Obama change = back to Clintons

[Ziegler]

Seems that Obama, the changeling, has been falling back on appointing alot of people from the old clinton administration. linkage (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_clinton_appointees/2008/11/14/151475.html)

Just curious how those who voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries feel about their Brave new world leader appointing the same ol crew. :lmao:








Oh how I look forward to the days of Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

[Kusghuul]

WHat's the problem with that? They actually didn't get you into debt and the Clinton administration kicked off with high levels of unemployment due to Bush senior. See a pattern emerging here?

[holychicken]

ZOMG! He's appointing people with experience! And people who have experience in similar politics to his own!

How, exactly, does this preclude him from implementing change? Oh right, it doesn't.

[Xzi]

The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country. Absolutely nothing wrong with appointing people to positions they did well in under Clinton. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Well, it IS broke, but these people have the means and the experience to fix it.

These are, however, different circumstances, a different time. A lot more will be asked of Obama, so while re-enacting some of the Clinton administration's successful policies will fix some of the problems, he's going to have to give us something completely new for others.

[AngusFinch]

Well, it IS broke, but these people have the means and the experience to fix it.

If duct tape and safety pins, with the average fixer-inflicted shotgun wound equals fix. That's a general statement at any ruler who wants to help and remain in the status quo. Not that anti-status quo would be any better, either.

[halcyonskys]

/wrists

[Bissen]

Ohh how I look forward to the days of Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

Yes because thats obviously comparable to 9/11, 2 wars started and a giant shit rubbed into your constitution.

U R :bang:

[halcyonskys]

their is no such thing as a war on terror or a war on drugs....
its just a us led invasion.

Yes because thats obviously comparable to 9/11, 2 wars started and a giant shit rubbed into your constitution.

U R :bang:

[Irodim]

WHat's the problem with that? They actually didn't get you into debt and the Clinton administration kicked off with high levels of unemployment due to Bush senior. See a pattern emerging here?

If you take a look at the DotCom boom relative to the Clinton administration... I think there is a similar time reference.

*edit*
Oh and I forgot to add, Freddie Mae & Fannie Mac?

[Ziegler]

Yes because thats obviously comparable to 9/11, 2 wars started and a giant shit rubbed into your constitution.

U R :bang:



Right...I wouldnt expect you to see the issue with ordering military strikes against it's own citizens as something wrong.


But if you are so gung ho about the clinton administration, then why did you support Obama instead of Hillary....I mean you were guranteed a rehash of the clintons...with a clinton.

[Knocky]

Hillary being a closet lesbo in the 90's was hawt.

Hussain's wife being one is just....eww.

[Lethn]

ZOMG! He's appointing people with experience! And people who have experience in similar politics to his own!

How, exactly, does this preclude him from implementing change? Oh right, it doesn't.

People with experience in fucking up the country more like.

[holychicken]

Hillary being a closet lesbo in the 90's was hawt.

Hussain's wife being one is just....eww.
If you are going to use his middle name for effect at least spell it right lest you look like the complete jackass you are.

[Knocky]

If you are going to use his middle name for effect at least spell it right lest you look like the complete jackass you are.


Well it is kinda hard to spell it right since the media refuses to even accept it's existence.

[Bissen]

Right...I wouldnt expect you to see the issue with ordering military strikes against it's own citizens as something wrong.


But if you are so gung ho about the clinton administration, then why did you support Obama instead of Hillary....I mean you were guranteed a rehash of the clintons...with a clinton.


Potato pofuckintarto. The lesser evil of your fucked up political system has statistically been the democratic party for the last 50 years.

Besides. You think Clinton was the one who took the decision regarding Waco? If you do. Then be my guest and read on here hombre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

ATF agents established contact with Koresh and others inside the compound after they withdrew. The FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation) took command soon after as a result of the deaths of federal agents. They placed Jeff Jamar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jamar), head of the Bureau's San Antonio field office, in charge of the siege. The tactical team was headed by Richard Rogers, who had previously been criticized for his actions at the Ruby Ridge incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge).

Personally I couldn't give a damn if 76 fundamentalist die. To me, that means the world just got smarter.

[Connecticaine]

Same QQ different thread.

why on earth do you people start political debates? You have the democrats, the republicans, the independents, and the educated.

And 90% of topics you will argue about depending on your stance. And further more as if the OP of all political topics starting a fight isn't enough. You guys seem to think that if you post your opinion over and over how you believe it should be that you win.
All religion and politic threads should be locked. They all boil down to simple elementary playground arguments. "I'm right".... "No, I'm right"

[holychicken]

Well it is kinda hard to spell it right since the media refuses to even accept it's existence.
What? You didn't see Saddam Hussein written everywhere for the past 10+ years? You can't look it up yourself?

Despite the fact that you are wrong about the media "hiding" it, makes no difference. You are just proving more and more what a moron you are.

[Ziegler]

If you are going to use his middle name for effect at least spell it right lest you look like the complete jackass you are.

you mean like spelling a letter dubya? :lmao:

[Knocky]

What? You didn't see Saddam Hussein written everywhere for the past 10+ years? You can't look it up yourself?

Despite the fact that you are wrong about the media "hiding" it, makes no difference. You are just proving more and more what a moron you are.


Watch the video inbedded in this website and then tell me the media did not give the election to Obama.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

[Delwyn]

Well, even though you may not like it, you might revert back to the time were we actually liked you guys.

[alfaroverall]

Yes because thats obviously comparable to 9/11, 2 wars started and a giant shit rubbed into your constitution.

U R :bang:
9/11 was hinted at before Bush was president. Bin Laden issued many threats and even put out a few failed attacks long prior to it, some of which were during the Clinton administration. Afghanistan was an immediate consequence of that; to not invade Afghanistan would have been insane. (Subsequent management of Afghanistan was poor, I'll grant that.)

Iraq was a consequence, IMO, of bad intelligence. Saddam kept claiming he had WMDs so people wouldn't attack him, and then he wouldn't let people investigate because then they'd see he was bluffing, and so we invaded on the premise that we were stopping a potential terrorist state. Add to the fact that he did gas his own people, killing thousands of people (many more than died in 9/11), and we have a rational possibility.

Your last point is so absurdly general that it can't even be addressed.

So yeah, learn some things before you spew absolute bullshit out onto the page.

[Bissen]

Watch the video inbedded in this website and then tell me the media did not give the election to Obama.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/


That ain't a biased link. Not Biased at all :bang:

[holychicken]

Watch the video inbedded in this website and then tell me the media did not give the election to Obama.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Who said anything about a media bias and the election?

I am simply pointing out that the media did not hide his middle name or pretend it didn't exist and that you are making a fool of yourself by spelling it wrong and bah-bah-bahing like the good little sheeple you are.

[Ziegler]

Same QQ different thread.

why on earth do you people start political debates? You have the democrats, the republicans, the independents, and the educated.

And 90% of topics you will argue about depending on your stance. And further more as if the OP of all political topics starting a fight isn't enough. You guys seem to think that if you post your opinion over and over how you believe it should be that you win.
All religion and politic threads should be locked. They all boil down to simple elementary playground arguments. "I'm right".... "No, I'm right"

Actually, I was asking the opinion of the people who supported Obama on what he is doing so far. I mean he was pretty big on bashing Hillary as the same ol same ol of washington elite...but now is ok with using alot of her husbands appointees for himself...more of the same ol same ol...so to speak.

I mean, I know as a McCain supporter, that if he had gotten elected, and chose donal Rumsfeld for a position or dick cheney...I'd be super pissed off about it.

[holychicken]

you mean like spelling a letter dubya? :lmao:
No, not like that at all.

Dubya is an intentional play on his middle name. Spelling Hussein Hussain is just pure ignorance.

[Bissen]

9/11 was hinted at before Bush was president. Bin Laden issued many threats and even put out a few failed attacks long prior to it, some of which were during the Clinton administration. Afghanistan was an immediate consequence of that; to not invade Afghanistan would have been insane. (Subsequent management of Afghanistan was poor, I'll grant that.)

Iraq was a consequence, IMO, of bad intelligence. Saddam kept claiming he had WMDs so people wouldn't attack him, and then he wouldn't let people investigate because then they'd see he was bluffing, and so we invaded on the premise that we were stopping a potential terrorist state. Add to the fact that he did gas his own people, killing thousands of people (many more than died in 9/11), and we have a rational possibility.

Your last point is so absurdly general that it can't even be addressed.

So yeah, learn some things before you spew absolute bullshit out onto the page.

Ohh Ok Alfar. I know you see your self as a guru on knowledge. But then again. You really aint.

Now go and take the waco and ruby ridge comments and dig deeper into those. Im sure somewhere down the road you'll find links to previous governments.

[alfaroverall]

Ohh Ok Alfar. I know you see your self as a guru on knowledge. But then again. You really aint.

Now go and take the waco and ruby ridge comments and dig deeper into those. Im sure somewhere down the road you'll find links to previous governments.
I was addressing your specific points, and now you're telling me "OH SNAP LOOK OVER THERE THERE'S THIS OTHER ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY POINT." Epic fail.

[Bissen]

I was addressing your specific points, and now you're telling me "OH SNAP LOOK OVER THERE." Epic fail.

I just find it funny that you take sides instead of taking all subjects into the equation.

And epic fail got old.

[Selzi]

You fanboys who actually think Clinton did good for this country are hilarious.

[alfaroverall]

I just find it funny that you take sides instead of taking all subjects into the equation.

And epic fail got old.
No, honestly I don't take Bush's side on these issues. I'm just combative towards stupid comments, and those right there were stupid comments. It just so happens that people make a lot of stupid comments badmouthing Bush on these forums, and so I wind up making a lot of posts attacking their stupidity.

To be perfectly honest, I hate the whole system. Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, their respective Congresses and cabinets, the lot of them. I don't think it could possibly get much worse than it is. When you have a system where true free exchange of ideas is not possible simply because the voting base is too small and poorly informed (outside of presidential elections, which aren't enough to actually drive the country in a direction on their own), you get our massive wad of fail: two sides of the same coin, with marginal differences in ideology, fighting for the power to make the same decisions as they always have.

Frankly, I support a proposal my dad made: if the majority of people don't vote at all, that seat goes empty. With current voter turnouts, all seats in government would become empty, including that of the President.

[StainlessSteelRat]

The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country. Absolutely nothing wrong with appointing people to positions they did well in under Clinton. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Well, it IS broke, but these people have the means and the experience to fix it.

These are, however, different circumstances, a different time. A lot more will be asked of Obama, so while re-enacting some of the Clinton administration's successful policies will fix some of the problems, he's going to have to give us something completely new for others.

Except for the fact that the Clinton admin is the one that forced banks into lending money to people that couldn't afford it and then forced Freddie and Fannie to buy those loans.....

Much of what Clinton did is part of the current crisis. Much of what Bush Sr. and Reagan did was responsible for what happened during Clinton's terms. You don't get instantaneous results from economic policy. There are exceptions. For example, exempting financial institutions from maintaining banking reserves (Lehman, Goldman, Bears, etc.) can have more immediate effects.

[Killuminati]

I was addressing your specific points, and now you're telling me "OH SNAP LOOK OVER THERE THERE'S THIS OTHER ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY SUPPORTS MY POINT." Epic fail.

Imbeciles usually resort to red herrings.

[Bissen]

You fanboys who actually think Clinton did good for this country are hilarious.

He did good. Compared to your other fuck faced leaders.

trolling?

[holychicken]

I don't think it could possibly get much worse than it is.
Now THAT'S a stupid comment. Not that I am extolling their virtues, but it could get a whole lot worse than it is.

[Knocky]

To be perfectly honest, I hate the whole system. Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, their respective Congresses and cabinets, the lot of them. I don't think it could possibly get much worse than it is.

I wish you were right.

But I am thinking that America will really start wondering "Who is John Galt?".

Why should the producers produce anymore when Obama (happy now whoever was trying to bust my nuts), who already admitted he was going to go all Socialist on us, starts taking all the wealth from those that EARNED it.

I realize most of you children do not remember the Carter years....but NOBODY (worthwhile) is going to work under a 70% tax rate.

[alfaroverall]

Now THAT'S a stupid comment. Not that I am extolling their virtues, but it could get a whole lot worse than it is.
I was exaggerating, but I think you can see my basic point.

[Killuminati]

I wish you were right.

But I am thinking that America will really start wondering "Who is John Galt?".


Nah, we don't need that cult again...

[holychicken]

I wish you were right.

But I am thinking that America will really start wondering "Who is John Galt?".

Why should the producers produce anymore when Obama (happy now whoever was trying to bust my nuts), who already admitted he was going to go all Socialist on us, starts taking all the wealth from those that EARNED it.

I realize most of you children do not remember the Carter years....but NOBODY (worthwhile) is going to work under a 70% tax rate.
70% tax rate? Admitted "he was going to go all socialist on us"?

I am not a big fan of Obama, but you are nothing more than a 36 year-old sheeple. It scares me that someone of your age could act like such a child.

[holychicken]

I was exaggerating, but I think you can see my basic point.
And what, exactly, do you think the majority of people bashing Bush are doing?

[Connecticaine]

Actually, I was asking the opinion of the people who supported Obama on what he is doing so far. I mean he was pretty big on bashing Hillary as the same ol same ol of washington elite...but now is ok with using alot of her husbands appointees for himself...more of the same ol same ol...so to speak.

I mean, I know as a McCain supporter, that if he had gotten elected, and chose donal Rumsfeld for a position or dick cheney...I'd be super pissed off about it.

Hmm, I think with Obama's popularity right now he could appoint the whole Bush administration and people would shrug it off and wait for more money. But I don't think its very fair to judge the the whole Clinton administration on 1 or 2 people. I mean take yourself, I am fairly sure you consider yourself educated and an overall intelligent person(of course everyone claims they are when they get into a political debate). Now have you ever worked for a bad company? Or ran with a bad crowd? I think a lot of it depends on your overall experience(rofl of course this one doesn't apply to being president!) intelligence and common sense in the area you are working. Kind of like when you go to taco bell and its very poorly ran. You can blame the manager but the employees that put your meat in your taco :D still know how to do their job.

Originally Posted by Knocky View Post
Watch the video inbedded in this website and then tell me the media did not give the election to Obama.

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

Wow... just wow, they interview 12 people in all of america. And of course you must believe that they interviewed no more than 12, this way they couldn't have edited any smart person from speaking on an educated view of why they support obama........ /is there anything worse than epic fail?

The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country. Absolutely nothing wrong with appointing people to positions they did well in under Clinton. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Well, it IS broke, but these people have the means and the experience to fix it.

These are, however, different circumstances, a different time. A lot more will be asked of Obama, so while re-enacting some of the Clinton administration's successful policies will fix some of the problems, he's going to have to give us something completely new for others.
Except for the fact that the Clinton admin is the one that forced banks into lending money to people that couldn't afford it and then forced Freddie and Fannie to buy those loans.....

Much of what Clinton did is part of the current crisis. Much of what Bush Sr. and Reagan did was responsible for what happened during Clinton's terms. You don't get instantaneous results from economic policy. There are exceptions. For example, exempting financial institutions from maintaining banking reserves (Lehman, Goldman, Bears, etc.) can have more immediate effects.

Again when will you people learn, there is no perfect administration, no perfect politician. You take the good with the bad. With any president you can write a huge essay on their flaws, and their perks.

you two sound ridiculously uneducated.

[Manifoldgodhead]

At least he's not appointing people from Iran-Contra like W. did.
The Iran-Contra Crew lived on in Bush Administration (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm)

[alfaroverall]

And what, exactly, do you think the majority of people bashing Bush are doing?
Wait, what? I don't see what you're trying to get at here.

[Bissen]

Ohh and alfar. Another thing. My first post in this thread was really just a counter answer to the last sentence in the OP.

Here some douche claimed that clinton was responsible for waco and ruby ridge. Thus my post on bush's "responsibility".

Tried to explain this. But you were caught in the moment or something...

[holychicken]

Wait, what? I don't see what you're trying to get at here.
You challenged some exaggerations about Bush claiming they were stupid comments. I am just pointing out that you are guilty of the same style of rhetoric.

[ZeaL-]

At least we are finally getting rid of the racist republicans while replacing them with the Clinton legacy. I don't really see the problem here unless you are still a supporter of the failed republican party.

[alfaroverall]

You challenged some exaggerations about Bush claiming they were stupid comments. I am just pointing out that you are guilty of the same style of rhetoric.
Those were hardly exaggerations, those were veiled falsehoods. I say veiled because while they are true, what they imply about blame is pretty much entirely false.

I concede the rhetorical point, though, it's easy to pick at others' rhetoric without noticing the flaws in one's own.

[holychicken]

Those were hardly exaggerations, those were veiled falsehoods. I say veiled because while they are true, what they imply about blame is pretty much entirely false.
Tomato, tahmahto.

I concede the rhetorical point, though, it's easy to pick at others' rhetoric without noticing the flaws in one's own.
Fair enough.

[hardboiled]

Seems that Obama, the changeling, has been falling back on appointing alot of people from the old clinton administration. linkage (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_clinton_appointees/2008/11/14/151475.html)

Just curious how those who voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries feel about their Brave new world leader appointing the same ol crew. :lmao:








Oh how I look forward to the days of Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

If Obama's presidency will turn out to be like Clinton's it will be fine. But I doubt that this will happen because Obama has a democrat senate. Clinton ended up being pretty pro-market because he had to deal with a hostile congress.

[StainlessSteelRat]

Again when will you people learn, there is no perfect administration, no perfect politician. You take the good with the bad. With any president you can write a huge essay on their flaws, and their perks.

you two sound ridiculously uneducated.

Who said anything about perfect? You have zero reading comprehension but I sound uneducated?

My post was a precise response to a specific (unfounded) claim about the Clinton admin. It's fact, not supposition or speculation. I followed that w/ an opinion of mine concerning presidents and economic policy and the timing of any cause/effect relationship between the two. Not once did I enter into a debate on which presidential administration was 'perfect'. Nor did I allude to the fact that I even thought it possible.

[Connecticaine]

Who said anything about perfect? You have zero reading comprehension but I sound uneducated?

My post was a precise response to a specific (unfounded) claim about the Clinton admin. It's fact, not supposition or speculation. I followed that w/ an opinion of mine concerning presidents and economic policy and the timing of any cause/effect relationship between the two. Not once did I enter into a debate on which presidential administration was 'perfect'. Nor did I allude to the fact that I even thought it possible.

You are countering a pro with a con for the sake of an argument. And even worse you are arguing with me over the word 'perfect'. Because instead of taking the statement as a whole, you felt the need to boil it down to a certain phrase that i guess made you feel inadequate.

I can try and rephrase it for you, maybe dumb it down a bit :lmao:

Going back and forth with the pro's and con's of any politician for the sake of an argument is pointless, unless your actual point is to say "Hey look at me i can keep this seesaw argument going longer, I win!"

Please don't attack the word "sake" please, it never meant to hurt anyone.

[Ziegler]

Now THAT'S a stupid comment. Not that I am extolling their virtues, but it could get a whole lot worse than it is.

I can at least agree with this, being old enough to have grown up during Carter.

[StainlessSteelRat]

You are countering a pro with a con for the sake of an argument. And even worse you are arguing with me over the word 'perfect'. Because instead of taking the statement as a whole, you felt the need to boil it down to a certain phrase that i guess made you feel inadequate.

And once again, you fail at reading comprehension. I never argued the meaning of 'perfect' with you.

I can try and rephrase it for you, maybe dumb it down a bit :lmao:

Pretty sure your posts can't get any dumber.

Going back and forth with the pro's and con's of any politician for the sake of an argument is pointless, unless your actual point is to say "Hey look at me i can keep this seesaw argument going longer, I win!"

Finally, you actually make your point. You, however, missed the point of the thread.
Feel free to find political discussion pointless, that is your choice and opinion. That doesn't make my counterpoint or my post uneducated. And it really has nothing to do w/ a seesaw argument.

Let me dumb it down for you:

OP - Barack is appointing a lot of Clinton people
Follow-up Post - The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country. Absolutely nothing wrong with appointing people to positions they did well in under Clinton.
Me - They did a lot of bad. Your opinion/conclusion regarding the subject is flawed.
You - lmao seesaw argument; no one is perfect; you two are dumb; i am smart lol

[Ziegler]

Potato pofuckintarto. The lesser evil of your fucked up political system has statistically been the democratic party for the last 50 years.
Besides. You think Clinton was the one who took the decision regarding Waco? If you do. Then be my guest and read on here hombre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege
Personally I couldn't give a damn if 76 fundamentalist die. To me, that means the world just got smarter.

That first point is debatable. It's your opinion.
You honestly want me to believe that clinton didnt watch the news during those 51 days? That he didnt have any say or input on it? ......

Sure thing..no problem, you just admit that Reagan didnt have anything to do with Iran Contra at all and no knowledge of it.

Maybe if they had been serial killers on death row, you'd have a different opinion? But oh noes!!...they're religious...kill them!!!!...wait a sec..let me correct that....oh noes!!!...they're christian!...kill them!!!
That's better.

[nate4449]

You fanboys who actually think Clinton did good for this country are hilarious.

This.

The joke is that Clinton wasn't doing shit untill he was forced to adopt the conservative agenda to get re-elected, but even then he was still a pretty good joke.

[Attau]

OP - Barack is appointing a lot of Clinton people
Follow-up Post - The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country. Absolutely nothing wrong with appointing people to positions they did well in under Clinton.
Me - They did a lot of bad. Your opinion/conclusion regarding the subject is flawed.
You - lmao seesaw argument; no one is perfect; you two are dumb; i am smart lol

Haha win.

[Connecticaine]

And once again, you fail at reading comprehension. I never argued the meaning of 'perfect' with you.

Rofl, where did i say you argued the meaning of perfect? Why on earth would you tell me i fail at reading comprehension when this...

You are countering a pro with a con for the sake of an argument. And even worse you are arguing with me over the word 'perfect'. Because instead of taking the statement as a whole, you felt the need to boil it down to a certain phrase that i guess made you feel inadequate.

somehow means arguing over the meaning of a word. Keep on with the insults, works great for you. To me, IMO, your using insults you've heard all your life =)

Pretty sure your posts can't get any dumber.

lol! "You are!".... "No, You Are!!!!" i like what you did their.

Ok so let me make this a bit clearer for you.

The Clinton administration did a lot of good for the country.

which is correct they did do alot of good. Never said they had done nothing wrong.

and you look at it and say:

They did a lot of bad. Your opinion/conclusion regarding the subject is flawed.

So basically you saying that its flawed by someone saying they did alot of good, because you can point out that he did something that wasn't good. which in noway negates the fact that he did do alot of good.

So you see? You did not prove his theory flawed, you simply saw that he wrote clinton did some good things, and thought "Well i know he did something bad so that means he could not have done anything good".

am i getting through to you? or do i need to revert to something much simpler.



You - lmao seesaw argument; no one is perfect; you two are dumb; i am smart lol

you really must have a strong grasp on reading comprehension to get that out of my post.

[Paganini]

Yeah I was pretty let down with the appointment of Rahm, and if he selects Hillary I will go qq in a corner

[StainlessSteelRat]

So basically you saying that its flawed by someone saying they did alot of good, because you can point out that he did something that wasn't good. which in noway negates the fact that he did do alot of good.

So you see? You did not prove his theory flawed, you simply saw that he wrote clinton did some good things, and thought

First, we are discussing some of Clinton's admin, not Clinton. Second, the person I corrected was concluding that the Obama admin would do well simply because the Clinton admin did well. Actually, the Clinton admin screwed up a lot, therefore you can not conclude that the Obama admin will perform well since the duplicates hardly have a stellar record. So, yes, his theory/logic is flawed. I never refuted the claim that the Clinton admin did some good.

"Well i know he did something bad so that means he could not have done anything good".

Perfect example of your failure at reading comprehension. I never said or inferred anything of the kind. Try using actual quotes. You can't because none fit your 'logic', but try; remember Daddy always told you "that as long as you try your best, winning doesn't matter....."

[ineluki]

Seems that Obama, the changeling, has been falling back on appointing alot of people from the old clinton administration. linkage (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_clinton_appointees/2008/11/14/151475.html)

Just curious how those who voted for Obama over Hillary in the primaries feel about their Brave new world leader appointing the same ol crew. :lmao:








Oh how I look forward to the days of Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

He won so get freaking use to it.:lmao: You sound like a pathetic baby who has spilt his milk so why don`t you give up and live with it or go crawl down that hole with the rest of the falin mcfrail crew.:lmao:

PS it`s president elect Barack Hussein Obama to you, SUCKER.:bang:

[Sho'nuff]

You have the democrats, republicans, independents, and then the educated.

This said it well.

[StainlessSteelRat]

This said it well.

Damn, I missed that. Guess I agree w/ him on something. ;)

[Duncandun]

I wish you were right.

But I am thinking that America will really start wondering "Who is John Galt?".

Why should the producers produce anymore when Obama (happy now whoever was trying to bust my nuts), who already admitted he was going to go all Socialist on us, starts taking all the wealth from those that EARNED it.

I realize most of you children do not remember the Carter years....but NOBODY (worthwhile) is going to work under a 70% tax rate.

70%?

hes increasing the bracket tax by like 3.9%.


also, if we do infact get government healthcare, this will free up ALOT of money for pretty much every company that supplies healthcare benifits.

[Ziegler]

He won so get freaking use to it.:lmao: You sound like a pathetic baby who has spilt his milk so why don`t you give up and live with it or go crawl down that hole with the rest of the falin mcfrail crew.:lmao:

PS it`s president elect Barack Hussein Obama to you, SUCKER.:bang:


You're so cute when you're full of bama'rage. I could just pinch your cheeks...now run along and play while the grown ups talk.

[StainlessSteelRat]

also, if we do infact get government healthcare, this will free up ALOT of money for pretty much every company that supplies healthcare benifits.

Let's assume you are correct. So what? Do you think that all this 'freed up' money will somehow improve your life? Or will the fat cat CEOs just give themselves a raise?

Ideologically speaking, the government is taking my money through taxes to subsidize private business.....

[Duncandun]

Let's assume you are correct. So what? Do you think that all this 'freed up' money will somehow improve your life? Or will the fat cat CEOs just give themselves a raise?

Ideologically speaking, the government is taking my money through taxes to subsidize private business.....

No, I was commenting that the increase in taxes on small business and corporations and the money they will 'lose' will be recouped(if not gained) by a government healthcare system. As benefit provided healthcare is a huge draw on alot of companies monies.

[StainlessSteelRat]

No, I was commenting that the increase in taxes on small business and corporations and the money they will 'lose' will be recouped(if not gained) by a government healthcare system. As benefit provided healthcare is a huge draw on alot of companies monies.

It's income tax, not revenue tax. The money can/will probably just be spent on other expenses like the CEO's salary and there will be 0 recouping.

As a general rule, a company will do everything in its power to minimize its tax burden.