American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;418217]The last thing our country needs is a CEO in the White House. A CEO has a narrow focus on making his business profitable, and where applicable returning profits to shareholders.[/quote]In his land of unicorns and sparkles, companies don't have to turn a profit to last for ever.

[quote=]Where does the worker fall in that picture?[/quote]Which workers would those be? The 14 million that are currently out of work? Who is looking out for them? Clearly not Obama who has intentionally forced his jobs killing agenda on us despite knowing full well its likely consequences for the unemployed, under-employed and those about to join their ranks.

[quote=]The worker is simply an expense to achieve profits.[/quote]Very few successful companies actually take this view. It is ascribed to them by leftist activists who are looking to force them (the corporation) to lavish riches upon past an present workers, in magnitudes unrelated to the quantifiable value added. They do this with absolutely no concern about the fact that if they force the corporation to become unprofitable they will end up laying off some or all of their workers.

[quote=]If that expense can be reduced while maintaining or increasing profit, the CEO can and will do so. No, that is not the perspective we need in a President.[/QUOTE]Obama seems to be increasing the nation's deficit (I. E. Making the US more unprofitable) while at the same time reducing the workforce by millions. Those facts would seem to contradict your poorly constructed comment.

Jackson -

My post on Bachmann's book deal had nothing to do with complaining or saving Obama. LOL

Simply an observation of the least surprising book deal ever. Michele Bachmann is a complete opportunist. You remember when she gave her response to the SOTU Address? She couldn't just let one person (Paul Ryan) give the official GOP response. Nope. She had to go and give a second "Tea Party" response. You may also remember this woman for her interview on CNN where she totally ripped into Obama for an overseas trip that would cost taxpayers 200 Million a day. Turns out she went off a wildly inaccurate internet report without checking her facts. This woman is a chronic lying opportunist and her record on Politifact proves it. The worst of the bunch.

As far as Republicans stalling the economy, don't tell me you haven't heard this before. Prominent Republicans are on record saying their top priority is to defeat Obama. Republicans have also stated their best shot at defeating Obama is if the economy is bad in 2012. Put 2 and 2 together.

Case in point- Obama has suggested extending payroll-tax cuts for employees that set to expire at the end of the year, and initiating a payroll-tax reduction for employers. This would put more money back in the hands of individuals and businesses. Republicans previously supported such ideas, and the USCoC supports it. But now Republicans are opposed. Now they call it a gimmick. Why would Republicans not support an idea they previously supported that would help the economy?

[QUOTE=Esten;418229]Michele Bachmann is a complete opportunist.[/quote]Esten, you attempted to negatively paint Michele Bachmann as a "complete opportunist" because she signed a book contract, and my point was that in this regard she is no different that every other politician in the world, including the Campaginer-in-Chief.

[QUOTE=Esten;418229]As far as Republicans stalling the economy, don't tell me you haven't heard this before. Prominent Republicans are on record saying their top priority is to defeat Obama. Republicans have also stated their best shot at defeating Obama is if the economy is bad in 2012. Put 2 and 2 together.[/quote]Here you are attempting to insinuate that the Republicans would deliberately torpedo the country's economy if it meant that they could defeat Obama, which is nothing less than complete bullshit, along with your associated "Job Killing Republicans" liberal propaganda.

[QUOTE=Esten;418229]Case in point- Obama has suggested extending payroll-tax cuts for employees that set to expire at the end of the year, and initiating a payroll-tax reduction for employers. This would put more money back in the hands of individuals and businesses. Republicans previously supported such ideas, and the USCoC supports it. But now Republicans are opposed. Now they call it a gimmick. Why would Republicans not support an idea they previously supported that would help the economy?[/QUOTE]The size of the payroll-tax cuts in question are in fact so minuscule that they are meaningless except as liberal propaganda. If the Dems really wanted to use payroll-tax cuts to stimulate the economy, then they could have used the $800 billion in stimulas money to give every employee in the country an 8 month holiday from [u]ALL[/u] payroll tax deductions. If anyone thought that the $3B Cash-for-Clunkers program was a success, imagine what kind of economic stimulus pumping $100B a month into consumers hands would have produced. Of course the Dems wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispense the the funds to state and local employee unions and other "friends", so that was never really an option.

[QUOTE=Jackson;418233]Esten, you attempted to negatively paint Michele Bachmann as a "complete opportunist" because she signed a book contract, and my point was that in this regard she is no different that every other politician in the world, including the Campaginer-in-Chief. [/QUOTE]Of course I get your point. I'm fully aware that politicians on both sides sell books. Let me put it this way. If it had been Cain or Pawlenty or any of the others announcing a book deal I wouldn't have bothered posting. Most of the GOP candidates are pretty harmless. Some are even likeable. Ron Paul seems like an affable guy, I like some of his views and commend him on his recent marijuana bill. Romney is OK, you can tell he is acting a bit and is not 100% authentic in his attacks on Obama, but he knows he has to be seen as on the offensive.

Michele Bachmann on the other hand is a very special case. I need to modify what I said earlier. She is not a complete opportunist. She is half opportunist and half batshit crazy.

That's a phrase from Matt Taibbi's article on her last week in Rolling Stone, but it succinctly captures what many on the left think of this woman. Not an attack, just an honest and accurate statement of how they see her. Anyone who follows politics quite a bit will have noticed this. An interesting coincidence, Taibbi wrote she looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo (a little over the top I'll agree), and she's been boasting recently she has a "Titanium Spine". She is certain to provide great material for the media and I hope she goes far.

[url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622[/url]

Esten as always you're blindly following you leaders.

[url]http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/576642/201106271903/Belittling-Bachmann.htm?[/url]

Well, here we go again. The snake of the right has reared it's ugly head again.

Scumbag Republican Congressman Richard Cantor stormed out of US debt negotiations recently, as most of us in the US already know.

Why?

M_O_N_E_Y!

It was recently revealed that Republican Congressman Richard Cantor will gain financially if debt ceiling negotiations collapse.

[url]http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest/index.html[/url]

Not surprisingly, FOX NEWS has kept quiet about the Wall Street Journal report. ("We Report." We Decide.")

So, it will be interesting to see R-Congressman Cantor's motivation before the August 2nd deadline.

Yeah. I mean he couldn't have purchased TBT because he expected that the Bernanke couldn't hold interest rates down forever. So he might or might not, own a small position in an etf, that might or might not be a hedge to bond investments. Absolutely, crash the government over this. A smart investor would have purchased options and get more bang for their buck. That article was insultingly stupid.

In his recent news conference Obama rails against private / corporate jet owners getting a tax break which should now be eliminated so children will not be denied healthcare. How horrible of those mean old Republicans to have granted such a tax break to the selfish rich owners of corporate jets.

UH. Mr. El Presidenta, if you would just check your facts the mean old Republicans did not provide that particular tax break, YOU AND YOU DEMOCRATIC COLLEGUES DID in the 2009 Stimulus Package.

Just for the record, if we eliminated that particular tax break and take the HIGHEST revenue figure it MIGHT bring in which is $60 billion (more realistic was between $10 to 6 Billion) , then it would only take 234 years to pay down the $14 Trillion debt.

Way to go Big Guy!

With nearly 50% of the population not paying income tax, the other 50% paying it all and of the 50% that do pay the top 5% is paying over 85% of the total tax burden.

We don't have a revenue problem we have a SPENDING problem.

[quote]The former President said he is "not surprised" that the Tea Party favorite has quickly become a 2012 front-runner, during an exclusive interview that aired Thursday on ABC's "Good Morning America".

"I've been watching her speak at some of these conventions on ESPN, you know, she comes across as a real person," he told the network at the Clinton Global Initative America conference in Chicago."The story that they tell is pretty compelling, all those foster children she's taken in, and children she's raised and the work she's done."

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/30/2011-06-30_bill_clinton_praises_michele_bachmann_and_other_gopers_but_says_president_obama_.html[/url][/quote][QUOTE=Esten; 418261]Michele Bachmann on the other hand is a very special case. I need to modify what I said earlier. She is not a complete opportunist. She is half opportunist and half batshit crazy.

That's a phrase from Matt Taibbi's article on her last week in Rolling Stone, but it succinctly captures what many on the left think of this woman. Not an attack, just an honest and accurate statement of how they see her. Anyone who follows politics quite a bit will have noticed this. An interesting coincidence, Taibbi wrote she looks like the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo (a little over the top I'll agree) , and she's been boasting recently she has a "Titanium Spine". She is certain to provide great material for the media and I hope she goes far.

[url]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622[/url][/QUOTE]Hmmm, who to believe?

[QUOTE=Moveon;418289]So, it will be interesting to see R-Congressman Cantor's motivation before the August 2nd deadline.[/QUOTE]It is probably just a hedge. Unlikely to be a big story.

What is a big story though is Eric Cantor walking out of the debt negotiations. Like a little kid who didn't get his way.

Republicans are on the losing side in this struggle, certainly among independents. Cantor has only damaged his image by walking away.

Moveon, I'm convinced you're either a politician or you work for one. As shown by polls that Esten has referenced here, your party and the 50% of American voters that don't pay income taxes and / or live off the government tit are going to control the federal government of the USA for the forseeable future. As a result, spending will grow faster than federal government receipts. Your party's attempts to finance the deficit from business, corporations and the "rich" will backfire. You'll tax them to the point that they won't have the money to reinvest or maintain their business and investments, and their taxable income will decrease as will the taxes they pay. The deficit will increase. Your people will continue to spend like drunken sailors. Bond investors, including foreign central banks, will rightfully worry about the ability of the US federal government to repay them. Bond yields will skyrocket. The value of Cantor's measly $5, 000 to $15, 000 investment will skyrocket. But don't blame it on Cantor, blame it on your party.

If you've got the discipline to roll your positions over every few months for a long time, sell T-note and T-bond futures. That's probably a better deal than an ETF.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418294]Hmmm, who to believe?[/QUOTE]Me! Of course!

Bill and I are not so far apart as you might think. Democrats like Michele Bachmann. We really do.

Seriously Punter, you need to realize something. America is a great nation, with great values. We are equal opportunity for all. And it's because we all came here and we came together as one. Out of many one. Multi-cultural diversity says out of one many. And if we go with tribalism we will not long be one nation united under God.

[QUOTE=Esten; 418297]Me! Of course!

Bill and I are not so far apart as you might think. Democrats like Michele Bachmann. We really do.

Seriously Punter, you need to realize something. America is a great nation, with great values. We are equal opportunity for all. And it's because we all came here and we came together as one. Out of many one. Multi-cultural diversity says out of one many. And if we go with tribalism we will not long be one nation united under God.[/QUOTE]You really should use quotation marks when you quote someone. A good example would be something like this;

[i][b]"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon, over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."[/i][/b]

Or how about this;

[i][b]"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S," [/i][/b]


IMHO you have now stooped to a new low, but if you're going to demonize every threat to Obama you better get started on Rick Perry, assuming Chris Christie is not running.

BTW if I support Herman Cain over Obama would the left still classify me as a racist?

[QUOTE=Moveon; 418289]Well, here we go again. The snake of the right has reared it's ugly head again.

Scumbag Republican Congressman Richard Cantor stormed out of US debt negotiations recently, as most of us in the US already know.

Why?

M_O_N_E_Y!

It was recently revealed that Republican Congressman Richard Cantor will gain financially if debt ceiling negotiations collapse.

[url]http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/27/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest/index.html[/url]

Not surprisingly, FOX NEWS has kept quiet about the Wall Street Journal report. ("We Report." We Decide.")

So, it will be interesting to see R-Congressman Cantor's motivation before the August 2nd deadline.[/QUOTE]I would really like to know why you think we should raise the debt limit? Why not deal with our [strike]debt[/strike] spending problem?

Short term, job creation. Long term, reduce deficit. I think that is fair and logical strategy.

Our economy is base on CONSUMPTION. Is slash / slash / slash really the answer at the moment? It took a few decades for our spending culture to get to where it is at the moment. It will take a few years for the pendulum to swing back. Meanwhile, be prepare for some friends / relatives asking to come and live with you. Quite challenging to your sense of what kind of person you really are. Hope you are up to it. Obama has made mistakes, but McClain surely would not have done any better in terms of job creation. I can't remember when a modern president was given such bad cards to start his term. All the shouting and gesturing is just a drumbeat for the naive and the ideologues to keep themselves in a frenzy for the 2012 elections.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418306]I can't remember when a modern president was given such bad cards to start his term.[/QUOTE]Guesse you were asleep on 9/11. And of course, you must have forgotten the economic ramifications of this insignificant event. All I can say is "thank god we didn't have obomanation at the helm back then". But again, it's all Bush's fault! Oh yes, some president managed his way out of that fiasco, but who was really paying attention anyway. LMAO! Tick! Tick! Tick! Time for you liberal free thinkers too pull your heads out of you're distal orifaces.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418296]Moveon, I'm convinced you're either a politician or you work for one.[/QUOTE]Oh, please Teeny. I am as close to being a politician or working for one than you are becoming a moderate free-thinker.

The Administrator can easily check my name and see I have nothing to do with politics.

Actually, I was a life-long Republican until I switched parties recently. Eight dreadful years of George W, his Halliburton cronies, and John Ashcroft was enough for me to see the light.

Now I see the Tea Party as the middle-class destroyer of life who is hell-bent on giving tax subsidies to Big Oil & large corporations plus ending what is left of our social programs to help the needy in this great nation of ours.

Not to worry, without the Latino vote, the Republicans won't win the next election anyway.

Hate to bust your bubble Moveon, but in case you have not been keeping up with the polls, nobody is very happy with your boy Obama. He is in the mid to upper 40's in popularity and under 40 in handling the economy, the liberals are mad at him because he has not been liberal enough and the independents are mad at him because he has been too liberal. When you couple that with unemployment over 9% and a stalling / staggering economy, Obama's chances for a second term are growing dim.

What all this translates into for his base on Election Day is not that they vote for the other guy but they don't bother to go to the polls at all. Since neither party has enough followers to win an election it is the independent voters who have decided the last few elections. Obama is losing independents in droves and as for the Latino vote, I don't think I would be counting to heavily on it as he has failed to do anything but pay lip service to immigration reform and flooding Mexico with guns is not much help either.

I think your boy is going to get his ass kicked in November 2012 unless something startling happens with unemployment and the economy which is not likely, they have used all their liberal tricks and they have failed to work.

If you are the President of the United States, you can not lead from the REAR. Point in fact he does not lead at all and everything that fails is someone else's fault not his.

You know Perry is looking pretty good. Balanced the budget in Texas without raising taxes but by cutting spending and Texas does not have a crippling state income tax as well as being a right to work state, ie few unions. Just a hard nosed Texas politician who gets the job done.

(Maybe this was mentioned before) , but notwithstanding this is a really good movie:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk[/url]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;418309]Hate to bust your bubble Moveon, but in case. You know now Perry is looking pretty good. Balanced the budget in Texas without raising taxes but by cutting spending and Texas does not have a crippling state income tax as well as being a right to work state, ie few unions. Just a hard nosed Texas politician who gets the job done.[/QUOTE]

Oh, really?

Balanced the Texas state budget?

How about the Texas $25 BILLION deficit?

As George W. would say, "Now that's what I'm talking about!"

[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1[/url]

Moveon, you need to learn to read something other than those left wing rags and old ones at that, the article was written over 6 months ago! The special session ended yesterday, the budget was balanced, taxes were not raised, and spending was CUT. I know this is something you liberals hate, but Texas CUT spending and took some funds from the "Rainy Day" surplus of past years and BALANCED THE BUDGET.

As usual you are misinformed but I know how liberals never let facts get in the way of good story.

Perry looks better than Romney, no government healthcare in Texas as in Massachusetts and no flip-flopping. He is number 2 in the polls behind Romney and Perry has not even decided if he will even run.

By the way, regarding your disparaging remarks about the Tea Party folks, they have a legitimate right to complain, they are the 50% of the population who are paying the bills!

[QUOTE=Toymann; 418307]Guesse you were asleep on 9/11. And of course, you must have forgotten the economic ramifications of this insignificant event. All I can say is "thank god we didn't have obomanation at the helm back then". But again, it's all Bush's fault! Oh yes, some president managed his way out of that fiasco, but who was really paying attention anyway. LMAO! Tick! Tick! Tick! Time for you liberal free thinkers too pull your heads out of you're distal orifaces.

Happy Mongering All. Toymann[/QUOTE]Most Americans were asleep, even if you were wide awake stroking your weenie. My take on 9/11 was that while it is one of the most infamous acts in American history, it also gave a very inexperienced president a chance to shine. At his right hand was Field Marshall Dick Cheney, and on his left hand was the American Military, the world's strongest military power with the world's biggest defense budget. 9/11 united Congress and the American people behind the priesidency and the ensuing invasion of Afganistan ensure that Bush was going to get his 2nd term. Unlike his unlucky father, Bush Senior, who was the most qualified man to become president in modern history, Junior got the 2nd luckiest break of his life with 9/11. The 1st lucky break being his victory over Gore by 1 vote (mine).

A liberal I am not, but most of all, I believe in fairness. Obama was dealt a bad hand and he will be kick out just like Bush Senior. No sentiments when it comes down to having money in your pockets.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418304]You really should use quotation marks when you quote someone.[/QUOTE]Nah, it was funnier without the quotation marks.

I liked your Obama and Biden quotes. You forgot the one about Obama mistaking his own daughter's age.

But here's the thing. There's a big difference between occasionally flubbing numbers, and being an extreme far-right evangelical conservative. Obviously she has quite a few followers, but also quite a few who think she does not have a firm grasp on reality.

[QUOTE]IMHO you have now stooped to a new low,[/QUOTE]With your own quotes, and the almost endless stream of disparaging comments about me, Obama, Reid and Pelosi here, somehow your comment seems rather hollow.

Still, no need to worry. I prefer debating the issues. I won't be hammering into Bachmann too much, but she was overdue for some comment here.

[QUOTE]but if you're going to demonize every threat to Obama[/QUOTE]There's no need to.

[QUOTE]you better get started on Rick Perry[/QUOTE]I have nothing bad to say about him right now.

[QUOTE]BTW if I support Herman Cain over Obama would the left still classify me as a racist?[/QUOTE]Of course not.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 418308]Oh, please Teeny. I am as close to being a politician or working for one than you are becoming a moderate free-thinker.

The Administrator can easily check my name and see I have nothing to do with politics.

Actually, I was a life-long Republican until I switched parties recently. Eight dreadful years of George W, his Halliburton cronies, and John Ashcroft was enough for me to see the light.

Now I see the Tea Party as the middle-class destroyer of life who is hell-bent on giving tax subsidies to Big Oil & large corporations plus ending what is left of our social programs to help the needy in this great nation of ours.

Not to worry, without the Latino vote, the Republicans won't win the next election anyway.[/QUOTE]Moveon, You're the only poster here that ALWAYS takes the party line. Not even Esten falls in that category. Walleye, Doppel, Toymann, Jackson, Stan, etc. may believe in the same liberal economic policies as Tea Party Republicans, but they're social liberals. It's curious you're so in line with the Democrat manifesto if you really were a life-long Republican. Also, that's an interesting thought, that the administrator could check your identity. You provided him no information when you registered that would identity you. Why would you expect him to violate your privacy, especially given this is a monger forum?

You confuse tax deductions with subsidies. The Tea Party is hell bent on taking subsidies AWAY, like those for ethanol, renewable energy, wealthy farmers, etc. It's the mainstream pork barrel Democrats and Republicans that want to keep the subsidies.

On the separate topic of tax deductions, given that the USA has the highest tax rates on business in the world, deductions are the only thing that make certain companies competitive in the world arena. The Tea Party would like to remove preferential tax deductions, that is, what you're calling "subsidies", and lower tax rates.

The social programs you're referring to, being Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are going to take up a ridiculous and unsustainable percentage of GDP if nothing is done, and Obama, you and every other intelligent Democrat knows that. But, unlike the Tea Party, most Democrat politicians prefer to kick the can down the road, as they put short term political gain over what's good for the country.

Your comments about Perry are interesting. I don't particularly like him, for reasons having to do with his personal character. And the lieutenant governor has more power than the governor in Texas anyway. But Texas' credit rating is higher than average, and the state has added 37% of total jobs added in the USA since the end of the recession. Chalk that up in part to policies of the Republican legislature.

I don't disagree with you about the next election, as I already said in my earlier post that you responded to.

Although GW sent troops to Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, soon the operation was stalled as he began the war in Iraq, which he misleadingly called "War on Terror." Under the War on Terror propaganda, GW administration depicted the war in Iraq as a war for democracy against the allegedly global terrorism by muslim fundamentalists. As a result, many people, including Sarah Palin, thought that Iraq and Sadam Hussein were responsible for 9/11. GW's popular standing was helped by the "rally around the flag" patriotic movements after 9/11 and the war in Iraq (War on terror) , which were mixed up and confused for many Americans. Without the war in Iraq, he would not have won the second term.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt; 418314]Most Americans were asleep, even if you were wide awake stroking your weenie. My take on 9/11 was that while it is one of the most infamous acts in American history, it also gave a very inexperienced president a chance to shine. At his right hand was Field Marshall Dick Cheney, and on his left hand was the American Military, the world's strongest military power with the world's biggest defense budget. 9/11 united Congress and the American people behind the priesidency and the ensuing invasion of Afganistan ensure that Bush was going to get his 2nd term. Unlike his unlucky father, Bush Senior, who was the most qualified man to become president in modern history, Junior got the 2nd luckiest break of his life with 9/11. The 1st lucky break being his victory over Gore by 1 vote (mine).

A liberal I am not, but most of all, I believe in fairness. Obama was dealt a bad hand and he will be kick out just like Bush Senior. No sentiments when it comes down to having money in your pockets.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;418318]Nah, it was funnier without the quotation marks.[/quote]You may find it funny but I would call it being deceptive, you've pulled the same shit before.

[quote]I liked your Obama and Biden quotes. You forgot the one about Obama mistaking his own daughter's age.[/quote]I didn't forget, I think families should be left out of politics. I also think this game of jumping on every little word that people speak or mis-speak is petty. I only posted those quotes to make a point to you, not for any value.

[quote]But here's the thing. There's a big difference between occasionally flubbing numbers, and being an extreme far-right evangelical conservative. Obviously she has quite a few followers, but also quite a few who think she does not have a firm grasp on reality.[/quote]What's wrong with being an ' extreme far-right evangelical conservative? ' I think she has as much right to be a ' extreme far-right evangelical conservative' as you do to be an extreme far-left liberal, progressive, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, atheist or whatever else you want to be.

[quote]With your own quotes, and the almost endless stream of disparaging comments about me, Obama, Reid and Pelosi here, somehow your comment seems rather hollow.[/quote]True I have made disparaging remarks, but not as part of an organized effort to demonize someone. I don't believe you can honestly make the same claim.

I offer your link to Rolling Stone as a prime example of you following your leaders. If I'm wrong and you're not following the lead of the far left and you really are giving us your honest opinion then I apologize. However that leads me to question why you are so down on Bachmann and Palin are you misogynistic or do they just scare you that bad?

[quote]Still, no need to worry. I prefer debating the issues. I won't be hammering into Bachmann too much, but she was overdue for some comment here.[/quote]I hope we can keep that to her position on the issues.

[quote]There's no need to.

I have nothing bad to say about him right now.[/QUOTE]I'm sure you'll be getting the memo on Perry very soon.

Now can we get back to the issues?

This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 418331]This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys are really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.[/QUOTE]Probably the most active thread on the forum, does that tell you anything?

Everything you said is true. You are totally right.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 418331]This many posts for no sex.

You guys are really fucked up.

I thought AP was about where to get a Piece of Ass.

You guys are really need to come to BsAs.

At least I can get a massage with a Happy Ending.

You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;418331]You guys must be really bad, if the only way you can get stimulated is with your Fingers.[/QUOTE]WT- This thread is busy because most of us are stuck in Sex Prison! We know where to go in BA, we just can't get down there often.

Of course there is action here in SP, but it doesn't hold a candle to the scene in BA. Too expensive, limited options, travelling time, all not to mention the legal aspect. We can thank the family values climate here, driven in large part by one political party.

WT here's an example to make you laugh. Aside from a trip to Europe earlier in the year, I haven't done any hobbying in 2011. So this weekend, being a long weekend here I decided to splurge a little. I went to two strip clubs where I knew I could get some high mileage lap dances. Between the two clubs I spent about 1 hour in private VIP rooms, 2 HIP happy endings, 3 dancers, $500 total costs and 5 hours of driving! LOL!! Yes I could have done something closer and cheaper, but I wanted to go to those clubs.

So WT, this thread helps keep us distracted a little bit, while AP gives us a lifeline to one of our favorite places through the posts of others.

Writing about politics is completely fucked up? Most people, unfortunately, would think the other things we write about here are a lot more fucked up. Relax. This is the "Chit Chat" section of an internet site. It's like grade school. If you don't want to stand around talking at recess you're free to go do something else.

Now, excuse me. I need to go to the bathroom and whack off to photos of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton while reading some of Esten's posts. I get so aroused when I'm pissed off.

[QUOTE=Esten;418335]Of course there is action here in SP, but it doesn't hold a candle to the scene in BA. Too expensive, limited options, travelling time, all not to mention the legal aspect. We can thank the family values climate here, driven in large part by one political party.[/QUOTE]Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?

Take a look at the San Francisco protest to end Craigs List "Adult Services" Section, which was sponsored by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW) , if you look at the co-sponsors you will see names like Gloria Steinem, and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and Congresswoman Jackie Speier, (both Democrats) of course it's all under the guise of anti-trafficking. By linking trafficking and prostitution they can abuse the Mann Act to combat prostitution in the USA.

So tell us Esten is your statement a half truth, a misconception, or just an attempt to mislead?

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act[/url]

[url]http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/advocacy/000276.html[/url]

BTW the 'Coalition Against Trafficking in Women' is international and on their web page they state [i]'CATW has been an effective NGO presence internationally and has changed the terms of the debate over prostitution and trafficking in many regions of the globe and at the [b][u]United Nations level. [/b][/u] '[/i]

[url]http://www.catwinternational.org/about/index.php[/url]

Most of these feminist groups favor Swedish style prostitution laws that make it legal to sell sex but illegal to buy it.

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-16-sweden-prostitution_N.htm[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden[/url]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418319]Moveon, . that's an interesting thought, that the administrator could check your identity. You provided him no information when you registered that would identity you. Why would you expect him to violate your privacy, especially given this is a monger forum?[/QUOTE]Tiny, you remind me of Donald Trump and Sean Hannity of Fox News. Those who did not believe Obama was born in Hawaii. If Jackson would like to, he can PM and I will give him my email address. Jackson can send me a (non-monger) email and I will reply to confirm. At this point he can Google my name and email address to see if I have anything to do with politics. (I trust that the Administrator would then withhold my identity infinitely.)

Now stop with your conspiracy theories.

[QUOTE=Moveon;418352]Now stop with your conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]You're Bill Clinton. I know you are, don't deny it.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418327]True I have made disparaging remarks, but not as part of an organized effort to demonize someone. I don't believe you can honestly make the same claim.[/QUOTE]I should clarify something. On your quotes I referred to you. But on the disparaging remarks, that was not about you specifically, rather the collective right-wing posting history in this thread. In which you are certainly not among the worst offenders.

Surely you realize that often our posts are driven by the news cycle, what is current. Possibly, just possibly, I posted about Bachmann because she was getting a lot of media attention for something, oh, perhaps announcing her run for President? That you think I was simply following some liberal directive or effort ala "today post about Bachmann" is seriously funny! My opinions are 100% my own. Think what you will, I cannot control that. FWIW, it never, ever occured to me any right wing poster here was part of some organized effort either.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;418350]Whoa, would you have us believe that leftwing Democrats supports legalized prostitution, did you forget about the male bashing feminist groups that oppose prostitution?[/QUOTE]Read what I said. I said nothing about the extent of support for legalizing prostitution among Democrats. BTW there is a very important difference between trafficking and prostitution.

If prostitution were the only issue I would vote Libertarian. Between Dems and Repubs, I'd say the party that supports gay marriage is more likely to support legalizing prostitution.

It is my opinion that the single biggest obstacle to legalizing prostitution is the religious right and their efforts to maintain and promote a family values culture in the US. This does not mean there would be no other obstacles without them. Only that the religious right is the biggest obstacle, or drag, on moving in the direction of legalization. I'm quite sure many if not most people would agree with this. Care to disagree?

[QUOTE=Tiny12;418319]The social programs you're referring to, being Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, are going to take up a ridiculous and unsustainable percentage of GDP if nothing is done, and Obama, you and every other intelligent Democrat knows that. But, unlike the Tea Party, most Democrat politicians prefer to kick the can down the road, as they put short term political gain over what's good for the country.[/QUOTE]Yes we all know Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are big and growing components of federal spending. But saying the Tea Party has a serious approach and Dems want to kick the can down the road is bullshit. First off, Ryan's budget was never serious to begin with because everybody knew it would go nowhere. It was a statement, for discussion purposes, not a serious proposal. If they were serious they would have submitted something that actually had a chance of passing. And only a fool would believe that Dems would support a plan to eliminate Medicare AND give more tax cuts to the wealthy at the same time. The Tea Party is an ignorant and dangerous ideological movement. Repubs think the Tea Party will help them in 2012, but it could prove just the opposite.

Second, Dems are very willing to make serious cuts. They've already agreed to $1 Trillion or so cuts in the current debt ceiling discussions. Neither party can take the high road in being deficit hawks. But we could have a deal tomorrow if it weren't for, you guessed it, conservative ideology. In fact the Democratic compromise would lower deficits more than the one-sided Republican plan. The Republican position has the weight of economic and popular opinion against it. It is getting close to crunch time and this one will be very interesting to watch. There is short-term and long-term strategy here on both sides. My feeling is there needs to be some real pain, though not too much. Once Americans start understanding the real vs. abstract consequences of deep spending cuts, they will be even more in favor of including revenue increases in 2012.

Are today's bank any different from the Mafia? Case in point.

Someone I know had to juggle some credit card debts by doing some balance transfers on very good terms between a few cards he had. Unfortunately, he lost his job in a bad economy, his age was somewhat against him in the job market. But he paid his bills on time, and the banks are making money of him. He is now ok and should be debt free very soon. In the meantime, he need hs credit badly as a source of financing. So, as a reward for his due diligence in making payments, his % was raised by about 5, crippling him somewhat. Some people like to call it free market, others might call it legal loan-sharking.

Reminds me of some National Geographic documentaries showing the stalking of the weak, old, injured animals by their predators. All those CE0s making obscene milions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have poeple on this board defending them zealously.

Remember, I am not a liberal. I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens. But we might have to add to those functions now that the Mafia is legal and actually part of the establishment.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418367]All those CE0s making obscene millions and laughing all the way to the loo. The Mafia is still well and alive, wearing their Armani suits and drinking champagne. And we have people on this board defending them zealously.[/QUOTE]You're right! Off with their heads, I say. Obviously the people who run these "legal loan-sharking" operations have no moral compass. And while we're at it, I think we should ban the insidious practice of letting private companies issue credit card in the first place.

Wait, I just had a brilliant idea: Government-issued credit cards! Every citizen would be issued a credit card with interest rates subsidized by the government, and the program could be managed by a new government agency staffed with people who really care about their fellow citizens. Of course, you would set credit limits based inversely on income: Lower income people would get a higher credit limit because they "need" the credit more that those "Millionaires and Billionaires" that Obama was blaming for the budget deficit in his speech last week's. In fact, you could make interest rates higher for "Millionaires and Billionaires", and use that money to pay the interest rates for everybody else.

And the best part is, I'm sure that our politicians, with their proven fiscal management acumen, can develop projections showing that the program would be entirely self-funding and would never run a deficit.

Brilliant!

Thanks,

Jackson

Esten, I know very little about Ryan's proposed budget. And I haven't been following current budget negotiations. I suspect you're right though, Ryan's plan, like the plan of the bipartisan deficit commission, didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being signed into law given the composition of the Senate and Obama's veto power. Any serious reform of entitlements stands no chance as long as most Democrats and many Republicans take positions based on what's most likely to get them re-elected instead of what's best for the country. The bastards are going to wait until we're bankrupt to start trying to solve the problem of unsustainable entitlement spending. Whose fault will that be? Answer: The American public that elected them in the first place.

The Tea Party is 'ignorant and dangerous'? Just like Reagan and Thatcher? It's your party that's ignorant and dangerous. I suspect the $1 trillion you quote, over who knows how many years, doesn't even touch entitlement spending and is a drop in the bucket compared to the mess we're in.

Everytime you say "tax the wealthy", you should substitute "business and investment" for "wealthy." Again, I don't know much about Ryan's plan, but would be surprised if any cut in marginal income tax rates wouldn't be accompanied by a reduction in the tax deductions (what Moveon calls "subsidies") that make our tax code so complicated and economically inefficient.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt;418367]I believe government has 2 basic functions, provide jobs and provide safety for it's citizens.[/QUOTE]Providing jobs is a government function?

First, jobs are not "provided", they are created by entrepreneurs who take a risk by attempting to bring to market goods or services that they believe may be sold for a price greater that their cost to produce. Governments can never "create" jobs because governments are not structured as "for profit" enterprises.

Second, the only way that government can "provide" jobs is by forcing the rest of us at gunpoint to pay the government money that is then given to other people under the pretense of a job that most financially ignorant people incorrectly assume will result in the creation of something of value (the aforesaid "goods or services") , when in fact these "paychecks" produce nothing of value and are a complete waste of money for the rest of us, although they do secure votes for incumbent politicians.

Thanks,

Jackson