|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Are you better off then you were were 4 years ago? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1347339817 Message started by Starlifter on 09/10/12 at 22:03:37 |
|
Title: Are you better off then you were were 4 years ago? Post by Starlifter on 09/10/12 at 22:03:37 Republicans are asking the question, "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?" If you don't think we are better off then vote Republican because the Republicans are going to take you right back there. But if you think that going back to Bush is a bad idea then vote for the Democrat and let the recovery continue. The Republicans under Bush dug a very deep hole and it's going to take a very long time to undo the catastrophic damage they did to America. I don't think you'll find anyone who will trade where we are now to go back to where we were 4 years ago. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/10/12 at 22:48:40 Its no secret we'll be right back in another war if Romney gets elected. I would vote for Forrest Gump if it meant not going to war again. I'm sick and tired of our kids coming home in caskets and the ones lucky enough to survive screwed up for life. Without the Christians the only ones belonging to the Republican Party would be the 5%. They mention the word abortion and the Chritians go apesh!t. I'm only for abortion in certain cases but I dont understand the Christians. Its a terminal sin to kill a child in the womb but its OK to bomb schools and hospitals in the Middle East. The God I worship considers a life a life, no matter if its in the womb or across the ocean. Sorry Star, didnt mean to ramble on your thread. Am I better off, cant honestly say I am but my family is back to work and for that I'm greatful and I think everyone knows who I'm voting for LOL |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Starlifter on 09/10/12 at 23:06:07 It's funny how a person who is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-indiscriminate drone bombing, pro-guns, pro-hunting, pro-no health care, and pro-no meals for poor children....can still call themselves "Pro-Life"...ha ha, is that a knee slapper or what? |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by thumperclone on 09/10/12 at 23:18:42 4 more years aint goin to change much of anything no matter who gets the job.. we're still suffering from ronnies trickle down(piss on you)schemes.. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Serowbot on 09/10/12 at 23:33:30 Rep's are pro-fetus... that's about as far as it goes... Once you have a birth certificate... all bets are off... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/11/12 at 01:03:40 The real Republicans could care less about anyone but themselves and there offshore bank accounts. Do you really think anyone at Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan gives a sh!t if a poor Black or Latino getto girl has an abortion? This abortion thing is a scam to draw in old white gullible Christians who make up the majority of the party. Bot's right, once you stick your head out be careful, a Christian might blow it off. Star once again I apologise for derailing your thread. If I had the time I would love to write a book about how the Republican Party has totally decieved the Christians and the older generation into voting against their own self interest and going against their religion. The Republican Party have become masters of deceit, thats the only reason they are still here. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/11/12 at 01:21:28 Its not just abortion, according to what I've read Jesus hung out with the poor, the sick and elderly. We all know what the Republican Party wants to do with them. And a very large majority of the white Christians will vote for it. My favorite reading on the life of Jesus was the day he walked into the temple, saw the crooked money changers and priest cheating the poor. According to the Bible he jerked lampcords off the wall and swung them wildly over his head, kicked a$$ and cleaned house. If he ever comes back he's got his work cut out for him. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/11/12 at 13:00:50 1D3A2F3C2227283A2B3C4E0 wrote:
Thank god my bike dont have internet ... cos if I read this while on my bike, I'd have a tank slapper .... ;D Never pass up an opportunity to make a bad joke I always say. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/11/12 at 13:29:14 0F283D2E30353A28392E5C0 wrote:
This is one more of those political Phallus-cies. Why would you neccesarily be better off as a rule ... people age, you get more medical bills, you get worse ... unless you were under 10 @ that first instance ... 10-14 you usually improve ... you still are @ home, but you now have more rights, you can get a girl (or guy) friend, have more rights ... I was 90 years old when Obama got elected, and look what has happened since, I got arthritis, hemmorroids, constipation, incontinence, diabetes, blindness, deafness, halitosis and my girl friend turned into dust ... that Obama is the devil. Devil I tell you. Devil. Bogus question knowing that an aging population is going to be worse every 4 years and conveniently blaming Obama for it. Its like Blaming Obama for the passage of time. Cool. Buddha. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Starlifter on 09/11/12 at 22:09:25 Excellant posts here so far. I am driving to New Jersey in the morning and will be back in a week to ten days...keep the pot boiling. *Starlifter :D |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/11/12 at 22:16:25 Have a safe journey my friend. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/12/12 at 00:11:15 17302536282D22302136440 wrote:
Excellant posts here so far. Justa buncha mutual masturbation by a bunch of mutual admiration clowns.. Obomney, Rombama,, who cares,, screwed either way.l |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/12/12 at 06:00:48 Justa buncha mutual masturbation by a bunch of mutual admiration clowns.. Obomney, Rombama,, who cares,, screwed either way.l I agree with the first part JOG; funny stuff! The ultimate circle jerk.... but you are wrong about screwed either way. There is a clear difference. Might not be the difference you want, but the two are miles apart. One way we continue down the path to greater State control, the other way slows that path; doesn't eliminate it. I think that's much farther down the line. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/12/12 at 07:25:55 Web's been tootin on Rush's crack pipe again. You havent lost a single freedom during Obama's watch. You've forgotten a lot, but I havent forgotten the Patriot Act and who passed it. Now that's state control at its finest! |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Retread on 09/12/12 at 07:59:22 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
Really? I guess the government is OK when it has its business in womens reproductive organs? Or can put women in jail who do not want to carry a rapists child to term? Or deny constitutional rights to a group of people because of sexual orientation? We can see now which party restricts freedom... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Serowbot on 09/12/12 at 08:24:01 Not only will Rep's force a woman to have unwanted medical procedures, and be forced to have a child,... they'll be forced to pay for it, out of their own pocketbook... Wasn't being forced to buy something by the government, a large part of the argument against Obamacare?... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by LostArtist on 09/12/12 at 10:23:37 yes I'm doing much better now than I was 4 years ago, but it wasn't because of Obama, and Romney won't stop me either. my swim up stream is slow but consistent. Hopefully I'll get a bump start or something to speed up the ascension of my true awesomeness soon. ::) I'm still glad McCain didn't get elected though, so on second thought, the payroll tax cut that has happened under Obama, I liked that. I know the republicans mostly bemoan that because it's so small, but that really matters to you when you don't make much money to begin with. I really don't think that any tax breaks for the upper classes would really benefit me directly, just because the industry I'm in is suffering a bit and it has been under a pay raise freeze for the last 6 years or so here anyway, even so I've seen 3 pay raises in that time, first one was just me being a good employee and working above and beyond expectations, and additional $1.50 /hour which meant I could quit my sucky freelance job digitizing medical forms, and the second I got because I got offered a job that paid more and my manager offered to increase my salary because of that, that was another $1.50/hour and the third was a surprise to me, just a $.50 "cost of living" increase. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/12/12 at 11:47:06 I am doing better and its cos of Obama (atleast partly) and 4 more years will mean more work for me, Now oddly Romney will also result in as much if not more work ... that is the advantage of rolling regulations ... In 08 my house was worth a lot less, its since recovered, and that's oddly because of bush ... I bought my house @ pre bubble price which it still went below in 08-09. However I want Glass-Steagall back ... I dont think anyone who has received a bail out directly or indirectly even deserves a voice in that descision to regulate ... the fact that they have "paid it back" just means they have robbed the new invesors to pay the federal govt back ... so not a valid argument. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/12/12 at 14:33:21 Web's been tootin on Rush's crack pipe again. You havent lost a single freedom during Obama's watch. You've forgotten a lot, but I havent forgotten the Patriot Act and who passed it. Now that's state control at its finest! Wasn't crack; was something else rush was taking. Not sure what it was. no freedom? oh yea? My company will cancel my health insurance next year and I will be forced into Obamacare despite what the liar said about keeping my insurance. He knows companies will drop coverage and as long as he keeps the restrictions on insurance companies selling across state lines, I'll have to take his insurance or pay a tax. Thanks Barack... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/12/12 at 14:35:08 Really? I guess the government is OK when it has its business in womens reproductive organs? reproductive organs? Coward; say what you are really talking about. You want women to be able to kill unborn babies anytime and for any reason. Don't be a coward and say reproductive organs; geez..... Here's an idea; ask the unborn child if it wants a chance at freedom... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Retread on 09/12/12 at 16:08:34 Thats right, we have to wait for after they are born to kill em, of course you have to have these unwanted children to be tortured and starved before you kill em... Coward, tell me what its really about, your not really pro-life.. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Midnightrider on 09/12/12 at 19:08:34 If abortion is a sin let God take care of whoever did it. As far as the American goverment blowing up the Middle East for profit ::) |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/12/12 at 22:37:57 of course you have to have these unwanted children to be tortured and starved before you kill em... What in the living hell are you talking about?.... I just want to make sure I’ve got you straight. You are completely okay with a doctor sticking a pair of scissors into a baby’s skull after it’s been partially delivered from the woman to the point where the head is out but the rest of the child is inside, then you open those scissors up, stick a tube in and vacuum out the brains so the skull collapses. You’re cool with that??? This is what you want to defend??? You guys are living pieces of human excrement. Band me from this forum; delete me. In fact, why don’t you guys ABORT me from this forum? You don’t need a real reason to; just ABORT me because you feel like it…. Abort me; go ahead; abort me. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Greg on 09/13/12 at 06:24:45 Saw this on FB and thought it was funny... http://files.thebenics.com/misc/betteroff.jpg |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Retread on 09/13/12 at 07:00:02 457770616677605F736079120 wrote:
I have already stated my opinion and stance towards abortion, I am personally against it, but it is a mother and fathers decision, not mine, yours, some preachers, or the governments. What you described is a partial birth abortion, which is very seldom done, again that usually falls into mother's life is in danger. I will always counsel against abortion if asked, however we do not live in a make believe world where every child brought into it is treated with love and understanding. These same children end up dead, or permanent draws on our society many times.. Every year 3.3 million kids are sexually abused, physically abused, mentally abused, starved, or put on the streets in the US.. The Republicant party would love to make this number larger, with cuts to child welfare, Planned parenthood, and access to birth control. Sorry, it not you we are angry with or cannot support, it is your archaic ideals, and methods to achieve those ideals, maybe we could abort those? At this point of time, we should not even have this as an issue of importance within an election, we have gone backwards thanks to extreme ignorance.. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/13/12 at 07:36:33 Web: I'll give you a reason for abortion - In fact I'll give you 10 billion ... or 7+ billion and creeping to 10. The Bible was written when there were less than 10 million people on the planet and people were routinely being killed by famine and flood, fires, earthquakes, land slides and wild animals ... made sense to hold on to every baby you can get ... @ 10 billion its optional, in fact anyway you chose to self castrate - be it become lesbian/gay, or condoms or abortion in the global sense is a extension granted to human life on this planet. @ 15 billion, you will be 1 family 1 child like china ... @ 20 you'd be castrated @ birth. @25 billion, you'd be eaten @ birth by a hungry mob. Take your pick. That is not religious, or political or any bloody twisted sick rant, it is simple logic. Rush was doing ground up oxycontin - which I believe he blamed on his cleaning lady ... Yea those immigrant clenaing ladies hold all the power over those wealthy white men ... you know even Aaaaahnold's cleaning lady tricked him into giving her some of his sperm then used it to create a child and then she took that child and moved away to some village. That trickster. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/13/12 at 07:38:16 6663646F6862010 wrote:
This is hilarious - You do know that Obama didn't change the criteria for food stamps right. Bush did, and I would applaud him for that, Obama just happenied to take office when the economy tanked and hence there were people eligible to get on it which obviously he had to let them on ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Greg on 09/13/12 at 08:21:40 I am not blaming anyone. I just found it hilarious. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/13/12 at 08:48:21 Take your pick. That is not religious, or political or any bloody twisted sick rant, it is simple logic. it's far from simple logic and the idea of abortion for birth control is pathetic. to say we couldn't support 25 billion is an opinion and not a fact. When the world had a billion people, do you suppose they believed it could hold 7 times as much? Who knows what the capacity is. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WebsterMark on 09/13/12 at 08:52:21 I have already stated my opinion and stance towards abortion, I am personally against it, but it is a mother and fathers decision, not mine, yours, some preachers, or the governments. Stopping the killing of babies just because the are inconvenient should be everyone’s business and yes it is our place to step in. If someone is about to start bashing my head in with a bat because it’s inconvenient for me to be alive, please, you have my permission to stop them…. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Retread on 09/13/12 at 09:29:18 Yep you start it from your home, I'll attempt to control my home, and everybody else do the same.. Leave the government out of it... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/13/12 at 09:29:21 1F2D2A3B3C2D3A05293A23480 wrote:
I agree that abortion isn't a form of birth control ... it just has so many many factors attached to it ... and @ the end of it, it also is birth control, but hell no, not the first form at all ... However on the 25 billion - dude we have enough food problems as well as many many related problems now ... not just food, housing, air, water etc etc ... I'd safely say unless people want to eat their own sheite ... 10 billion is the maximum for the way we live now ... Yes we can cram 25 billion into texas alone ... however we wont want to live that way. We all want our suburban lots with privacy fences and our air conditioned suv's complete with blue tooth and what not, no way we will accomodate over 10 billion ... and that is only cos there are people crammed into shoebox sized apartments in asia and shanties in africa ... If they all want the same 1/4 acre and suv we're done for. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by LostArtist on 09/13/12 at 10:58:36 Mega City 1 here we come! I'm really looking forward to the new Judge Dredd movie |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/13/12 at 13:19:54 Toronto is called a Meg-ass city ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WD on 09/13/12 at 13:57:06 Better off..no. Worse off... no. Just a trade off. Watched the home we were buying lose 50% of its appraised value over 6 years. Moved back to the farm, where the decreased value is a good thing, taxes on 54 acres here are the same as our one acre was out west. Instead of driving semi trucks pulling import/export containers I'm driving a John Deere or Massey Ferguson and growing foodstuffs for our local population. Better off is a relative term. Our friend moved here from Seattle and has flat out failed at this lifestyle. But still has a roof over his head (surplus FEMA trailer) and something to eat (food stamps and the garden here), if he'd stayed out west he'd be on the street and in the soup kitchen line. Or dead, the shelters I formerly volunteered at out there wouldn't help white men. At all. Not the slightest bit inclined to think one party or the other will ever change the harsh realities of life for many in this country. Too many of our populace refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that they, and they alone, are responsible for their own upkeep, actions and attitudes. The nanny state has been proven an unnecessary drain. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/14/12 at 16:48:48 4D5E1A0 wrote:
Why is that ? is that cos they are full with women and children ? That is an ongoing theme with organized charities. There was a single girl I know who had a charity - I believe united way - tell her that they dont help single women (Why ? no clue) ... that after she contributed to united way out of her paycheck. If it were up to me, no one will be giving cash to charities. They get food, clothing and materials from me, and never never never any $. I have dropped off cans of food recently in a bin and it was in a walmart bag, and the receipt was still in that bag. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/14/12 at 22:38:03 & after that Huge Tsunami, ( Not Japan) a few years ago,, there, on TV, sat Slick Willy & The Shrub, shoulder to shoulder, tellin the American people how desperately the victims needed our help. Ohh,, but dont send clothes & blankets & food, send MONEY,, Phhhht,, thieves,, |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WD on 09/15/12 at 13:51:10 Srinath, I honestly have no idea. I've seen people pull up in late model very expensive cars get shelter, meals, free clothing, cash assistance, etc. I've seen the same facilities turn away homeless combat veterans pushing a worn out shopping cart or carrying a beat up backpack and bedroll. Needless to say, I stopped volunteering and would just buy them a meal or groceries. Never gave them money, you can live w/o cigarettes, beer, etc. I know when we got ready to move back here I took a bunch of surplus winter clothing to town and gave it away, usually with a hot meal thrown in for the recipients. I could have given it to a thrift store just as easily but I don 't trust them to do the right thing with any funds generated. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by bill67 on 09/15/12 at 15:49:06 Yes I'm better off than 4 years ago I've less teeth to brush. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/16/12 at 10:55:14 293630372A2D1C2C1C24363A71430 wrote:
Oh yea I remember, christmas day 2005, it hit Madras India too, the city I grew up in. In the japan tsnami too they collected $. The thing is the long distance nature of that charity makes $ the best option. They cant transport clothes 5000 miles into a disaster zone ... I dont donate to them, however cash is all they use, clothes etc they tend to sell in the US. BTW even goodwill sells it and uses the cash ... I however in case of the big charities with no retail fronts, like united way, they are just a collection machine for their ceo's. I actually dont care if they sell my clothes or furniture to make $ for their education of whatever, its actually a good bit of work. Its not like collecting $$$ and paying their ceo 24 mill like united way did. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/17/12 at 15:03:56 I'm not getting into the abortion argument here. I will some other time, but Lifter's question isn't about that. What constitutes "better off"? Does it mean that you have more money, a more secure job, or is it that you may have lost some freedom, which can't be qantitatively measured? Or being in fear of the future rather than anticipating it? We argued the health care change bill a couple of years ago until the cows came home. To me, I lost a little bit of freedom here. The tax issue - the "Bush" tax cuts are inappropriately named because Congress passes tax laws, not any Pres. If Obama is successful in getting Congress to let them expire, the gov't will take a small bit more of my money, and yours too. All taxpayers saw a bit of relief with the Bush tax cuts. However, I would let them expire purely because we've got to start reducing the deficit. And there, my friends, is one area where we're not better off. This Pres has exploded the deficit, and people who think with their heads rather than their stomachs can't help but see that this deficit will kill us, driving us off of that fiscal cliff. So, are we better off because we're facing eventual ruin unless we get the spending under control, and the only way to do that is cutting programs? For sure, we can't afford any new spending, such as Obamacare will generate. I fear becoming what Greece, Portugal and Spain are now. So, just for that reason if for no other, I'm a long way from being better off now than I was 4 years ago. As for wars, neither party has a cap on that one. Wars are sometimes needed, sometimes not. Even as a diehard Republican, I was against the invasion of Iraq, feeling as I did that Saddam was a stabilzing influence who kept his animals in check. We invaded the wrong place - the target should have been Iran. The Israelis won't wait much longer - they will attack Iran, and they must. WE need to be ready to take out any and all who support Iran and their acquiring any sort of nuclear capability - you don't give a madman that kind of potential. Didn't we learn anything from the 1930s in Germany? Yet, fools would rather forget that those who ignore history are only bound to repeat it. No one hates war any more than a career soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. After wearing the uniform for 30 years, mostly in a reserve capacity, I can attest to that. But I wore it for a reason - be ready to act if necessary. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Serowbot on 09/17/12 at 16:02:17 Long time no hear from, Jerry... Welcome back... ;)... Webster leaves and Jerry comes back... that's a good trade... :)... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/18/12 at 00:08:05 The Israelis won't wait much longer - they will attack Iran, and they must. Really? WHY? Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion About Biography of Juan Cole Books on Mideast Comment Rules Contact Maps Online Books Sitemap Wiki Library Feed Netanyahu in 1992: Iran close to having nuclear bomb Posted on 09/16/2012 by Juan Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is trapped in reflection theory. He was allegedly himself involved in illegally smuggling nuclear triggers out of the US, and he assumes that Iran desperately wants a nuclear weapon as well. But Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given a fatwa against nukes, and there is no solid intelligence pointing to an Iranian weapons program. Iran can’t be close to having a weapon if it doesn’t have a weapons program. He has no credibility left on such warnings. Reprint edn.: Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago. 1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon. 1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV. 1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000. 1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003. & IF they had that capability, what makes anyone think theyd start a war? & FFS do NOT go running with the mis quoted crap about Wipe them off the map, Those are lies, by our media, still, wise up, go look for an accurate translation. Ive posted it at least twice. Seriously, Iran isnt the one with the history of aggression. WE ARE,,Quit buying the propaganda. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/18/12 at 09:32:18 212E2228232E25292E392C2E394B0 wrote:
Not even close, never going to happen ... why ? cos we dont have any limit on the $ we can print and all our debt is designated by usd. Greece will leave the euro and print its own currency ... so will italy and spain ... looks like the world is going in our direction ... and we have an insurmountable lead. The euro ran us down good, but its done for now. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/18/12 at 10:26:51 707F7379727F74787F687D7F681A0 wrote:
Oh this pres has exploded the deficit ? I thought congress makes laws, not any president ? I am sorry most of the expansion in giovt has been due to people aging and collecting on medicare/medicaid and SS, 2 wars and the related medical and rehab costs, a depression and hence the explosion of poverty and hence the larger population on food stamps and the repairs to infrastructure and so on, all of which is IMHO not negotiable ... The roads get tore up, bridges start to look like they will fall apart, people get older, sorry I dont think tossing them onto the street, or ignoring the roads and bridges is a solution. Neither is privatising them like Romney wants to. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by bill67 on 09/18/12 at 11:11:57 What did Israel ever do for the USA? |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by bill67 on 09/18/12 at 11:13:23 Why did Hitler hate the Jews? |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/18/12 at 12:03:41 63686D6D3736010 wrote:
Wasn't Hitler rumoured to be part jewish. Did he not claim jews were evading taxes ? BTW Hitler is not held in as much disdain in India, obviously we were a colony of the british, and we were trying to get our independence, so there were many selectively timed up risings to disrupt the british in India as WW2 got underway. Hitler adopted the swasthika which is a religious and sacred symbol in India, long before hitler co opted it. Tom hanks talks about it in the da vinci code. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/18/12 at 12:14:05 Lots of people claim that the swastika was theirs before the Nazi party adopted it, including at least one tribe of American Indians. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/18/12 at 12:23:14 Bill - Like most of his ilk, Hitler preyed on the fears and biases of the German people in a terrible time of turmoil. If you've read much history, you know that the post WW I depression in Germany was far worse than our Great Depression in the U.S. People were literally eating out of garbage cans. When you also study that era in German history, you learn that in the 1920s there was a period of hyper inflation going on in Germany, and by the end of that decade, it literally took a wheel barrow full of German currency to buy a bag of groceries. And the Treaty of Versailles had put tremendous pressure on the German gov't to pay the reparations called for in that treaty. So, Hitler and his National Socialism Party arrived on the scene. Part of dealing with any set of catastrophic economic conditions involves finding somebody to blame for them, like you love to blame GWB for all of the ills that you perceive are besetting the U.S. right now. Hitler chose to blame the Jewish business interests - the banks and other financial institutions that he convinced the German voters were responsible for all that ailed them. Since they were inherently "different", different religion, kept mostly to themselves, socialized mostly with other Jews, and the orthodox Jews wore distinctive clothing, they were an easy target. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/18/12 at 13:14:21 38373B313A373C303720353720520 wrote:
Also sounds like the Right blaming Obama to me. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/18/12 at 13:20:18 Could be, but in our political system, each party has always blamed the other. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WD on 09/18/12 at 15:09:39 Bill, leave the Third Reich out of it until you've read (and understand) the pamphlet Nazi-Soci. The entire philosophy of the party (as seen by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels) is explained in everyday terms. You'd be surprised at the amount of what was felt in Germany then is felt/echoed in the USA now. Good luck finding it, it's illegal to sell in the USA. You may need to run up to Canada to snag a copy. And no, you can't just borrow my copy. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 09/18/12 at 15:26:11 WD - What? How is any text illegal to sell in the US? |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by WD on 09/19/12 at 05:04:07 Try finding an unsanitized copy of any "controversial" tome from any mainline retail source. Awful lot of banned books in this country... |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/19/12 at 06:49:05 2C232F252E2328242334212334460 wrote:
And whenever a republican does this - like back pedal from Bushies actions it really makes the republicans less and less credible. Its like we were wrong then, or we attacked the wrong country due to a typo in the memo, but we'll be all good now. Really ... uhhhh OK. In contrast, the past presidents of the democratic variety are still in the party fray and still very much the back bone. Clinton, Carter, I actually didn't think carter was such a bad president, but carter after he left office has been absolutely great as an ambassador for the US. I guess I'd call it the side effects of tramling on the constitution and invading countries under lies and deceit, and inflating the biggest bubble in the history of the world to divert attention away from the stench of failure. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by Drifter on 09/19/12 at 07:25:32 Bill, they take our money and lots of it.... they are the number 1 country for foreign aid then give us orders on how to run the world or who to attack next! Just think for a very short time what the world would be like without that litter box in the mideast? About 95% of the human population would rejoice. Remember before 1948 when we got along with all the arab countries....what changed all of that one word Israel. Fact! What country has the LARGEST lobby group in washington....israel. What country is romney crawling like a cockroach to kiss its ass and promiss another war for.....israel Ever notice how most of the world believes we are their lapdogs....... >:( >:( |
|
Title: Re: Are you better off then you were were 4 years Post by srinath on 09/19/12 at 10:32:59 202F2329222F24282F382D2F384A0 wrote:
Yes and very fairly so if I might add ... In fact clinton started the housing bubble with the 98 capital gains law for profits from sales of a house. Clinton also started the inflow of mexicans by killing their farm industry via nafta. Clinton also bombed the hell out of an empty tent in afghanisthan ... yea that'll show em. Clinton also nailed a few fat chicks needing that whole Oval office needing to be cleaned with industrial strength bleach ... However Wars under false pretenses, expansion of food stamp programs etc are all Bushies. No Clinton, no Carter and definetly no Obama in that. That is most of the govt expenditure increase the right is so wound up about. Its this attitude that characterises that 47% remark. Its the lets expand the benifit programs, then after we leave office is the democrats take over which they look like doing, we can nail them for increasing expenses. We may drown in debt that Obama initiated when interest rates were -ve 3% and when the interest starts to rise the govt may be too spineless (aka full of rich guys who wont want to see their stash of cash get devalued) to print $ and hence we may drown in payments ... Maybe that can in some long winded fashion be pinned on Obama, till then I'd say STFU and take the Blame piled on the Bushies. Yea yea you hate Obamacare, except you were all for it when it was called Romney care ... and no you cant distance yourself cos you're not in MA, back to the credibity question if that's the case. Cool. Srinath. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |