Obama says a TV network he won't name is 'entirely devoted to a...

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
Another six year old, don't forget to check under the bed for monsters.

I'll check for yor brain while I'm down there. Don't think I'll find it though.

Econ 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
but hard to claim the republicans are racist since they appopinted the first black secretary of state and first black joint chiefs of staff. Bush had more blacks in his cabinet than clinton. What color is the head of the dnc. Which party appointed just the second black to the supreme court.

Yrs, it's easy to say the Republikkkans are racist based om their policies, despite their promoting criminals like lying AG Gonzales, Uncle Thomas Clarence, Michael "Franco" Powell at the FCC and Aunt Jemima Rice.

Take a look at the complexion of a Republikkkan convention sometime, or at the anti immigrant rhetoric, or the anti gay platforms.

Praiz!

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know, I had no problem getting a mortgage for a second home this week.

There's an exception to every rule. For example, there may possibly be an honest liberal out there. You, however would not be it.

How's this for you. "I have no problems with my healthcare coverage, therefore there is NO problem with Healthcare".

There's the liberal mind straining for a cogent thought again.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/15/news/companie...

Jean wrote:

<quoted text>
You need a GPS navigation system to follow it.

COMMUNITY RE-INVESTMENT ACT. I know the difficulties you have following directions down in Palm Beach.

Like casting ballots, for example.

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, try and get a correct quote...that was create or save jobs.
Banks that were on the brink of insolvency are now solvent.
The biggest passed a stress test.
Some have begun paying back TARP funds.
Only a dimwitted rightwinger would honestly expect 3 million jobs to pop up in two months.
And please check the figures, we have seen a slowing of new unemplyment claims, we are not seeing the record weekly losses that were occuring in the beginning of '09. so there,
double check.

Complets nonsense. How do you gayge "saved jobs" Boy, you sheeple are truly dumb.

Obama promised that results would be starting to show "immediately" after the passage of the his economic plans.

He was right, results did start to show immediately...to the tune of 2 million LOST jobs!

"We guessed wrong on the economy" Joe Biden

Put that in your crackpipe and smoke it.

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll go you one better. Lincoln, in his zeal to preserve the Union suspended habeas corpus, instituted conscription, trampled state's rights, and expanded federal authority to an unprecedented extent giving birth to the current "Government in spite of the People". Oh yeah, and presided over the worst war (in terms of casualties) in US history.

But no one tops FDR and his concentration camps and confiscation of private property though during WWII.
No wonder he's a liberal icon.

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll go you one better. Lincoln, in his zeal to preserve the Union suspended habeas corpus, instituted conscription, trampled state's rights, and expanded federal authority to an unprecedented extent giving birth to the current "Government in spite of the People". Oh yeah, and presided over the worst war (in terms of casualties) in US history.

And the first thing Lincoln did after winning the Civil War was to go after the Confederates, right? Decided to confiscate all confederqate property and charge the leadership with treason and war crimes, right?

Get a grip on U.S history before posting.

Lincoln also implemented the first income tax to help pay for the war, something that liberals should appreciate.

dalmatian847 wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama promised that results would be starting to show "immediately" after the passage of the his economic plans.
He was right, results did start to show immediately...to the tune of 2 million LOST jobs!

And Obama promised that if we would just race to pass his $787 Billion stimulus, unemployment would not pass 8.0%. At 9.5% and rising- do any Left Wing Zombies want to bet it won't crack 10%? 11%?

So Obama either was lying or doesn't understand the economy. I take the latter.

Demos wrote:

<quoted text>
For one thing the Soviet Union was a communist country. Although I disagree with socialism, in terms of standard of living the US has been a pretty successful example of socialism.
But, back to the topic at hand. You said that every country that has tried to spend to stimulate their economy drove themselves into poverty. You may not understand that that's what you said but it is what you said. Unless you've decided that stimulus spending is communism in which case you need to ask for a refund on any money you may have spent on an education. Actually, since I'm certain you're a product of the US public education system I think I'll ask for a refund of however much it cost to get you all the way through the 4th grade.

Once again logical thought is not in your repotoire.

Nor is understanding of the term Socialism evidently.

From Dictionary.com

so&#8901;cial&#8901;is m&#8194;&#8194;/&# 712;so&#650;&#643; &#601;&#716;l&#618 ;z&#601;m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
Use socialism in a Sentence

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Using the actual definition of socialism, which one has the U.S followed "pretty successfully" for years in your educated opinion?

You are an imbecile.

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
What time do your meds kick in?

Is your lobotomy reversable?

Social Justice wrote:

<quoted text>
And Obama promised that if we would just race to pass his $787 Billion stimulus, unemployment would not pass 8.0%. At 9.5% and rising- do any Left Wing Zombies want to bet it won't crack 10%? 11%?
So Obama either was lying or doesn't understand the economy. I take the latter.

Right, that would be the stimulus that offered no-stimulus. The stimulus that was so important, you didn't have time to actually read it. The one that was going to bring 3-4 million jobs, that one?

"We guessed wrong on the economy" Joe Biden

How can you tell if Biden has said something stupid?

His mouth is moving.

Jean wrote:

<quoted text>
We're talking basically about the same taxes on those over $250,000 per year that were in effect during Clinton's tenure. Those same ones not one GOP member voted for because they said it would destroy the economy.

Because obama is planning more than just restoring the barckets from the clinton era. Removing the cap on social security tax and talk of an additional surcharge on the wealthy to pay for healthcare adds up to a lot more than just a 3% increase in the marginal rates.

They are also talking about a 50% increase in the illinois state tax on top of pushing the city sales tax up to 10.25% last year.

You are looking at it in a vacuum and not taking into account the entirety of the situation

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Yrs, it's easy to say the Republikkkans are racist based om their policies, despite their promoting criminals like lying AG Gonzales, Uncle Thomas Clarence, Michael "Franco" Powell at the FCC and Aunt Jemima Rice.
Take a look at the complexion of a Republikkkan convention sometime, or at the anti immigrant rhetoric, or the anti gay platforms.
Praiz!

You obviously dont comprehend the difference between immigant and illegal immigrant.

If someone broke into your house in the middle of the night and would not leaave but volunteered to do the chores you hate, like dishes, laundry, yardwork, etc..

Would you call the police or let them stay and pay for their healthcare and education costs?

It is ILLEGAL to enter the US without documentation and going through the proper channels.

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't matter when you put your money in dign dong...the market lost 1/2 of it's value.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/q...

REPEAT AFTER ME- THE DOW IS NOT THE MARKET, IT IS JUST 30 STOCKS

It certainly does matter when you put your money in because if i put it in 20 years ago I am still likely up on my original investment.

If i was in all cash for the past 7 years and bought in february i would be up, not down 50%.

You do know that you can make just as much money when the market goes down as when it goes up so many investors profited handsomely from a 50% decline.

I'm guessing you have not made much money in the market given your continued ignorance about basic finance.

dalmatian847 wrote:

<quoted text>
Try Englewood next time. One of the south side communties "touched" by Obama's community organizing skills. However, if going there at night, you might want to borrow a Humvee.

with extra armor for austin, n. lawndale, englewood and the robert taylor homes

There is even an interactive gang map

INTERACTIVE GANG MAP - SOUTHSIDE CHICAGO

CREATED BY: Chicago Gangs

MAP INSTRUCTIONS:

This map is interactive, allowing you to zoom in and scroll through various parts of the city. The arrows allow you to scroll through various areas of the city, and the plus and minus indicators allow you to zoom in and out on the map. Anywhere there is a colored area shows that a gang is present in that area, if you click on the colored area it will provide the details of the gang as well as the street information. This map was created on 2/12/2008

http://chicagogangs.org/index.php...

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you rightwingers don't follow things.
He not only acknowledged him, he addressed the issue in a very famous speech in Philidelphia.
Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I believe the correct phrase is "Threw him under the bus"

Did your church bestow an award on a vocal and well known anti-semite? And if it did, why would you stick around?

no change 4U wrote:

<quoted text>
Wonder how much money Herb Moses walked away with, too. Thanks to Barney Frank taking care of his a S $ to work and at home.

don't know but he probably was walking a bit bow legged

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
????
Leftist ae scared of living in a changing world?
Come again?
What freedoms are we giving away?
Stopping the tsunami of job loss in one of the nation's worst recssions would be quite an accomplishment for any politician.
Bush managed a net creation of 3 million over 8 years.So please elaborate..it's Republicans that welcome change?The party that lionizes Reagan and longs for a return to the 50's???

That is a completely disingenuous argument.

Did it occur to you that when you have full employment ( most economists consider around 5% unemployment to be the the lowestlevel)

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

Some Economists estimate a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated "structural" unemployment rate,(the unemployment when there is full employment), plus & minus, the standard error of the estimate.

Since unemployemnt under bush ranged from around 4.6% to 6%, or virtually full emplyment, doesnt it follow that there would not be many jobs created since there were not enough workers to fill them.

Amazing how you try to twist data to fit your needs even though you are blatantly taking it out of context.

Put another way, bush had the lowest job creation totals because he had a record number of people employed and the lowest unemployment rate in decades.

more people working= less need to create new jobs.

Did you intentionally try to mislead people or just to stupid and/or ignorant to actually research and understand the issue before posting misinformation. Either way, this just proves you are nothing but a partisan hack who has ZERO credibility

Jean wrote:

<quoted text>
What jobs?
"President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.
His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office..–Sudeep Reddy"
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bus...

That is a completely disingenuous argument.

Did it occur to you that when you have full employment ( most economists consider around 5% unemployment to be the the lowestlevel)

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

Some Economists estimate a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated "structural" unemployment rate,(the unemployment when there is full employment), plus & minus, the standard error of the estimate.

Since unemployemnt under bush ranged from around 4.6% to 6%, or virtually full emplyment, doesnt it follow that there would not be many jobs created since there were not enough workers to fill them.

Amazing how you try to twist data to fit your needs even though you are blatantly taking it out of context.

Put another way, bush had the lowest job creation totals because he had a record number of people employed and the lowest unemployment rate in decades.

more people working= less need to create new jobs.

Did you intentionally try to mislead people or just to stupid and/or ignorant to actually research and understand the issue before posting misinformation. Either way, this just proves you are nothing but a partisan hack who has ZERO credibility

Grand Obsolete Party wrote:

<quoted text>
Please point to any job growth spurt during 'W's terms.
You can't.
He had the worst job creation record since records have been kept.

That is a completely disingenuous argument.

Did it occur to you that when you have full employment ( most economists consider around 5% unemployment to be the the lowestlevel)

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

Some Economists estimate a "range" of possible unemployment rates. For example, in 1999, in the United States, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) gives an estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. This is the estimated "structural" unemployment rate,(the unemployment when there is full employment), plus & minus, the standard error of the estimate.

Since unemployemnt under bush ranged from around 4.6% to 6%, or virtually full emplyment, doesnt it follow that there would not be many jobs created since there were not enough workers to fill them.

Amazing how you try to twist data to fit your needs even though you are blatantly taking it out of context.

Put another way, bush had the lowest job creation totals because he had a record number of people employed and the lowest unemployment rate in decades.

more people working= less need to create new jobs.

Did you intentionally try to mislead people or just to stupid and/or ignorant to actually research and understand the issue before posting misinformation. Either way, this just proves you are nothing but a partisan hack who has ZERO credibility