Republicans show their true nature again!

Originally posted by Signals
Research the crap the Dems added to the bill...tax cuts for corporations, tax hikes on US oil companies, etc...they do this because they know the Repubs won't approve it, so they can call them the bad guys...like you are doing now!
They vote on an unemployment extension every 30 days it seems like. And it always gets turned down...then the watered-down version always gets approved.

It's all a sham, Democrats and Republicans are the SAME, and you are caught in the paradigm - exactly where they want you to be BTW

Thank you for posting this....

I've been a hard-line republican for years and only recently realized they they are ALL playing the same game. I'm still a hard-line Conservative but I have no respect for either party.

We ALL need to understand that the goal of the establishment is to pit us against each other so they can keep pushing their agenda through. The sooner we realize that we, the people, are all on the same team, the sooner we can stand up and take our country back.

God Bless America
General Lee

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is actually the core reason from many conservatives as to why Carter was the worst president in US history. Carter was a bad president because he 'allowed the muslims to take over Iran'. So in other words, Carter did not intervene and pull go all 'cowboy' over the situation in Iran. Essentially you blame Carter for not getting america involved in some invasion into Iran in the 1970's right? I mean why didnt he follow Bushes lead back in 03'? To this day the Iraq war added $700 billion, at current we are spending $200 million a day and we have lost over 4000 lives of soldiers. Why couldn't Carter do the same back then, right?? Police the world and put this country further into debt, unnecessarily sacrifice the lives of soldiers that are only meant to defend.

I wouldn't call Carter a bad president, failed president seems more appropriate. I got to tell ya, if that helicopter rescue mission hadn't have crashed and burned, even with all his economic troubles, he might have won reelection. But the sand clogged the blades and the hostages were never released, and our dead soldiers were dragged through the streets.

By the time Reagan was taking the oath of office, the hostages were already boarding a plane to freedom. All Reagan had to do was raise his right hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution. That was sweet. He didn't need to get all 'cowboy'. The Revolutionary's knew that if they ...... with Reagan, he'd kick their behinds.

And therein lies the difference between Carter and Reagan. One is effective, and the other is not. One gives a show of strength, the other projects weakness. Carters mindset and policy's can clearly be seen as disastrous. Jimmy was a nice guy, and our enemies took advantage of that. A hostage crisis of this magnitude never would have happened under Reagan's watch.

Reagan was so popular and well liked by the start of his second term, many democrats had voted for him and many had switched party's. Well the Democrats couldn't have that now could they? So with the aid of a willing press corps, Reagan is portrayed as "The Slasher", slashing entitlements, when in reality, he was only trying to slow the growth of entitlement spending. And the 80's become known as "The Decade of Greed". Gee I just love it when you guys make ...t up. lol.

Im just curious, do you believe that Obama has part to blame for the recession at this current time? Because it is interesting to note that the 80's recession started months following Reagans entry to the presidency and ended on the turn into 1983. It would be interesting for you to argue that the recession from the 80's is to blame on Carter when you apply to your blame towards this current president and the current majority

The recession started months before Obama took office. In the last year and a half, he has failed to have made an impact on it. And as we head into another recession, things will only get much worse. It is he who will bear the responsibility.

The 80's recession began in 1979. There is no 80's recession, that is a misnomer, a false label, started by Democrats to make it look like it was Reagan's recession. Jimmy Carter was president every day in 1979 and 1980, right up until January 1981. Actually, the recession started in November 1979. This was the last time that the unemployment rate would be under 6%, as it would continue to rise until it topped out at 10.8% by the end of 1982. Even so, I do not blame the recession on Carter, he's to nice a guy. I credit Reagan's effectiveness in pulling us out of it fast. This doesn't seem to be happening this time around. Obama's policy's are clearly seen as disastrous. But president Obama has only been in office a short while, give him time, ahhh...........youth..........(sweedish accent)....But it is clear that the path he's chosen will only drag us deeper into recession.

www.miseryindex.us...

And as the result he...... Reagan...... tripled the national debt, added another 50,000 americans to welfare, increased certain taxes towards the end of his second term.

Not quite tripled. Doubled, yes. But never has a president added so much to the debt in so short a time than Obama has done. And people add themselves to welfare rolls, presidents do not. And if .....certain taxes.....were raised, they were not raised on the little guy, like Obama is doing.

www.scribd.com...

Oh, so these 1.2 million folks in need for extended benefits are criminals now? Im sorry I am just speechless at that comment. You have just shown me how completely clueless and dismissive you are of the situation.

I didn't say that, you said that. All I said was there are criminals who are collecting unemployment benefits. Why wouldn't criminals steal unemployment benefits? They steal everything else they can get their hands on, why not steal unemployment benefits? There is always some fraud where money is being handed out, especially when its the Government doing the greasing.....................
What I said was, Criminals resort to violence, criminals steal unemployment benefits, its called fraud. I stated with a firm belief that honest people will not resort to violence. And I also firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of people collecting unemployment benefits are honest hard working people like myself, but who just happen to be unemployed and are down on their luck. You seem to want to make them out to be criminals somehow and then make it look like I am the one saying it.

Did you even bother to read my previous posts on this thread?


[edit on 3-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
I wouldn't call Carter a bad president, failed president seems more appropriate.

Actually you know what, I will agree with you there. He failed to fix the problem where as Nixon and Ford left off. No doubt.

By the time Reagan was taking the oath of office, the hostages were already boarding a plane to freedom. All Reagan had to do was raise his right hand and swear to protect and defend the Constitution.

Reagan assumed office minutes prior to the planned release of the hostages. The fact of the matter was that negotiations went through towards the end of Carters administration and it was just an coincidence of timing that Reagan assumed office by then. The hostages did negotiate on a release date that came in line with Reagans assumption of office. The fact was, Reagan had little to nothing to do with the fact those hostages were eventually released. It was a matter of timing, minutes into his assumption to office. Obviously though, I would not be surprised as to how conservatives potray it to this day.

He didn't need to get all 'cowboy'. The Revolutionary's knew that if they ...... with Reagan, he'd kick their behinds.

By doing what again? January 20th was already the day negotiated by the hostage takers well before Reagan assumed office. He had little no involvement other than the fact that release came in time with his first day.

Also, earlier on your argued that Carter allowed the muslims to take over Iran. I still fail to understand as to what you expected Carter to do? Really? You insist you did not mean he should put out some invasion, but how was Carter suppose to stop a revolution happening in a country half a world away? Without the costly involvement of our soldiers? Please let me know.

One is effective, and the other is not. One gives a show of strength, the other projects weakness.

Well that just goes back to my point earlier. To you it was a matter of presentation, not the result. Reagan was a better actor as president than Carter. The achievements of Reagans administration was little to no different from Carters, but Reagan projected the perfect american to conservatives. To me I am concerned with the results.

A hostage crisis of this magnitude never would have happened under Reagan's watch.

You assume it would have never happened.

Reagan was so popular and well liked by the start of his second term, many democrats had voted for him and many had switched party's.

The approval of this president does not amount to the success of his administration. There is this argument here regarding Obama and how people liked him at the beginning of his adminstration because he had good speaking skills. There was truth to that as many voters did so for that very reason, the same could be said for americans at the time of Reagan.

Americans love actors and what better way to seek approval from americans as in have an actor as president. Reagan spoke, he played tough, he acted tough, but his actions and his administration never amounted to much.

Well the Democrats couldn't have that now could they?

In 1970 Nixon won a fair portion of the coastal states and Texas went for a Democrat along with other states. In 1972 Nixon won all states but Massachusetts and DC. You know Clinton picked up a fair portion of Southern states in the 1992 elections? As did Kennedy. The fact is, Democrats had always gone at times for the Republican in the past. This was always a matter of character, not policy. You have plenty of Democrats that were not or today are not anywhere close to being progressive or liberal. Most are actualy fairly moderate to conservative and the recent example could be the 3 million or so Clinton voters who went for McCain in the previous elections. Clinton's policies were right align with Obama's, and yet her supporters went to McCain? Why? Do you think they all just 'woke up' to the joys of conservatism? No.

The 80's recession began in 1979.

It is widely agreed by economists that the recession started in 1981. This is why this was called the '80's recession.

a false label, started by Democrats

Most conservative media outlets would argue that. But then again most conservative media outlets insist the founding fathers intended a christian nation, or that socialism is unconstitutional, or what not. Thats your ideological conclusion, not fact.

GDP growth was 8% in 1980 but fell to -5% and continued to drop following 81'. Inflation sharply increased to 10.8% in 81'. This was the trigger. There was a similar drop in GDP in 79' but that quickly recovered into 1980. I have no doubt this was in part Carters doing, but this certainly was not a recession that started in the 70's.

Not quite tripled. Doubled, yes.

From around $950 billion to $2.6 trillion? Oh I'd say well above double. But are right, it was not triple. $250 billion off. Shall we get into specifics?

All I said was there are criminals who are collecting unemployment benefits.

There is no doubt that is happening, but that is no reason to justify cutting unemployment benefits to what would be the majority of usually hard working americans. You used that excuse in part to justify why these unemployment benefits were being blocked and Im sorry, that logic does not work. Its like me arguing that welfare should be completely removed because there are a minority of people abusing it. We'll throw out those disabled, those single mothers trying to raise kids while working and depending on government assistance, we'll just throw them out on the streets with that logic right there. We'll make all those people suffer because there are afew that are abusing it. How about we punish all hispanics because the majority of illegals happen to be hispanic... oh wait we did that already in one state! Great logic there.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

The late 70's early 80's recession began on November 4, 1979. It was the day that unemployment would continue to rise until January 1983. The recession was triggered by poor economic policy's and foreign events that went beyond our control but should have been able to have been prevented. By the time Reagan came in to office a little over a year later, it was already full blown. He had campaigned on strengthening the economy and making it robust, and returning America to her former greatness.

The Islamic Revolutionaries indeed had it in for Carter, but they wanted no part of Reagan. They set up the negotiations to coincide with the election. They had to. Reagan was comming. They tried to manipulate our election, as Osama Bin Laden tried to do against Bush in '04. They hurt Carter's chances for reelection, but I don't think it would have mattered. People were fed up with high taxes, high unemployment, and high interest rates coupled with the high rise of inflation. The misery index was born out of this recession.

But as it turned out, the new president was a far greater threat to the Islamic Revolution than Jimmy Carter could have ever been. As much as they hated Carter and did everything they could have possibly done in order to derail his presidency, by the same token, they feared Ronald Reagan. They hated Carter so bad that they didn't even care about a greater enemy becoming president. Logic would have dictated that they do everything they could have done in their power in order to have derailed Reagan's election. But raw hatred knows no such logic. Such was the price for their victory against Carter. They should have known that Reagan would back Iraq in the 8 year Iran-Iraq War that had started about 4 months earlier. I doubt if the peace loving Carter would have done this. They would have had plenty of time to release the hostages on Carter's watch and increase his chances for reelection.

They did however listen to Reagan's Inaugural Address before they allowed the planes to take off. I thought that was kind of amusing. The Revolutionaries listen to his speech and then it's like...Yea, release the hostages,... Get THAT PLANE IN The AIR
NOW!...and hope He doesn't come after us..... Merciful Allah!.....Maybe we should make a campaign contribution?....I'm getting out of here, NOW.....ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

www.historyguy.com...




This video brings back memories. In it you can see a young Peter Jennings and a young Ted Koppel, ....with the piled up hair....

GDP growth was 8% in 1980 but fell to -5% and continued to drop following 81'. Inflation sharply increased to 10.8% in 81'. This was the trigger. There was a similar drop in GDP in 79' but that quickly recovered into 1980. I have no doubt this was in part Carters doing, but this certainly was not a recession that started in the 70's.

Republicans always show their true colors. Democrats will always try to give their own version of events that are fabricated and can not be backed up by factual historical accounts. It's sad that many people will be taken in by these lame attempts by progressives in trying to rewrite history.

You need to recheck the facts.

www.huppi.com...


[edit on 4-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
The Islamic Revolutionaries indeed had it in for Carter, but they wanted no part of Reagan.

They didn't care about the difference between Carter and Reagan. You are making Reagan out to be some force around the world before he even assumed office so where on earth did you get this idea? As far as the hostage takers were concerned, they were dealing with America. I highly doubt they were heavily involved in american political issues and the elections.

If you could show me evidence of the Iranian hostage takers discussing the political issues between Reagan and Carter concerning America during the 1980 elections, by all means, but I highly doubt it you will find any.

They set up the negotiations to coincide with the election. They had to. Reagan was comming.

So now you are arguing that Reagan ended the hostage crises without really doing anything? You are taking your praise for this man too far.

But as it turned out, the new president was a far greater threat to the Islamic Revolution than Jimmy Carter could have ever been.

And how was that? How was Reagan going to stop the islamic revolution from happening in Iran? Lets just say hypothetically, had Reagan won the 1976 elections, what would he had done in your view to prevent islam from taking over Iran? And while your at it, you could explain to me why it had to be our business to intervene?

They did however listen to Reagan's Inaugural Address before they allowed the planes to take off. I thought that was kind of amusing. The Revolutionaries listen to his speech and then it's like...Yea, release the hostages,... Get THAT PLANE IN The AIR

So they were running scared because Reagan was going to be elected? Right? Because they were verymuch buying the Republican talking points? You make as if these hostage takers lived Texas or something.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
There is no doubt that is happening, but that is no reason to justify cutting unemployment benefits to what would be the majority of usually hard working americans. You used that excuse in part to justify why these unemployment benefits were being blocked and Im sorry, that logic does not work. Its like me arguing that welfare should be completely removed because there are a minority of people abusing it. We'll throw out those disabled, those single mothers trying to raise kids while working and depending on government assistance, we'll just throw them out on the streets with that logic right there. We'll make all those people suffer because there are afew that are abusing it.

You said that honest people would take to the streets and do violence. I responded by saying that honest people seldom turn to violence, that criminals turn to violence, the same criminals who are probably collecting unemployment benefits.

I never used this as an excuse for terminating benefits. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who are collecting unemployment benefits are honest, and they worked hard to be eligible for those benefits. I said clearly that the extension should be payed for with stimulus money. Democrats want to add another $34 billion to the debt. They want to use what little stimulus money is left as a slush fund to bribe voters in November. They don't care about your benefits, they will politicise them like they do everything else.....war (for example).....they care very little about peoples lives or the human condition when it comes to playing their games.

You have plenty of Democrats that were not or today are not anywhere close to being progressive or liberal.

I wish I could believe that, but the more I talk to you, the more I believe that you've been duped by these criminals.

There is nothing wrong with liberal ideology. In fact, it is when liberal and conservative ideology meet head to head, and there is real, logical, and cordial discussion, that great results are achieved.

Clinton's presidency is a prime example. He and the Republican controlled Congress were able to balance the budget, ensure a long economic prosperity, and create 10's of millions of new jobs,...... but then there was Monica Lewinski............hi Monica...............this is one job that the President never should have created....ha ha ha ha. Sorry but I just couldn't resist.

I just wish Clinton would have taken out Osama Bin laden when he had him in his sights. History might have played out very differently.

But aside from this, and that other thing,..ha ha...I think Clinton did a helluvajob. He was able to move to the right when Republicans were swept into office after the midterms, and good things happened as a result of that.

Question is: Do you think that Obama can move to the right after the midterms, or do you think that he is so far out in left field that he will become a president of vetoes?

Progressives are the enemy of all who those who enjoy freedom. You guys ought to kick them out of your party. We don't want them either. They are Communists, and they should call themselves that, instead of hiding under the Progressive label. They already have their own party, and have had it for years. It is called the Communist Party.

They're going to skyrocket the debt to $20 Trillion and bury us for good....... Kruschev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN General Assembly in 1960....We will bury you!!!....and he was speaking in economic terms........

www.usdebtclock.org...

This long term economic policy of destruction against the West is about to enter into the Home Stretch. And when the US economy finally crumbles for good, and the Day of Reckoning finally arrives, I hope I won't be around to say "I told you so."

How about we punish all Hispanics because the majority of illegals happen to be Hispanic... oh wait we did that already in one state! Great logic there.

Nobody wants to punish Hispanics. But nobody wants to reward illegals. And no-one wants to see 20 million illegals deported either.

The Federal Government created the problem, and they're the ones that should fix the problem. They should secure the borders and grandfather everyone in who has been living here for at least 5 years.

Even when some building codes and zoning restrictions change, businesses who are located and established, are grandfathered in so to speak, so they can continue to do business.

People are far more important than businesses are.

All the Arizona Law says is: Obey the Law. Obey the already existing Federal Laws, get up off your dead asses ....federal government.... and fix the problem. Why is this so hard to understand?

Illegal immigrants should not be entitled to Unemployment Benefits. It is not fair to the rest of us. And it is certainly not fair to all of the legal immigrants who come here every year.

If you want to collect unemployment benefits: become legal, work, and get laid off through no fault of your own..... That's who these benefits are for.

Actually you know what, I will agree with you there. He failed to fix the problem where as Nixon and Ford left off. No doubt.

If you want to talk about Nixon and Ford, that's a whole other ballgame.

Happy 4th of July.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


Commoncents I will certainly respond to your previous post later on but for now I would like you to address this question I am most interested in. Most conservatives including yourself have argued that Carter held the worst presidency because he 'allowed the Iranian revolution to take place'. I am just really curious at this arguement here. What would Reagan had done in your view to stop the islamic revolution happening in a country half way around the world? What action did Carter fail to take to prevent the 'muslims from taking over Iran'.

I'd like you to answer this for me.

reply to post by Mudman21


With all due respect I do condemn democrats often; in fact I think Obama has many problems.

But I don’t agree they are the same.

The republicans IMO are particularly evil, much worse than the democrats. Anyone IMO who doesn’t see that, with all due respect, are not looking close enough

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth

 

Commoncents I will certainly respond to your previous post later on but for now I would like you to address this question I am most interested in. Most conservatives including yourself have argued that Carter held the worst presidency because he 'allowed the Iranian revolution to take place'. I am just really curious at this arguement here. What would Reagan had done in your view to stop the islamic revolution happening in a country half way around the world? What action did Carter fail to take to prevent the 'muslims from taking over Iran'.

I'd like you to answer this for me.

I don't think that Carter's presidency was a failure based on this alone, but was a combination of this and the disastrous economy.

Maybe he should have seen the writing on the wall. The Shaw had been turning into a megalomaniac and Iranians were getting fed up.

The Shaw had plenty of time to establish a Democratic Republic if he had so desired. But for whatever reasons this did not happen are beyond me. Maybe the Shaw was either unwilling or unable to make this happen. If he was really our pawn, we should have encouraged him to hold a Constitutional Convention, establish a Republic, be its first President and then step aside after his term'(s).....sound familiar?


[edit on 4-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


Im sorry but you still have not responded to my question. You referenced me a part of a speech in which the then president Carter at the time issued, in which he did not back th Shaw against the islamic revolution, but that does not fully give me an answer. How was it Carters fault that an islamic revolution happened in another country half way around the world? I fail to understand this. You among many other conservatives have made this point among afew others that Carter failed to stop the revolution happening in Iran, I dont understand what you would have him do??

You argued that Reagan would not have allowed the muslims to take over Iran, so what are you saying then? What would Reagan had done to stop the muslims in Iran?

reply to post by MY2Commoncentsworth


Here is another rightwing hack of website that made it clear what you have been reluctant to say here:
rescueattempt.tripod.com...

Apparently one of Carters faliures in his administration was that he did not send our soldiers into Iran, into an event that was really none of our business, he didnt spend billions in waging war. I mean are you people seriously wacked out? Do you know that the Iraq war ended up costing this nation $700 billion, $200 million a day, we lost over 4000 american lives in a war that had little to nothing to do with our side of the world, and yet conservatives like yourself here can still complain that Carter did not do the same. Unbelievable.

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
You said that honest people would take to the streets and do violence. I responded by saying that honest people seldom turn to violence,

How do you know? If you are fighting for your survival, that natural instinct will take in. Violent actions do not automatically equate to you being a criminal. What do you think those 1.2 millions folks will do once they are cut out and many pushed onto the streets? Losing their homes? do you think they will go quietly into the night knowing that the political hacks in office have turned their backs on them? After years of hard work and paying taxes? Voting these representitives in? You insist these people will go quietly into the night and im sorry, you are dead wrong on that one. I'd be surprise if those cut off don't take to the streets and do something violent whether it be to damage the local representitives headquarters, or whether it be riots in DC. Its already happened and I can tell you now will happen again. I'd be dissappointed if it didnt. You spend half your life taking a chunk out of your income, working 9-5's, working your head off, paying towards taxes and umemployment insurance only for you to be cut out in your time of need. No. I certainly would not take that quietly.

I never used this as an excuse for terminating benefits.

You used it as part of the excuse. You argued that there were criminals taking advantage of these benefits as part of the reasoning as to why we should not extend government support. If that wasnt the case then I do not see what was the point of you mentioning this fact? What point aside from trying to justify the cut off.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of people who are collecting unemployment benefits are honest,

Well then why mention that criminals were taking advantage of the system? I was well aware of this fact, but I still do not see how mentioning this does anything other than for you to attempt to reinforce your argument against the unemployement benefits extention.

and they worked hard to be eligible for those benefits. I said clearly that the extension should be payed for with stimulus money.

You argued the reason for why the GOP refused to support the bill was due to funding disputes. I explained that the GOP blocking the bill this time was not about funding disputes, if you read the arguments this time around from Republicans, it was not about the stimulus. I also told you that had this bill originally been funded by the stimulus the GOP still would not had supported it as they had stated time and time again that they oppose using stimulus money for anything. You continued to ramble on, eventually derailing discussion and switching from the topic of the threat at hand to illegal immigration and Reagan.

As of yet you still have not shown me where in the bill that failed to pass on June 28th was there any mention of tax hikes for small businesses and oil corporations. Signals lied about what was written in the bill and you are as of yet to show me where the bill anything of what signals said in that comment was true. You pointed me out to other different bills, not the current bill we were discussing in the OP. Signals lied and you continue to cover him up over that fact.

I wish I could believe that, but the more I talk to you, the more I believe that you've been duped by these criminals.

Oh yes yes yes, the criminals. And meanwhile you'd have me believe that Reagan and his buddies were a blessing to this nation during the 80's. Get a clue will you?

Clinton's presidency is a prime example. He and the Republican controlled Congress were able to balance the budget,

That is a debate in itself that will take up too much space over discussion. Next time I will certainly catch you up on Clinton, the 90's and the Republicans.

I just wish Clinton would have taken out Osama Bin laden when he had him in his sights. History might have played out very differently.

It seems like Bush had Osama Bin Laden in his sights and the support of the nation in his hands, until he and Republican party and half the Democrats decided to focus on Iraq. What a waste, but with people like you, who blamed Carter for not invading Iran, they had enough support to distract and move financial resources away from catching this man, towards Iraq. Oh yes, and lets not forget this little gem:

thewholegardenwillbow.files.wordpress.com...
The then 'special envoy' to president Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, shaking Saddams hand.

How about Reagans funding of Al-Qaeda during the 80's?
www.slate.com...

Mind you though, the Carter administration took part of this funding. But then again it was the cold war right? American flags and all. It is astounding that it wasn't long ago you were given this man Reagan all the praise in the world, and then you come up with a comment regarding Clintons faliure to catch Osama Bin Laden. It is just astounding. Such circular reasoning, but then again maybe you just do not know any better.

Question is: Do you think that Obama can move to the right after the midterms, or do you think that he is so far out in left field that he will become a president of vetoes?

Obama is not left wing, but then again I guess the republican talking points will lead you to that direction. Mind you though I still support many of Obamas policies, but in no way he is anything close to liberal. Considering his comments and idolization of Reagan as well during the 2008 elections, regardless of whether he was pandering to votes, not true liberal in their right mind would make such a comment.

They are Communists,

Communists through what? Tell me, if the government ran a service for the people that would typically be private, would that make that government communist? Get back to me on the answer to this.

They're going to skyrocket the debt to $20 Trillion

'Going' 'is' 'will'. If I wanted a prophet I'd go to the member predictions forum in BTS.

Nobody wants to punish Hispanics. But nobody wants to reward illegals. And no-one wants to see 20 million illegals deported either.

So you don't want to punish hispanics, but you have not choice. Makes sense.

The Federal Government created the problem,

No doubt the borders need to be secure, but not at the expense of freedom.

All the Arizona Law says is: Obey the Law.

Do you seriously think that is all the Arizona law says? Obey the law? What a waste of money and time then I tell ya. I believe that you know your support for the bill is not merely over it saying 'obey the law'. Do you know what lawful contact is? Lawful contact can be anything from a police office stopping you for driving on a busted wheel to an officer coming to your house and knocking on your door over the 'assumption' that your life was in thread. Lawful contact can also be a cop approaching you down the street because you 'look' lost and confuse. Im sure you understand where I am going with this.

I just love how Brewer insisted there will be no racial profiling in this bill, and this was enough for the conservatives to jump up and say 'you see! you see! no racial profiling'. I mean it is seriously the first in a while Iv seen a bunch of 'patriots' and 'revolutionaries' take the words of a politicians as true... or maybe... just maybe they did not take it as truth? Maybe they know, maybe you know what this bill is really about, and that racial profiling will be involved. Although evidently you cannot just come out and say it.

'Papers please'?

Illegal immigrants should not be entitled to Unemployment Benefits. It is not fair to the rest of us.

There you go again, highlighting the minority of abusers over these benefits, but instead of you and the Republicans coming out over solutions as to how this abuse can be prevented and how we can be sure the money is going to the most deserved americans in their time of need, you vote it down and insist it should not be passed at all.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Im sorry but you still have not responded to my question. You referenced me a part of a speech in which the then president Carter at the time issued, in which he did not back th Shaw against the islamic revolution, but that does not fully give me an answer. How was it Carters fault that an islamic revolution happened in another country half way around the world? I fail to understand this. You among many other conservatives have made this point among afew others that Carter failed to stop the revolution happening in Iran, I dont understand what you would have him do??

I did not reference part of a speech, if I would have referenced a part of a speech I would have mentioned that. I have not reviewed the particular speech that you are referring to, or any of his speeches recently.

And I thought that I was clear in my response to your question about what Carter should have done or what Reagan might have done.

We should have worked with the Shaw to make Iran a free and stable Democracy. Now whether or not that would have worked, I do not know.
But what I do know, is that his policy's failed. 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, and they weren't allowed to board a plane to take them to freedom until Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office. And you still call this a coincidence. www.youtube.com...

And as to what Ronald Reagan would have done had he been elected president in 1976, I do not know. But what I do know is that whatever he might have done, if anything, would have been different than what Jimmy Carter did. These two guys were on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Apparently one of Carters failures in his administration was that he did not send our soldiers into Iran, into an event that was really none of our business, he didn't spend billions in waging war. I mean are you people seriously whacked out? Do you know that the Iraq war ended up costing this nation $700 billion, $200 million a day, we lost over 4000 American lives in a war that had little to nothing to do with our side of the world, and yet conservatives like yourself here can still complain that Carter did not do the same. Unbelievable.

Well maybe Carter should have sent troops in to support our good friend and ally, The Shaw. Maybe if he had done that, we wouldn't have had to have gone to war years later and spend a Trillion Dollars.

And if I recall correctly, just as many Democrats voted to go to war as Republicans. The war would have never been approved by Congress if Democrats would have not have voted to authorize it.

I found it amusing how night after night, Democrats and the Media would blame George W. Bush for the war with their vicious rabid attacks. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. ......peace with honor......a decade of greed..........weapons of mass destruction............

So dont talk about the Iraq war if you are not willing to acknowledge the fact that Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.

The international intelligence Community was well aware of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He had already used poison gas on the Kurds on more than one occasion. And when asked why he did it, Saddam responded by saying that he could not have gassed the Kurds because in fact he was having dinner with the Kurds on that very same evening.

Saddam's own son in law, Hussein Kamel, head of Iran's nuclear program, defected to the West during Clinton's presidency and told the world of unspeakable horrors and weapons of mass destruction and of the progress that Saddam was making toward his nuclear aspirations. The world was shocked.www.ratical.org...

Saddam persuaded his sons in law, through the aid of their wives, (Saddam's own two daughters), to return to Iraq and that this was a family affair and all is forgiven, and everything will be worked out, and all will turn out fine. www.moreorless.au.com...

Saddam's son Uday, was waiting for them when they returned. As soon as they crossed the border into Iraq, they were taken into custody.......You can only try to imagine how they were raped and tortured, then slowly executed, while Saddam's own daughters begged and pleaded for their husbands lives. www.independent.co.uk...

How many people have to be murdered before Our Volunteers are allowed to risk their lives in the fight to secure their liberty? In your opinion, How many?......1 million? 5 million? 10 million? 20 million? even more? You tell me. I would sure like to know your answer to this question.

Did you know that there was plenty of anti war sentiment right before World War II? America didn't want to go to war. Those same anti-war protesters would have been content if Hitler would have conquered the world.

Peace was their answer.

Islamic fascists are far worse than Hitler could have ever been.

Originally posted by My2commoncentsworth
Illegal immigrants should not be entitled to Unemployment Benefits. It is not fair to the rest of us.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
There you go again, highlighting the minority of abusers over these benefits, but instead of you and the Republicans coming out over solutions as to how this abuse can be prevented and how we can be sure the money is going to the most deserved americans in their time of need, you vote it down and insist it should not be passed at all.

Again I say....use Stimulus money to pay for the extension.

I will continue in my next post


[edit on 5-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
And I thought that I was clear in my response to your question about what Carter should have done or what Reagan might have done.

You did not make it clear. You have been deceptive about what your argument was. You clearly blamed Carter for not sending our soldiers into Iran, spending billions in a war we had no business in. That is what you had been arguing, that is what you in part put towards the faliure of Carter's presidency, but you sure were reluctant to say it straight.

Did you support the Iraq war? How has that gone? I see you continue to complain about the $700 billion stimulus, do you know the Iraq war has costed us the in the same? Do you have any idea the cost it would have taken had we waged war in Iran as well. You complain about wasteful spending and yet at the same time you complain that Carter did'nt go to war which would have eventually costed this nation another tonne to the debt.

We should have worked with the Shaw to make Iran a free

Work with the Shaw how? Tell me exactly how were we going to work with him to prevent a nation wide revolution occuring? Explain to me how we were going to do this? Are you refering to us invading Iran? Or just working with him behind the scenes to supposed prevent such an inevitable revolution from occuring? Why was it our business to start with?? Seriously, dont talk to me about waste spending because it seems to be irrelevant when it comes to pointless wars in your view.

and stable Democracy.

We are not the police of the world and should never be. This is exactly what triggered this financial crises, this attitude from politicians and people like you who insist this nation should get itself involved in the businesses of certain nations. We waste money, waste the lives of our soldiers, all for the name of nation building, and what is the end result? Yet, you blame Carter for not doing this.

52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, and they weren't allowed to board a plane to take them to freedom until Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office. And you still call this a coincidence.

Frankly I do not care. Whether it was a coincidence or not, Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with ending the hostage crises.

And as to what Ronald Reagan would have done had he been elected president in 1976, I do not know.

But you just insisted before that Reagan would have done something to 'stop the muslims from taking over'. You still have not clarified this for me. You have not explained how reagan was going to get involved in matters of a nation half a world away.

Well maybe Carter should have sent troops in to support our good friend and ally, The Shaw. Maybe if he had done that, we wouldn't have had to have gone to war years later and spend a Trillion Dollars.

So Carter did not spend billions of dollars at the time, sacrificing our soldiers lives, to stop a revolution from happening in a country half way around the world, a country we really had not business with? And this would have prevented wasteful spending in future?

You do know that Iraq and Iran were at war during the 80's and late 70's?

And if I recall correctly, just as many Democrats voted to go to war as Republicans. The war would have never been approved by Congress if Democrats would have not have voted to authorize it.

I never disputed this and actually highlighted this fac earlier.

I found it amusing how night after night, Democrats and the Media would blame George W. Bush for the war

Exactly, hypocrisy crosses both parties, and I have highlighted that fact time and time again on this forum, on this thread.

So dont talk about the Iraq war if you are not willing to acknowledge the fact that Democrats are just as responsible as Republicans.

I did acknowledge it, infact I stated exactly that in my previous post. So yes, I will talk about the Iraq war and how wasteful it was, and I will continue to highlight your hypocrisy over complaining about government spending, and then blaming Carter for not spending on a what would have been a wasteful war in a country half a world a way. Vietnam and Iraq already costed this naton dearly, and you would insist we had done the same in Iran in the 70's. Why dont you stop complaining about wasteful spending if you support these kinds of wars.

The international intelligence Community was well aware of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He had already used poison gas on the Kurds on more than one occasion.

That was in 1989, and yet the same reasoning was used 13 years later for the second gulf war. Whats more interesting, we have numerous massacres occur in Africa during the 80's and 90's, we had an enslavement of a people occur for decades at a time to this day in Burma, we had human rights be violated in parts of South America, and yet for some reason, you seem to ignore this fact. I dont believe we had the power to stop these killings, these human rights abuses, but at the same time I am at the logic that if you insist on supporting liberating coincidentally oil rich nations in the middle east, you'd do the same for other nations if this was just matter of human rights. Interested though conservatives have kept shut over this fact.

Again I say....use Stimulus money to pay for the extension.

And again let me explain to you tha this was not the reasoning this time for the Republicans opposition to the bill, neither would they had supported it if it was stimulus funded at the start. I am not concerned anymore about what you support of this bill, I am concerned about the explanations and justifications you have made for why the Republicans voted against the bill this time around.

reply to post by inforeal

As bad as Democratic politicians are, as least they understand fundamental humanity somewhat,

If Democrats understand fundamental humanity, then they have no idea how to show it.

They just make impossible promises. Saying that is humanity is setting oneself up for failure.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by My2commoncentsworth

They are Communists,....... They're going to skyrocket the debt to $20 Trillion

And you replied............

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

'Going' 'is' 'will'. If I wanted a prophet I'd go to the member predictions forum in BTS.

I am not a prophet, although I believe that it is possible to see into the future. I do not prophecy, but I will speculate, just like everybody else does...... and at the rate that the debt is climbing, even a junior prophet from East Japeapea can see that it will reach 20 trillion very soon.......
www.usdebtclock.org...

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

And again let me explain to you tha this was not the reasoning this time for the Republicans opposition to the bill, neither would they had supported it if it was stimulus funded at the start. I am not concerned anymore about what you support of this bill, I am concerned about the explanations and justifications you have made for why the Republicans voted against the bill this time around.

Again, here is the link, notice the date, June 30, 2010, 11;39 PM, at the top of the article.
Let me remind you that this thread started on June 30, 2010, 10:36 AM.

Harry Reid Blocks Bill to Extend Unemployment Benefits with Unspent Stimulus Funds

www.weeklystandard.com...

And oh,......... please do not be frightened by my avatar SG. I changed it to make a point on another thread.


[edit on 5-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

Really people still think there are two parties. think about it how do you game the system...

All the dems and repubs do is grow government and make more rules laws and taxes .. the game isn't the dems vs the republicans its the government against the people!

think about it.. if you stack the deck.. you always win.. and when your making all the rules it s pretty easy to guarantee good results.

Government is there to grow government.. thats all... its great job security.

When has the government ever gotten smaller, when have they turned back any of there laws that hinder peoples freedom.. when have they eliminated taxes.. I can think of only a few cases on any of the above.. prohibition is one.. but then again they collect taxes on that particular product.. So I'd call it a wash

They will just come up with more reasons to collect more and more.. once the get into "governing" that particular aspect of life they then tax it.. health care is a great example.. we had a health care system and now that there nose in in it were going to get taxed on it.. and still have to pay for the health care.. then once they say were paying for health care now we need to tax all the unhealthy food your eating.. then you pay more..

this happens over and over and over again and yet most people fail to see it for what it is .

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We are not the police of the world and should never be. This is exactly what triggered this financial crises, this attitude from politicians and people like you who insist this nation should get itself involved in the businesses of certain nations. We waste money, waste the lives of our soldiers, all for the name of nation building, and what is the end result? Yet, you blame Carter for not doing this.

I don't blame Carter for ...t The financial crises that you are referring to is the recent financial crisis of 2008, I assume. This crises was caused by the collapse of the real estate market and unethical derivatives trading. It was preceded by a spike in the price of oil from $50 to $147 per barrel.

What does the financial crisis have to do with nation building? ...bangs head on desk...You're giving me a headache dude....(just kidding)

podtech.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth
I don't blame Carter for ...t

Then what else could you possibly be blaming Carter over? You blame Carter for allowing the Muslims to take over Iran, you blame him for not stopping the revolution in Iran, you then insist Reagan would have done different, so what else could you possibly mean aside from us getting our military involved? Please, enlighten me, because this is one of the core reasons from conservatives cite over their view over the faliure of the Carter administration. It seems that is exactly what conservatives mean in general, so enlighten me again.

The financial crises that you are referring to is the recent financial crisis of 2008, I assume. This crises was caused by the collapse of the real estate market and unethical derivatives trading.

That was part of the problem, not all of it. You are to sit here and tell me that $700 billion war in Iraq, $200 million a day war (that had no reason to start with) had nothing to do with this financial crises? Really? I'd have a field day having you explain that to the rest of the nation.

It was preceded by a spike in the price of oil from $50 to $147 per barrel.

The spike in oil costs was based over middle eastern tensions and oil price speculators who rose the price purposefully. The housing bubble had little to do with it.

What does the financial crisis have to do with nation building?

We have over 70 bases in the world. We send billions to Israel year by year. We spend over $200 million a day on the Iraq war let alone the billions we had already spent in the past. We have active troops in South Korea, Saudi Arabia, we sent our troops into part of Central and South America in past. Where do you think we managed to pay all these trillions over the years? Really? And what did it get us in return? And you want to sit here and tell me these wars and the billions we spend had nothing to do with the financial crises?

Mind you this crises didn't just occur with war. The useless $900 billion trickle down Bush tax cuts did little but benefit the most wealthy in this nation.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by MY2Commoncentsworth

The financial crises that you are referring to is the recent financial crisis of 2008, I assume. This crises was caused by the collapse of the real estate market and unethical derivatives trading.

That was part of the problem, not all of it. You are to sit here and tell me that $700 billion war in Iraq, $200 million a day war (that had no reason to start with) had nothing to do with this financial crises? Really? I'd have a field day having you explain that to the rest of the nation.

Nation? About 700 or so members online, and hundreds of threads hardly constitutes a nation. We're the only ones on this thread. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....................

Once again, the financial crisis of 2008 had nothing to do with nation building or the war in Iraq. It was caused by the burst of the housing bubble, and complicated by congressmen and senators like Barney Frank and Cris Dodd, who had pressured banks and lending institutions to lend money to people who really couldn't afford to buy a home.

The following analysis of the crisis is one of the best that I have found in terms of being short, precise, and easy to understand. It is a quote from the link in my previous post.

Financial Crisis 2008 Explained by Anton Walhman

1. Why did the financial meltdown happen?

2. Who is to blame for it?

3. What, if anything, can be done to fix it?

I know many of you don’t have the patience to read more than the absolute minimum, so I start by giving some of the briefest answers possible:

1. Cause? The price of housing – and therefore mortgages – was too high, which in combination with high leverage (such as >30:1) caused those institutions who bet on the wrong direction of the market to go bankrupt in an accelerated fashion.

2. Blame? Most of the blame is simply in the hands of those who were too optimistic on the housing/mortgage market. Those who shorted those markets made lots of money.

3. Solution? Basically nothing. Asset bubbles happen every few years (remember the Internet boom 1999-2000?) and they will happen again. Prices must simply be allowed to adjust down.

Originally posted by My2Commoncentsworth
It was preceded by a spike in the price of oil from $50 to $147 per barrel.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The spike in oil costs was based over middle eastern tensions and oil price speculators who rose the price purposefully. The housing bubble had little to do with it.

The price of oil had nothing to do with the financial crisis. As I have stated above, it preceded the financial crises. It was a contributing factor in helping to create the Great Recession, and it will rear its ugly head again before its over........and that pesky little 10% + unemployment that we are experiencing right now, that we had started to experience back then, and that we will continue to experience until Republicans take back the House and the Senate.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And you want to sit here and tell me these wars and the billions we spend had nothing to do with the financial crises? Mind you this crises didn't just occur with war. The useless $900 billion trickle down Bush tax cuts did little but benefit the most wealthy in this nation.

The wars and the billions are liberating millions. War had nothing to do with the housing crisis. The mortgage meltdown triggered the financial crisis. Then there were the phony derivatives and the bailouts and the hand outs and the billions and the trillions......to big to fail.......the government was responsible for this crisis....never before was so much money taken from so many taxpayers and then handed over to financial institutions that had behaved negligently, and that had no business being bailed out.

These institutions should have been allowed to fail. If a business can not stand on its own two feet, it has no business being in business

Oh, and those "useless" tax cuts resulted in a strong economy, and kept unemployment around 5% throughout all 8 years of Bush's Presidency.
They kept people working and putting food on the table. If it wasn't for the rise of the terrorist nations and 9-11, our balanced budget might have been sustained.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Then what else could you possibly be blaming Carter over? You blame Carter for allowing the Muslims to take over Iran, you blame him for not stopping the revolution in Iran, you then insist Reagan would have done different, so what else could you possibly mean aside from us getting our military involved? Please, enlighten me, because this is one of the core reasons from conservatives cite over their view over the failure of the Carter administration. It seems that is exactly what conservatives mean in general, so enlighten me again.

Again, I don't blame Carter for the Islamic Revolution, but I think that he would have seen this revolution coming. I would assume that he was being informed of events in Iran by the CIA. He should have noticed the increase in tension and terrorist activity among the Iranian people. The Shah is the one who lost control. And he should have liberated his people long before the revolution that now enslaves Iranians in a brutal theocracy where women are sub human slaves, and may be stoned to death if they are unfortunate enough to have been raped. I bet you don't give a damn about these people and don't care if they continue to live under brutal oppression. I suppose you don't care if we have nuclear Ayatollahs. Oh.

I am always amused when these Islamic Fascists blame the West for all of their problems. And I am always amazed at the support these scumbags get from some of our citizens.

Again, I do not know all of the details.....about Carter and the revolution......Maybe Carter should have had the CIA spike Ayatollah Khomeini's opium with '___'........Maybe the crazy old coot-er face might have come to his senses..... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....Better yet.....A Cyanide twist.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f02c1e2119df.gif[/atsimg]


[edit on 7-7-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]