Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[pattygreen 5]

I'm sick of Cleo's constantly saying that GM has repaid their loan to the government. What you weren’t told was that GM was able to repay the money by drawing down on a line of credit that it had from TARP! In other words, GM took funds still available to it through TARP and used those funds to repay the loan it received from the government. Of course, it now owes $4.7 billion on its line of credit with TARP, but, that doesn’t make for good news, so it wasn’t reported.

Edited May 25, 2010 by pattygreen

[pattygreen 5]

Free speech?? You think that ending discrimination is akin to giving up free speech?

No, I don't. And I never said we should allow discrimination. Stop putting words in my mouth. You love to do that. It's one of your bad qualities. I feel that the government has TOOOOOO many laws and needs to stop making soooooo many regulations.

What you're advocating (no doubt without even realizing it) is having this country wind up in some kind of civil war again.

you're nuts. (It's just amazing how you like to start crap.)

You need to dig a little deeper, my dear, just using terms like "free speech" cannot excuse racial discrimination.

No one said to "excuse" it.

And racial discrimination is ignorant and unacceptable. There is no way to justify it, no matter how much you'd like to do just that.

You can't control how people feel, as much as you would like to. It's not right in God's eyes or mine, but you can't change people. Even more laws will not change the hearts of mankind. Only God can do that.

[pattygreen 5]

quote PG: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah like sodomy laws and trying to pass laws that will control women's bodies.

I don't know of one conservative or even one Christian who is trying to pass any law that says men can't have sex with men or women can't have sex with women. I believe most feel that you should be allowed to do whatever you want sexually with whoever you want in the privacy of your bedroom. The Christian's only problem comes in when those who do those things want to make it a "marriage". Marriage is a covenant made, between 1 man and 1 woman, before God. Do what you want to do, just don't decieve yourself, or others, into thinking it's a marriage and calling it that and making the rest of the world call it that. It's NOT a marriage. That word already has been defined.

As for the abortion issue, that one will never be settled. One believes that the baby is not a life, and therefore can be killed at any time while it is within her and the other believes that it is a life and should be treated as any other life out there, without murdering it. Both sides will always be dueling this one. I see it this way: Why not lean on the side of caution. Is it a life or isn't it? Well, that can't be decided by the 2 sides, so better to not abort, just in case it is a life. If you don't have that abortion, you've hurt no one. If you do have that abortion, you just killed someone.

[pattygreen 5]

I know this isn't the 'abortion' thread, but I wanted to post this little fact:

The Roe Effect

Pro-life Americans continue to out number the pro-abortion crowd, according to the latest Gallop poll on America's opinions on abortion. The spread, 47% to 45%, is within the margin of error, but the sea change is dramatic when compared with the numbers from 1996, when Americans 50-38 believe abortion is morally wrong, and abortion supporters only have themselves to blame for the demographic shift. You see, since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court scribbled abortion into the margins of the bill of rights, Pro-abortion parents faced with "unwanted pregnancies" have exercised their "right to choose". Consequently, as the Gallop data vividly show, pro-abortion parents have given birth to fewer children relative to pro-lifers, whose children were not slain by abolitionists and were raised to respect the sanctity of life. And now pro-lifers outnumber abortion supporters.

[pattygreen 5]

PATTYGREEN: THIS POST IS FOR YOU. PAY ATTENTION.

I have posted this before and you have ignored it. Study it closely. Take your time.

Now, answer these questions:

1) Do you see how much of the deficit is from bush and how much from Pres. Obama? Yes, I do. I am not saying that Bush didn't spend alot of money, cause he did, BUT Obama has doubled what Bush had spent during his term in only his first year in office. Do you see the spending trend here?

2) How do you think the programs bush enacted are currently being funded? OBama was in the Congress when bush was in office as well as many other democrats like him. He voted for these spending sprees. Now he must find a way to pay for them. Don't ya think he should have put the spending at NILL once he got in there since he knew full well what needed to be covered because, after all,he voted those bills into being.

3) Do you think the funding of bush's programs (none of which were funded when he passed them) ends with the election of Pres. Obama? NO, they don't, But Obama knew that. But instead of cutting back on the government's spending, He went right on ahead and splurged even greater than Bush's administration did. Oh yeah, wait, HE was part of Bush's administration.:biggrin:

4) To refresh your memory - those programs were the 2 wars, the medicare part D, and the loss of revenues from his two tax cuts to the rich. Those wars or programs didn't end when Pres. Obama got elected. So how do you think they are being paid for now? Do you think they just disappear? When you have debt, you don't make MORE of it! You spend less!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

PATTYGREEN: THIS POST IS FOR YOU. PAY ATTENTION.

I have posted this before and you have ignored it. Study it closely. Take your time.

Now, answer these questions:

1) Do you see how much of the deficit is from bush and how much from Pres. Obama? Yes, I do. I am not saying that Bush didn't spend alot of money, cause he did, BUT Obama has doubled what Bush had spent during his term in only his first year in office. Do you see the spending trend here?The only way to do that would be to end the two wars today, and that's not responsible, take back the medicare part D program, or do away with the bush tax cuts, which they plan to do. Do you think your republicans would support any of this? Because according to you, they are "part of this administration".

2) How do you think the programs bush enacted are currently being funded? OBama was in the Congress when bush was in office as well as many other democrats like him. He voted for these spending sprees. Now he must find a way to pay for them.He wasn't in the senate when they voted to go to war with Iraq. And he voted against one of their funding bills when he was. However, the bigger point is that the republicans controlled the white house, congress and the senate. The blame belongs solely on them. They didn't need democratic votes to promote their spending spree. You are just another neocon trying to rewrite history and I won't let you. IT'S BUSH'S FAULT. PERIOD. Don't ya think he should have put the spending at NILL once he got in there since he knew full well what needed to be covered because, after all,he voted those bills into being. Ah, no. Because the successful stimulus worked. That's why our economy is recovering. Duh!! And the bank bailouts started under bush and some have paid back with interest.

3) Do you think the funding of bush's programs (none of which were funded when he passed them) ends with the election of Pres. Obama? NO, they don't, But Obama knew that. But instead of cutting back on the government's spending, He went right on ahead and splurged even greater than Bush's administration did. Oh yeah, wait, HE was part of Bush's administration.:biggrin: It's so pathetically obvious that you know nothing about our country's economic system. During a time of deep recession and heading into a full blown depression IS NOT THE TIME TO CUT SPENDING. It's a time to infuse money into the economy to get it back on track. A healthy economy will actually help to reduce the deficit by providing more tax dollars and having fewer people eligible for government aid.

4) To refresh your memory - those programs were the 2 wars, the medicare part D, and the loss of revenues from his two tax cuts to the rich. Those wars or programs didn't end when Pres. Obama got elected. So how do you think they are being paid for now? Do you think they just disappear? When you have debt, you don't make MORE of it! You spend less!

And when you have a recession, or nearly a depression, you spend (infuse) money into the economy.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

I'm sick of Cleo's constantly saying that GM has repaid their loan to the government. What you weren’t told was that GM was able to repay the money by drawing down on a line of credit that it had from TARP! In other words, GM took funds still available to it through TARP and used those funds to repay the loan it received from the government. Of course, it now owes $4.7 billion on its line of credit with TARP, but, that doesn’t make for good news, so it wasn’t reported.

And I am sick of YOU constantly yapping about Pres. Obama's spending and the deficit. If it weren't for bush's reckless policies and his taking care of his rich friends with tax cuts, Pres. Obama wouldn't be stuck cleaning up his mess.

As he said - the republicans drove this economy into the ditch and now they want the keys back? NO WAY !! :biggrin:

And it doesn't matter where GM got the money from - it's less money in their coffers and more in the government's. And that's what's important. If I give someone two loans, the first for $1000 and the second for $500 and they spend the $500 and then repay it using the $1000, I am out only $1000, not $1500. It still counts.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

With regard to the 2 bush tax cuts for the rich that have contributed to the deficit because of lost revenue - let me go on record right here, right now, that there won't be one republican supporting letting these tax cuts expire at the end of the year taking us back to the fairer tax codes under Clinton.

Nor will there be one teabagger who supports it or protests to let it expire.

You'll see Mr. Coppertone and mcconnell yapping about a tax increase on the american people (translation: on their rich friends) when in reality it isn't a tax increase but rather going back to the fairer tax code before bush's unnecessary tax cuts to the rich.

[phil1336 0]

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:biggrin: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

Like for instance, Canada? Another horrible Socialist county that its citizens are put under the boot of their government and not allowed "free speech"? True, they have somewhat less tolerance there for Religious Crackpots!

[phil1336 0]

I know this isn't the 'abortion' thread, but I wanted to post this little fact:

The Roe Effect

Pro-life Americans continue to out number the pro-abortion crowd, according to the latest Gallop poll on America's opinions on abortion. The spread, 47% to 45%, is within the margin of error, but the sea change is dramatic when compared with the numbers from 1996, when Americans 50-38 believe abortion is morally wrong, and abortion supporters only have themselves to blame for the demographic shift. You see, since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court scribbled abortion into the margins of the bill of rights, Pro-abortion parents faced with "unwanted pregnancies" have exercised their "right to choose". Consequently, as the Gallop data vividly show, pro-abortion parents have given birth to fewer children relative to pro-lifers, whose children were not slain by abolitionists and were raised to respect the sanctity of life. And now pro-lifers outnumber abortion supporters.

Blah,blah, blah. Don`t believe in reproductive freedom for Women and Abortion Rights...Great. Simply don`t have one! Since to the best of my knowledge, Men don`t get pregnant, this is strictly a Women`s issue anyhow. Whether one be Pro-life or Pro-choice, its a WOMEN`S decision to make and a private one at that. Remember, Hate The Sin, Love The Sinner, and by the way, how about adding, mind your own business!

[phil1336 0]

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:biggrin: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

Wrong once again! Rand Paul suggestion that he was in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights act but felt it was wrong that restaurant owners could not chose in a public dining facility who that would serve and who they would not based on the whim of the owner (not public intoxication or rude behavior) but (other criteria), would bring back the days when Blacks could not sit at the counter an order food at Woolworth`s years ago. Thanks exactly what Rand Paul stated. Its like stating one is not anti-semitic but simply anti-zionist in their views towards Jews and Israel. Kind of ironic, he represents Kentucky, home of the original KFC in Boone, KY and home of the annual Fried chicken Festival. Wonder if he likes his (Tea) black?

[phil1336 0]

Grow up already and stop being so superstitious. When its over your either going "up the chimney" or becoming "compost" at your local cemetery.

how sad for you.

How sad for those who are can`t face reality and live their own lives in a productive manor with out being so judgmental of others who don`t believe in mysticism and ghosts! Better to associate with an agnostic or atheist who is honest and straight forward then a religious zealot who`s a liar and two faced hypocrite but (saved) according to "YOUR" criteria!

[tdslf1 0]

I have no negative feeling towards Paul, he just feels the way he feels about business' regardless of how they treat humans in the process. I say he has less regard for people outside his family. The natural conclusion would be that SOme people would be told to go fly if they came to that place of business. The handicap, would be told to take a leap about getting to the 3rd floor. Blacks or hispanics, especially in AZ, would be told to frequent another facility to eat, and when that happened, we would have even more unrest in the country. I think this wasn't particularily a business law as it was a people law. Conditions that should be level for all people. If a business owner did not want to serve all people then don't go into business.

This is settled law, no one is going to debate this, ever and for Paul to think this in 2010 america, says something about Paul and his motivations. Yes, it may be a leap to call him a racist, but I will say if he truely feels like that about business then he doesn't give a damn about others and how they get treated which is, for me, the Real difference between the dems and the rethugs. As stated, I am not calling him racist, but it sure plays into the tea bagger song of never having a problem spending under Bush, but now we have a problem mantra they have been spewing and the crazy signs with the N-word they carried at those tea parties.

Every leader before us gets a pass about spending but this one doesn't? How crazy is that especially since he had to. All experts agree, we had to spend. This is fact. Then again, maybe we should have let it go down the tubes and many more would have been out of work, left homeless, unable to pay bills, short on police, short on the things our military needs to fight these wars. Not one person who says we should have not spent any money can tell us what the conclusion of doings so would bring.

Please enlighten the crowd about what NOT spending any money would have brought us? How exactly would we be paying for things coming down the pike? What would be happening right now? Would we still have an economy that is getting better? Please tell the crowd and just saing stop the spending is not an answer, its a slogan, that doesn't work. Bring it to its natural conclusion because most don't think past their front lawn. Lets go further with it to progression. Also, which President did the turn around and stop the economy from falling off the cliff even further? Was it Obama? Was it Bush?

For all the garbage being thrown at this president about his supposed lies, back peddling, he, according to my tally, did that ONE important thing. Stop the massive bleeding with his actions and NO ONE can say differently. All the ins and outs of who said what and who didn't do what, NO ONE can take that fact away, that he stopped one of the biggest economy failures in hstory.

I'd like someone to explain differently, my recollection.

Edited May 25, 2010 by tdslf1

[ariscus99 1]

Here's a little piece of forgotten history on the depression that happened in 1920, how were they able to get out of it so quickly? By cutting spending.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

[LeighaMason 19]

Wasn't this huge spike of unemployment in 1920 caused by solders returning from WWI?