As to the widening income inequality and government involvement, that's something that Tmontana and Sidney have replied to below much more articulately than I ever could. It sounds like you want government to level the playing field, via socialism or communism. That's a recipe for stagnation.
Gee, one mention of favoring more government involvement and I'm accused of possibly supporting communism. That's pretty funny!
[QUOTE=Esten]Gee, one mention of favoring more government involvement and I'm accused of possibly supporting communism. That's pretty funny![/QUOTE]Agreed. In the last two weeks I got screwed by a lawyer and had to pay estimated taxes, so I took it out on you.
Sorry to hear that. And I agree with you, the legal system in the US is in serious need of reform on many levels (abuse, costs, fairness, etc). That's another example of increased government involvement I would support (by involvement I don't necessarily mean ownership; in this case more regulation, policy change and enforcement). The issues here are too big and deep for anyone but the government to effectively tackle it, and then it would not be easy by any means. Unfortunately I do not see it on the horizon.
I hate to say it and I may be dead wrong, but we may be witnessing history. Obama may be, in front of our eyes, evolving into a President less effective than the infamous Jimmy 'shit for brains' Carter.
A few observations.
1) Advocating the stunningly stupid plan of raising taxes to spur an economic recovery.
2) Sounding like a third grade retard whenever the telepromptor is off.
3) Refusing to support the worldīs condemnation of Iran's phoney election, but immediately supporting Chavez's corrupt buddy in Hondoras.
4) And my favorite, falling for the man made global warming nonsense when even a one celled amoeba can tell there is no science to support it.
I heard on the radio last week that his approval rating was still at 60 percent?
If you have something other than from the conservative tabloids (newsmax) please post it.
'Less effective that Jimmy Carter'
Sshyeah. I guess some areas may not be hit like an atomic explosion by the recovery package. I do not mean by jobs created or lost, but driving anywhere in the USA to witness the massive, efficient construction projects going on and can not help but wonder.
Or to see the repair work occuring for the USA's image from the Chicago Olympic Bid to the current Russia meeting to the G8 summit and meeting with Hugo Chavez.
Passing the Public Health insurance option will not occur without a seismic, permanent shift. No pain, no gain on that one but 1/6 of the American economy reformed.
I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)
I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.
Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and/or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.
By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".
However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".
They're just wrong.
Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.
There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.
Thanks,
Jackson
This type of retoric will continue till the US wakes up and recognizes that they really FU*KED Up when they elected the most popular university professor as the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. I'm hoping that we're currently on a three year glide path to getting rid of this clown. That said, in no way be surprised at anything this wild-ass liberal, inexperienced clown says in the next three years. Like the iceburg, 80% of this idiot is hidden below the surface. Stay tuned for more crazy statements from "Abomination". I'm guessing in the end most of his legacy will be easily un-done once he's gone. Viva la difference! Given enough rope he will soon be swinging from the gallows. Patience is the key to understanding. This soon will pass.
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
[QUOTE=Jackson]However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".[/QUOTE]Well, what our President is doing to my country is scaring the hell out of me. Does that fall within the Liberal definition of torture.
We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.
[QUOTE=Jackson]I agree with Colonel Bud Day (Medal of Honor recipient)
I believe that the definition of torture is the infliction of physical pain.
Scaring the hell out of a subject by simulating drowning and / or using other enhanced interrogation techniques may be distasteful to the recipient and to the squeamish amongst you, but it is not physical pain.
By this definition, the USA is not a "torture nation".
However, by the liberal's definition, tickling somebody with a feather is torture, which permits them to endlessly decry our country as a "torture nation".
They're just wrong.
Wake up people. We're in a war. Our enemies have vowed to destroy us.
There's only one thing you can do with a rabid dog.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Daddy, I am always amused when the liberals like to trot out the Geneva Convention. I am at a loss to understand how the current conflict (or past conflicts for that matter) have "rules". "Rules" we must follow but permit the opponent to ignore. I can assure you the people who gathered in a very civilized, secure, and peaceful venue to sign the convention had no idea what WAR is really about, as it is easy to impose "rules" on others when you are not the one doing the fighting. I would suppose under the Geneva Convention, such liberal blathering would be considered "torture" of conservatives.
The Geneva Convention, according to the Wikipedia summary "require[s] the ratifying parties to repress grave breaches of the conventions." Of course, that leaves somewhat open to interpretation of how far one can go before it's considered "real" (grave) torture prohibited by the convention.
As well, as the Wikipedia states, "Nearly all 200 countries of the world are 'signatory' nations, in that they have ratified these conventions." In addition, the Convention calls for prohibition against "taking of hostages; extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" and so on. But how many countries that we have problems with follow those rules either?
I am on the fence. I like the idea, as an ideal, that we should not "lower ourselves" to their level. But I also think that if there were truly need to do such things as waterboarding to get information that would save innocent and / or military lives, that it needs to be considered.
I would never be comfortable with "real" life-damaging or body-damaging torture, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for any jackass with his extreme views AND actions being a bit mentally perturbed in the act of trying to weed out the human garbage that he and his buddies represent.
I also know that the government is very hard to stop - that if something gets going it's too easy for the lines to get blurred. Humans all up and down the chain give it a certainty of something happening that takes things too far.
Ain't nothing black and white.
I say we do one of these sign and trade deals like the NBA. We can take Obama and cap n trade him for Chavez and still come in under the salary cap. Even Chavez can't possibly spend as recklessly as Obama and Nancy "Marsh Mouse" Pelosi. Plus, Chavez is Latino, a better bowler than Obama and likely has a better three point shot while liquored up. Doesn't smoke the cheap stuff either. Plus his girlfriends aren't ugly, mean spirited, racist transvestite looking drill sergeants with a landing strip.
In addition, the First Lady (who wasted half a mil on a date night to fricking NYC of all places) could probably be included in the deal and shipped to the WNBA to replace Lisa Leslie as the chic fashion plate that can no longer score at any level. Sarkozy's wife is WAY hotter anyway.
If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Daddy, I am always amused when the liberals like to trot out the Geneva Convention. I am at a loss to understand how the current conflict (or past conflicts for that matter) have "rules". "Rules" we must follow but permit the opponent to ignore. I can assure you the people who gathered in a very civilized, secure, and peaceful venue to sign the convention had no idea what WAR is really about, as it is easy to impose "rules" on others when you are not the one doing the fighting. I would suppose under the Geneva Convention, such liberal blathering would be considered "torture" of conservatives.[/QUOTE]I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. I am further amused when you express outrage when the hajis do something that causes great loss of life against us. After all there are no rules right?
To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.
Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.
I'm liberal leaning but certainly not a "bleeding heart" as I have been called over and over again by folks here. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.
As long as we are member nations then no we shouldn't use it, if we choose to remove ourselves from these agreements that would be a different story. Then I would have to decide if this is still the country that shares my values or not but at least as a nation we would regain our integrity.
As always though I respect your right to believe as you do, while engaging in spirited debate, not suggesting that you are un american for advocating an anarchist position that clearly is in violation of our laws.
[QUOTE=El Alamo]If Mrs Obama wants a date night, she should go back and see her husbands hometown in Kenya, where he was born.[/QUOTE]Perhaps they can have a candlelight dinner in her brother in law's shanty?
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."[/QUOTE]Hi,
I offered my definition of torture.
This is another definition.
Undoubtedly there are hundreds of other definitions, but that's my point. It's all in the specific individual's definition of torture.
A couple of other observations:
1. I don't believe that Al Queda or the Taliban are signatories to the Geneva convention, so I would question their legitimacy to claim any rights thereunder.
2. It seems to me that every police interrogation of a criminal suspect would qualify as torture under the Geneva Convention, given that these interrogations many time include threats of imprisonment which one could interpret as fitting this definition:
[quote]...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or [i]mental[/i], is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person [i]information or a confession[/i], punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed..."[/quote]What say you?
Thanks,
Jackson
Let's get a couple things straight:
1. If you want to live in freedom, you must keep the anti-freedom forces (whatever they may be) away from the people.
2. To accomplish (1) above, there must be a few dedicated folks at the pointy end of the spear who do that which is necessary to perpetuate the free way of life.
3. Those select few who are described in (2) above, and their specific actions will be second-guessed and vilified by some of the very people on whose behalf they act.
4. Those who chose to vilify and attack those who act legitimately to keep us safe, live in a cocoon protecting an altered state of being, having convinced themselves of "truisms" that cannot exist in the real world such as 1) Elvis was clean and sober at the time of his death, 2) the moon is made of cheese, and 3) we can live happily ever after without the need for an occasional question and answer session (facilitated with a cattle prod)
With all due respect, your ramblings need some investigation. This is not meant as a personal attack, think of it as an intervention whereby you might actually be saved. There is absolutely nothing in my comments that is "right wing" or "conservative." Just simple facts.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I am always amused when neocons like you are amused at liberals when we remind you that we are in violation of agreements that we as a country have signed. To me it's simple, we (USA) signed it, as signaturies (sp) and supposed good guys we should honor it. If we feel as a country these rules we agreed to are no longer useful or valid than before we break them we should announce our departure from them.[/QUOTE]Your amusement aside, please state factual references to specific US violations of the GC. You want to believe how terrible we are. Unfortunately, the truth is, we just aren't that bad (sorry to disappoint you)
[quote]Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective[/QUOTE]That is a feel-good, bullshit line created to give people a back-up reason for being against torture. The people who trot out this line have never come remotely close to the actual process nor have they ever looked first hand and the fruits of 'enhanced' interrogations. It works, trust me. I support deriving any and all information from potential non-US-citizen terror suspects. I also support the judicious remediation of terror problems with extreme prejudice.
[quote] I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.[/quote]
Very logical, we are above lawlessness and we do adhere to our international and internal commitments on behavior. However, you need to understand that we are the boy scouts in this world of interrogations. If you we to get caught and interrogated, trust me, you want to be in US hands.
[quote]Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless[/QUOTE]Again, you are making a statement on the basis of what you hope / wish is the truth. You are mistaken.
[quote]it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial[/quote]
If it were not for the fact that no one (other than whacked-out lefties) would take you seriously on this subject, this non sequitur would be one of the most egregious statements I have ever read on AP. Your statement is careless and erroneous. Please feel free to make specific quotations of "Bushies" on the record statements visa vi their feelings about punishing rag heads under extrajudicial circumstances and processes.
[quote] As always though I respect your right to believe as you do[/QUOTE]I share your sentiment and I believe that your contributions to this board on other subjects, such as Argie pussy, are a much better use of your time.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Personally I oppose torture on two key points, most of the reading I have done tells me that except in very limited cases it's not effective, and two I feel (not logical I know) that my country really is a better country and we should be above it.
. Torture works as a tactical tool, IE. You catch some guy and he and his playmates are about to commit some gross act of violence and you need IMMEDIATE information to not only save military life but the lives of non-combatants then giving him some emergency dental work or better yet giving emergency surgury to somebody while he watches most likely will give you info that you need. However as a stratigic tool it's generally worthless, it made the Bushies FEEL better that we were punishing the rag heads without benefit of trial, but as far as useful info not so much. In any event the point is moot, we signed the agreement and we are in violation for breaking it simple as that.[/QUOTE]Hey man, I'm really not far right and certainly waver at the use of torture just because I don't trust government - any government.
But I have to agree with others here that those who are saying torture is not effective may not have all of the facts, or are ignoring something. I say this as an opinion, because I don't have all the facts either.
The thing is, just using common sense, you can get a pretty good idea of the truth of statements because you have a very large pool of information sources to verify it. I write business applications, so I know something about information sampling. If you had one or two or maybe even ten prisoners and you tortured them, you might get two different possible threats out of them - one or two guys knew something and of the others one or two maybe knew a little something about it, but they weren't tied to that so the information didn't exactly match up. Not enough sampling to make a decision.
However, take hundreds of prisoners who are researched and matched throughout world criminal databases to see the relationships and probabilities between them, you can pinpoint your smapling much sharper and produce verifiable results that will be reasonably accurate. You'll have some errors too. But the results are going to be successful. The numbers say so.
What would really matter, if you got past the means of extracting the information, is what you do with it.
Now, I'm still not condoning real physical, damaging torture. But I also don't think that's necessary. Tell me that locking someone away in a US prison doesn't cause a person some mental anguish and by that definition too strictly we torture our own inmates.
But waterboarding, seeing each other naked or in front of women, wearing underwear on their head or whatever, if not taken overboard, could be a reasonable means for retrieving information that could save a lot of lives. The slippery slope is where I have the most trouble.
[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]We (USA USA USA) signed this agreement.
"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
Taking nothing from Bud Day of course, but this is the legal definition we (USA USA USA) accepted when we signed this agreement. However as a tolerant liberal I of course advocate you having the right to believe as you do.[/QUOTE]Omar Sheriff asking Dustin Hoffmann Ļif it's safe Ļin a great movie called The Marathon Man!
Looks painful to me.
A little water torture never hurt anybody!
Those [strike]little sand rats[/strike] distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water!
Strap me in and I won't sing!
Bull-shit!
Show me the gurney and I'm all about names and adresses baby!
I have already done it in the states. They did not give a shit about my info! Damnit!
If my info will not cause the death and demise of the U. S. A. I mean a (of a great country then who cares?)
My balls are going to stay firmly attached. Daddy First and Fuck the rest!
TL.
P. S - I do have a Purple Heart for some reason!
Are you refering to Arabs?
If so, I find your comments offensive. I am sure there are many Arab and Arab Americans on this website.
Try to keep your racism off this public forum.
Regards,
BM.[QUOTE=TejanoLibre]Those little sand rats are just allergic to water![/QUOTE]Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.
[QUOTE=BadMan]Jackson, maybe it would be wise to edit this.[/QUOTE]Jax, if you would be so kind as to place quotation marks around "rag heads" in my last post. I was not making a slur, I was repeating the slur in my post to make a point (which is not well made without the quotation marks)
I have many friends from places such as Lebanon, Egypt and the UAE and work with a number of groups in MENA (Middle East North Africa) and do not view them any differently that my friends from non-MENA countries.
Slurs, like torture, can be effective in shaping and directing public perception of certain groups (has been done throughout history) however, in an intellectual discussion, the use of slurs usually diminishes the speaker and his / her message.
TL- do you have purple heart? Let me buy you a drink next time I am in town.
[blue]Greetings everyone,
I'm sure that everyone can appreciate that the very nature of the Forum requires that the readers keep their "sensitivity radars" turned down.
Nevertheless, I have edited the original text, as follows:
[quote]Those [strike]little sand rats[/strike] distinguished citizens of Middle Eastern countries are just allergic to water![/QUOTE]Thanks,
Jackson[/blue]
It has been a long time since we have had a deranged liberal in the White House. Clinton was anything but a deranged liberal. Carter was an idiot but not a deranged liberal. LBJ. Maybe. Kennedy would be considered a Republican today. Truman. No way.
At least we don't have to listen to the dribble about Reagon's tax cuts putting us in the poor house. Obama is putting us in the poor house with tax increases.
The other day Obama said that the Republicans have only one answer to our economic problems I. E. Cutting taxes. Fortuneately for us Obama has another solution for our economic problems I. E. Increasing taxes.
[QUOTE=Sidney]He and his lackeys do all possible to destroy the USA auto and supplier industry, destoying, eliminating, an uncountable thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, China has surpassed the USA in auto production and sales (for 2009, China sales were 6.1 million vs 4.8 million in the USA) China launched a stimulus package with sales tax cuts, trade-in subsidies, and other incentives. While the Obomination destroyed, downsized, and made a giveaway to Fiat. What an idiot! CHANGE![/QUOTE]This guy is not stupid. He is seeking to destroy what makes this country great. He has contempt for every last one of us, those that despise him and those that idolize him.
He just threw out the first pitch in the MLB All Star game and the State-Run Media just described him as a Sox (White Sox, not the real Sox) fan through-and-through. I guess because he had a white sox jacket on and lived in Chicago at one point. Every schmuck in the media has their nose up his ass.
The guy could take a shit on a service tray on an AA flight (like the guy from Chase) and they would applaud him for being green and trying to recycle the chateaubriand served on mesclun greens.
That said, America (our America) is noticing. The pendulum has swung and will cut very deep on its rebound.
Mongers-
I think it is quite clear that Sidney has caught syphilis from one of his skanky Dominican concubines and that the disease has advanced to the point where it is causing him to become confused and lose his mind. This is the only logical explantation how Sidney, himself a former GM man, could possibly blame Obama for destroying the US auto industry (meaning GM and Chrysler) GM and Chrysler are bankrupt today because of gross mismanagement and poor business strategy. Period. Obama's (and Bush's) mistake was to give them any money at all to stay afloat when it was painfully obvious the entire time that neither of these companies could possibly avoid bankruptcy. Bailing out the auto industry is both futile and unnecessary. Ford was able to stay afloat without assistance and there are plenty of Japanese and European automobiles available in the United States at reasonable prices. Bailing out financial institutions (TARP) was absolutely necessary as without the availability of credit and loans a modern market economy cannot function. However, as I have previously stated, the economic stimulus package is complete bullshit that will destroy the currency and savings of the US populace.
People who claim that Obama is out to destroy the United States and enslave its citizens are foolish and not to be taken seriously.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
That grampa letter is one pathetic piece of garbage.
[QUOTE=Rock Harders]People who claim that Obama is out to destroy the United States and enslave its citizens are foolish and not to be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]RH, I agree.
I absolutely despise the way that Obama is approaching getting us out of trouble.
But it's a difference of two basic memes (or paradigms) competing as genes compete evolutionally (evolutionarily? "The other side" (whichever side one happens to be on) should not be seen as someone who is truly trying to destroy the country, as if they were an enemy. Both sides truly believe what they are spouting. I think both sides want what they see as best for the country and it isn't ruin or enslavement.
One may think that another's view is going to lead to destruction and enslavement. In fact, it may, but I heavily doubt that there are many in our political world who are "Dr. Evil" and want to take over the country, that would provide that result on purpose. Not that there aren't any, but I don't see Obama or Bush as being a Dr Evil. Human, wrong-sighted, etc. But I think both honestly want (ed) to do what's right as they see it.
He didn't go to Evil Medical School, he went to Evil Law School.
[QUOTE=El Queso]But I think both honestly want (ed) to do what's right as they see it.[/QUOTE]I know you may think that I am extreme, however, I believe that he believes that he is doing right by 'restoring' what he believes should be the proper balance of American society by breaking down the system that has allowed the 'Haves' steal the national bounty from the 'Have-nots.' This 'restoration' necessitates the destruction that he is wreaking upon the nation. To make all the people equal, he must make them all wards of the state which will ensure the perpetuation of the Statists position in the government.
The truth, of what his tax and spend policies is and will do, is that they will bankrupt the nation, lower our standard of life and reduce our stature in the world.
Please, anyone, tell me how anyone could believe that 1) these deficits are no big deal, 2) how the government will do a better job running health care than private industry, 3) the existing health care coverage of 280 million people (private and government) should be thrown out the window for approximately 10 million people that can't get coverage, 10 million that chose not to buy coverage and 20 million illegal immigrants, or 4) that historic deficit spending on political pet projects will solve our economic woes.
Like I said, Chairman MaObama is not stupid. He knows the likely impact of his policies and he desires those outcomes. What do you call that?
Chairman MaObama has solved everything!
All I have to do is move to San Fran and find a way to live on $4-6K spreading propaganda.
[url]http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/gov/1267416703.html[/url]
This is a great use of our tax payer dollars. Give brain-dead losers $11-16/ hour to be the 'New' grass roots (now should be called greenroots) What a great concept, when people don't believe in what you are doing, pay them to do propagandize the public. What a great way to abuse the office (congress has done this for a long time) to destroy something that throughout American history has done by people moved to action by their beliefs.
Investment bankers and traders are partially responsible for a missing trillion dollars and the desperate situation that we all share. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Sid--how many tens of millions of dollars did you make during the time when the government was controlled by your boys and there was no regulation. Every day I read the same old shit. At least say something original--Wally and Sid are repeating themselves.
Yes Sid you have the right to repeat yourself 100,000 times on the website and I also have the right to say you are boring. Now call me a communist. Per your standards Nixon was a communist--medicare was Nixon's baby. Sid if you really want to sincerely protest: send back your social security checks and don't use medicare--Show us that you really are against socialism. Don't fool around complaining about over paying a taxi driver by 40cents us--Be a man and send back those socialist social security checks. OR MAYBE BE GENEROUS AND HELP RUGGERO AT BARTS WHO IS DOWN TO STEALING A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS BASED ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS.
Walley, your posts are more creative and aren't boring, but the theme is becoming repetitious. Please keep the outrageous hyperbole coming--it is at least entertaining! By way of a second thought, I souldn't be grouping you with sid at all, sorry.
Anyone who disaggrees with me is a communist or socialist; therefore Sid as a communist, you can keep your social security check or use it too keep 3 dominicanas in the Dominican Republic as long as as they blow you a minimum of twice per year--we don't believe is welfare--they got to work for 1/3 of the communist inspired social security check.
Walley has his own trickle-down economics plan--he redistributes wealth based upon how much of his leche trickles down their throats---A large percentage of the argentine hooker community will suffer if the bush tax cuts end and the wally trickle-down plan ends or is cut back.
I can't try to be rational like rock dealing with boring sid and his rants about overpaying 40 cents for a taxi ride. I do appreciate wally's brand of insanity even if my personal insanity slightly differs because wally get's extra points because he is funny and entertaining and only rants about problems involving billlions of dollars.
Not--sid you are such a bright and creative man--please stop being so boring. On this part of this website.
Ps I'm in BA in a few weeks and want to visit both sid and wally who are great guys when we don't talk about politics---your hopefully non-political while in ba friend.
MB