The President has failed us

Judged:

3

2

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Tell it to the Defense Department. THEY don't want them. They're being forced to take them anyway, because lobbyists have paid already. That's the way it works. Senators are "honor" bound once they've taken the M-O-N-E-Y. Sigh.

Judged:

3

3

3

Buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
I will go off topic for a moment.
I am sorry about your situation.
Seriously.
Next time please for HIM and YOU take care of your guy!
Dr. Oz came on Oprah and told her that for optimal health the men needed to be taken care of 4 times a week or 200 times a year. The ladies do not need that - they need a good emotional one every few months for health so yes it is entirely unequal.
Oprah said, "That is too much work" and her audience (mostly fat white women) cheered their approval.
Dr. Oz was stunned and asked, "But don't you love him and want him to be healthy?" Oprah still said it was too much work.
Now that you have your own fat lips of experience, will you take this advice and TAKE CARE of YOUR GUY NEXT TIME?
Don't listen to all the biddies out there. They don't have a clue.
If you don't believe me or Dr. Oz ask some guys you do respect.
By the way this same advice if good for any of the married ladies out there.
Per the old saying I don't recommend the cow giving the milk out for free as the guys may not buy the cow then. But once the guy buys the cow and pays for the pasture, if the cow stops giving milk the guy is gonna get cranked and rightfully so.
Yes you are not alone out there as I have seen so many women out there just like you. Hopefully you will learn from this and not skimp out on your guy next time. Denying your guy is a kind of cheating by omission instead of by action.
Show your guy you really care for him.
Will you promise to meet the Dr. Oz minimum next time?
It really will help make his life and thus yours as good as it can be.

Judged:

3

3

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>We have college graduates with jobs who are strapped with student loan debt and unable to save for their down payment. They postpone home ownership (and children) for years as a result of the debt they're paying down. I'm not talking...
You think it couldn't be worse? I absolutely disagree with you. It would be worse for the middle class and the low income working American under Romney.

Judged:

3

2

2

Buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
You still don't get it. IF he is ineligible, then the vote does NOT nullify that. What part of due process do you not get?
If we find out he was ineligible, then the majority vote is meaningless as he got that by fraud. If the majority vote does not care once they find they have been defrauded, then we have just mob rule.
The rule of the law rather than the mob is what makes America different from most other "democratic" countries. Once you abandon that, then you turn America into Argentina. Instead of that you personally could just move to Argentina since mob rule is okay with you.

Judged:

3

3

3

frank wrote:

<quoted text>
In 1993 over Clinton’s tax increases on the wealthy, America saw “the longest peace time expansion of the economy in history” with 23 million jobs created. The middle class saw its position made more secure – middle class incomes actually went up and those poor, poor millionaires and billionaires did pretty darn well too! Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.

Judged:

2

2

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong forum. Nothing here to see. It's about politics and the election, not your pathetic deflation. Not our problem, and we can't help you with it. Go knock on the bedroom door and see if she'll let you in. If not, quit whining and go for a ride. I'm sure there's somebody out there for you. It's only money.

Judged:

3

2

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

Lobbying
Top Spenders
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php...
Lobbying Client Total
US Chamber of Commerce $885,975,680
General Electric $274,100,000
American Medical Assn $274,017,500
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $224,263,920
American Hospital Assn $223,869,136
AARP $217,612,064
National Assn of Realtors $194,515,133
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $191,197,552
Northrop Grumman $180,565,253
Exxon Mobil $176,362,742
Verizon Communications $167,546,543
Edison Electric Institute $165,566,789
Boeing Co $164,139,310
(Continued at link:)

Judged:

3

3

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>You could install a wishing well in the back yard, go get yourself a roll of pennies and sing "Three Coins in a Fountain". Then, spin around three times and start tossing. You never know. A genie could appear and grant you at least one of them. In the meantime, you'd be busy and not here annoying us with your delusions of grandeur.
How can it be that the majority vote does not care? Are you drinking again? Of COURSE the majority cares that their vote is honored. Otherwise, people start protesting and burning stuff and violence happens. I know. I've seen lots of video footage from the Middle East where people feel cheated of their votes. Well, you HAD your vote. Obama won. Now, you can vote the other way this time. Obama will still win, and you will still be bitter AND stupid. See? Some things never change. You're as predictable as flies in summer - and just as unwelcome.

Judged:

3

2

2

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
You are one big idiot. Clinton raising taxes DID NOT, I repeat, DID NOT make the economy expand. NO TAX INCREASE HAS EVER DONE THAT - EVER!!! He raised taxes because the economy was good enough to support increased taxes. Anybody with an IQ above room temp would know that, which rules you out. With an economy going like gang busters with the dot com craze and all, it's natural for more revenue to be made even if taxes were LOWERED! I know that doesn't add up to liberals since all they want to do when they run out of other peoples' money, is to raise taxes so they can spend even more. Why is it that, during an election year, the liberals want to raise taxes on "the rich", yet, just a year ago, the argument was raising taxes with an economy on the brink of going back into recession was not the thing to do. Now, it's the same old mantra and the economy is no better than it was a year ago. Your post makes absolutely no sense and shows just how ignorant you Bay Area, oxygen deprived liberals are.

Judged:

3

3

3

Buzzcut wrote:

<quoted text>
What part of IF (and yes it is an IF and not a definite) he was not eligible then the election result is invalid do you not understand?
The Obama voters care that their vote is honored but don't care if it was a legitimate vote. It sounds like the Obama voters are a MOB. And you are one of them.
Take a look in the mirror to see an UNAMERICAN!

Judged:

2

2

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>There's a bit of conflict in what you're saying here, Jeff, and it's what I've been pointing out repeatedly (I know. You weren't here reading). Everytime you adopt the propaganda that Obama is bad for business, you ignore the other part of the formula that you just brought up - record profits for corporations. Obviously, Obama has NOT been bad for business.
My take is that when Obama signed on for the job, he relied on the business leaders to much for advice. The LAST thing he wanted to do was anything that might harm business in anyway. Clearly, time has demonstrated that business and the wealthiest have weathered the storm and come out on the other side made whole or better.
NOW, that brings us to where we are - a fairly jobless recovery - the worst we've seen since the Great Depression. Obama is also undoubtedly becoming more confident in his own ideas. This time, he's making it clear that his focus is on those segments in America who haven't recovered yet - the middle class.
Like petulent children, the rich and powerful refuse to budge an inch, give back a penny or come under any constraints that might stop them from continuing on the path they've been on. That is why they support Romney. He's quite willing to continue along making them happier and patting the rest of us on the head.
You can see it anyway you like, but I disagree .

Judged:

3

3

3

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
GE? Hey! Isn't Jeff Immelt the head of obama's jobs council(which he hasn't met with in a YEAR)? Didn't GE close up their X-ray division and send jobs to China? Never heard any liberals complaining about outsourcing then. Probably didn't have time since they were so busy criticizing Romney about the same thing.

Judged:

3

3

3

fishaholic wrote:

<quoted text>
Ever think about why some businesses have made record profits even with obama in office? When you have a headcount reduction, you also have a huge reduction in overhead costs. Labor is THE number one overhead to any business. Companies have found ways of becoming more efficient doing the same or more with less people. Couple that with the uncertainty of all the new regulations obama's policies are putting on the business world, it's no wonder that businesses aren't hiring. It doesn't take a math genius to figure out those numbers. I'll bet even you could do the math if you take your gloves off so you can count on your fingers.

Judged:

3

3

2

NTRPRNR1 wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong focus, wiggins. The point is elementary. Tax increases did NOT adversely affect economic growth contrary to the then prevailing wisdom. Obviously, they were wrong. I'd like to try that again and see if they're still wrong! It's a lot better deal than going back to George Bush's policies.

Judged:

3

3

2

Rico the Terrible wrote:

Romney will fail.