While Rome Burned...They Talked About Lipstick

SMRTR wrote:

<quoted text>
Meanwhile, the KKK prays vainly in hope McCain wins.
Of course, they wouldn't mind the massive increase to membership when Obama wins, either - I'm sure they'll see you at the next meeting.
BTW - who was in Libya just the last week or so??? Who met with Iran (without any conditions) not too terribly long ago?
The ENTIRE world hopes Obama wins, if only to bring sanity back to our government.

I’m pretty sure Sen. KKK Byrd is a democrat. Oh wait! All KKK members were democrats since KKK was founded by democrats. But nice try. LOL!

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
A democrat who calls themselves 'Christian' would not vote for a muslim who would fight for the 'right' to kill (sorry, terminate) a child who survived an abortion, OR belives that infanticide is a right to begin with. Chistians don't believe those things. Nor do they share much in common with radical marxist agitators, and muslim bodyguards. THIS IS YOUR CANDIDATE?

Christ walked among the outcasts of society. Nor did he speak of homosexuality or abortion. He said to feed the poor, care for the widow and the children. If you don't do these things he won't recognize you(in other words you wouldn't really be a follower of Jesus). Don't you like the Sermon on the Mount?
No-one likes abortion. Check the stats. Abortions have gone down in Democratic Administrations. Do you know why? Because women are much more likely to have children when they believe they have a chance at raising them in a peaceful environment with the no poverty.

We all need to work on our own faults and look less at other peoples mistakes. Then it's easier to help them through decisions and problems. I am a Conservative in Canada. As I said before, you don't seem to understand the term.

ucantbsrius wrote:

<quoted text>Suffering for the USA is valiant, but doesn't give you immunity from criticism nor does it give you permission to lie.
He suffered those injuries in the crash and they were not set correctly.
You should have a President that is internet savvy. The President you would like to have a beer with didn't work ,why do stupid twice?
I don't wear my patriotism on my sleeve, for my own gain.
Patriotism should be a personal decision, when you turn it around to garner favor from people that's a little weird.
Why don't you address my points in a previous post? The fiscal condition of your country, due to the actions of your former congress and current President, you just moved on. Was that because I was right and you had no argument?

I don't agree with many social policies of our current president.He has o spend on defense build-up and technogies, this is a give, He has picked up one of the spending habits of the former administration, Clinton, who raised the spending exponentially, on the backs of downsizing the military, in concordance with his anti-military background. Bush needs to use the line -item veto mor if he hasn't already. Taxpayers should not be required to bail-out financial institutions for instance, if so, then when the banks make the money BACK in good times, they should pay the taxpayer back,(I'm OK with this) in added taxes to cover their previous bad loans. and keep the deficit down.
But Bush had to begin rebuilding the military,(because, guess what, we still have enemies).

TAS wrote:

<quoted text>
and there are no muslims running for president of the U.S. in 2008 there, republipig (with lipstick)........

Hey Einstien, I'm not fooled. Baraks a closet muslim, 57 states? C'mon, since when do muslim countries take interest in our national elections and favor a man named 'Hussein'?(take your time)
As far as the pig comment, that's just the quality you go for.

ucantbsrius wrote:

<quoted text>When you resort to lies of that sort you remove yourself to the dufus block. It stops being debate and becomes folly.
Do a little research on your claims, look at Obamas website and look at his views on the subject, read reports, look at government papers.
You're getting your talking points from a cynical,drug addicted, woman hating,3X divorced right wing hack who makes a mockery of those less fortunate. You can include those Vets who are now homeless. I listen him. I have since 1989. I can't believe people take him seriously.

All I can say is I've told you the truth and you just shut your eyes..(hoping it will go away?)
Wake up and smell the coffee. These aren't times to hone your political debate skill, these are times to think clearly..WAKE UP!

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree with many social policies of our current president.He has o spend on defense build-up and technogies, this is a give, He has picked up one of the spending habits of the former administration, Clinton, who raised the spending exponentially, on the backs of downsizing the military, in concordance with his anti-military background. Bush needs to use the line -item veto mor if he hasn't already. Taxpayers should not be required to bail-out financial institutions for instance, if so, then when the banks make the money BACK in good times, they should pay the taxpayer back,(I'm OK with this) in added taxes to cover their previous bad loans. and keep the deficit down.
But Bush had to begin rebuilding the military,(because, guess what, we still have enemies).

Waht was the deficit in 2000? What is the deficit in 2008? Gas was $1.46 in Dec of 2000.

ucantbsrius wrote:

<quoted text>Suffering for the USA is valiant, but doesn't give you immunity from criticism nor does it give you permission to lie.
He suffered those injuries in the crash and they were not set correctly.
You should have a President that is internet savvy. The President you would like to have a beer with didn't work ,why do stupid twice?
I don't wear my patriotism on my sleeve, for my own gain.
Patriotism should be a personal decision, when you turn it around to garner favor from people that's a little weird.
Why don't you address my points in a previous post? The fiscal condition of your country, due to the actions of your former congress and current President, you just moved on. Was that because I was right and you had no argument?

Wrong. I received McCain’s biography as a Christmas gift several years ago. In it he describes how his arms were injured due to many torture sessions. Are you accusing him of lying about that?

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't agree with many social policies of our current president.He has o spend on defense build-up and technogies, this is a give, He has picked up one of the spending habits of the former administration, Clinton, who raised the spending exponentially, on the backs of downsizing the military, in concordance with his anti-military background. Bush needs to use the line -item veto mor if he hasn't already. Taxpayers should not be required to bail-out financial institutions for instance, if so, then when the banks make the money BACK in good times, they should pay the taxpayer back,(I'm OK with this) in added taxes to cover their previous bad loans. and keep the deficit down.
But Bush had to begin rebuilding the military,(because, guess what, we still have enemies).

Thank you for your opinions.
There is no line item veto. All Presidents have wanted that pen but don't have it.
The military downsizing was increased by Rumsfeld before 9-11. He believed in a new military, not one designed for long engagements.
If there wasn't so much partisan rhetoric and the unbelievable waste of taxpayers money that was spent trying to impeach him both sides deserve credit for good times. The Clinton Administration was holding the helm in one of the longest economic booms in American history. Give credit where credit is due. The Republicans and Clinton had to work together to achieve that.
As far as the bailouts go. What is with trickle down until failure then the Government needs to bail them out when it doesn't work? Kind of a fiscal mess. They get the huge(I mean huge) bank accounts and bonuses for ceo's even when they fail, and the taxpayer foots the bill.
I say if you want no regulation or taxes, take the fall.

ucantbsrius wrote:

<quoted text> I am a Conservative in Canada. As I said before, you don't seem to understand the term.

You'd be left of center here.
Really? You are conserving what? the environment?
Socialist policies? You don't see the problem with Obama-Biden, you're not a conservative.

Can someone explain this to me, how come the entire Republican platform is based around this concept of "pick yourself up" set high goals, help yourself and you are helping others blah blah blah. It sounds to me like they WANT people to reach for the sky... so then why do they on the other side of thier mouth try and tear down the "Elitests" that are doing exactly that?

It makes no sense to me at all...

Matt wrote:

<quoted text> You don't see the problem with Obama-Biden, you're not a conservative.

If you don't see the problem with McCain-Palin your not a conservative either.

DOA wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. I received McCain’s biography as a Christmas gift several years ago. In it he describes how his arms were injured due to many torture sessions. Are you accusing him of lying about that?

Have you heard him speak on the subject? I believe a recent speech addressed his broken arms whether it was an introduction or his own words he was there when they spoke about it. They were broken in the crash and not set correctly. I'm sure they used that as a source for torture, but it isn't the absolute reason for his current condition.It still doesn't make him more qualified as a candidate. Has he ever addressed PTSD? Was he treated for it, is he on medication? America has a right to know if a Presidential candidate was or is being treated for Post Traumatic Stress.

ucantbsrius wrote:

<quoted text>Thank you for your opinions.
There is no line item veto. All Presidents have wanted that pen but don't have it.
The military downsizing was increased by Rumsfeld before 9-11. He believed in a new military, not one designed for long engagements.
If there wasn't so much partisan rhetoric and the unbelievable waste of taxpayers money that was spent trying to impeach him both sides deserve credit for good times. The Clinton Administration was holding the helm in one of the longest economic booms in American history. Give credit where credit is due. The Republicans and Clinton had to work together to achieve that.
As far as the bailouts go. What is with trickle down until failure then the Government needs to bail them out when it doesn't work? Kind of a fiscal mess. They get the huge(I mean huge) bank accounts and bonuses for ceo's even when they fail, and the taxpayer foots the bill.
I say if you want no regulation or taxes, take the fall.

Let's quote accurate history. Again the Clinton boom came from the surplus of downsizing our biggest expense, Defense, and there was no surplus till the republican revolution of 1994 swept both houses of congress on a comittment to balance the budget, and cut spending frivolously our tax dollars. Dems working for the big banks, because they kept our taxes in the red, so they would have to 'borrow' every year from financial institutions and pay HUGE inerest on our debt. It was the Republican revolution that CUT SPENDING during the Clinton years, and the Clintons take credit for it? I suppose in a roundabout way Clinton forced conservatives to come out and vote against his party to get a balanced budget. Clinton then asked for a line Item veto,(so he could cut spending? on what? the military?, wouldn't suprise me.)

Tappy wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't see the problem with McCain-Palin your not a conservative either.

Oh please, someone explain.. yes let a liberal(with my taxes) explain to me a conservative,what a conservative is..

Paul Kersey Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Waht was the deficit in 2000? What is the deficit in 2008? Gas was $1.46 in Dec of 2000.

The conversation was on Clintons uncontrolled spending habits in easier times. It was Clinton who opened the doors to Communist China (his buddies),and well now we have a trade deficit of some 20+ billion a month. those are US dollars saying BYE, BYE, every month, and the only reason nothing is being done is likely someone is making BIG bucks in this country.
I don't have the deficit figures, but I'd guess they are minimal in 2002, as compared to a democrat majority in both houses of appropriations, in 2008.

Why do dems always think they can get away with the spin that it is the presidents fault when spending is out of control, when it is congress...?

Clinton had dem majorities when he started, and repubs came in and balanced the budget in 7 years.
Gas prices could be controlled by CONGRESS, not the President. We have dems running congress now.

TAS wrote:

<quoted text>
You are nothing but a typical degenerate, lying, hypocritical, republipig, scumbag bullsh*tter trying to incite hate and fear..........the majority of the American people are much too intelligent to believe your nonsensical gibberish.......
Thanks for the "Eintstein" comment by the way----I am always glad when republigigs such as yourself recognize and show respect for my superior intelligence.....

Hey Einstien, I guess you are an elitist too..you know 'an evolutioninst who looks to apes as if distant relatives, and claims to be intelligent..

Instead of maintaining the military strength of the Reagan-Bush build-up, Clinton downsized, and then pacified our enemies, while spending the saved surplus of those things on more socialist programs. He should have used the surplus to increase intelligence at least on our enemies, find who/where they are, but he was so preocupied, he used FBI recources on his POLITICAL adversaries, Republicans, to get any dirt on them to blackmail them in case his philandering , or socialism tendencies were under scrutiny. (3 point range, nothin' but net..)

Paul Kersey Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Waht was the deficit in 2000? What is the deficit in 2008? Gas was $1.46 in Dec of 2000.

Congress is in charge of the budget. Who controlled the congress in 2000? Who controls it now?

Mr. Obama, you are a fine public speaker and eloquent author. You are also an extremely liberal Senator from the State of Illinois , which has a long and rich history of political corruption of the first magnitude. You are indeed a invention of that system. I am disgusted, that in a country teeming with enormously talented African Americans who would make a good President, that the political system has chosen YOU. John McCain could never have convinced me to vote for him. But you, Mr. Obama, have indeed convinced me to vote for McCain.

YOU have the audacity to look us in the eye and ask us to believe that you never heard 'God Damn America' Jeremiah Wright’s hate speeches in all the years you attended his church! This is like me telling you that I attended dozens of Klan rallies and never once heard the disgusting 'N' word. You have also attempted to disguise and minimize your ties and friendships with other known terrorists and radicals. Evidently, you will say or do anything to obtain the power behind the highest office in the land. So far, nothing regarding your tactics indicates any “change” for the better.

As for Mr. McCain, once he is elected, I want him to go into the Oval Office and throw one of his legendary temper tantrums. I want him to Jump up and down and throw something through a plate glass window. Rip the drapes down and foam at the mouth a bit. And I want the whole thing on camera so that Ahmadinejad can see it. I want the nuclear button sitting right next to the alarm clock on John’s nightstand. I want pictures of this to be sent to Iran , Russia , China , Venezuela , Cuba , Libya , Syria , Pakistan , and those other dopes in the sheets, the Saudis. I want ALL of these 'world leaders' to lay awake at night and to break out in a cold sweat when they consider that you are a flawed man with a notoriously bad temper. Perhaps then they will think twice before messing with the United States of America.

AUTHOR UNKNOWN

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's quote accurate history. Again the Clinton boom came from the surplus of downsizing our biggest expense, Defense, and there was no surplus till the republican revolution of 1994 swept both houses of congress on a comittment to balance the budget, and cut spending frivolously our tax dollars. Dems working for the big banks, because they kept our taxes in the red, so they would have to 'borrow' every year from financial institutions and pay HUGE inerest on our debt. It was the Republican revolution that CUT SPENDING during the Clinton years, and the Clintons take credit for it? I suppose in a roundabout way Clinton forced conservatives to come out and vote against his party to get a balanced budget. Clinton then asked for a line Item veto,(so he could cut spending? on what? the military?, wouldn't suprise me.)

The Clinton boom was from a number of things. The internet bubble, raising taxes to a responsible level,balancing the budget,job creation and the public having confidence in the economy, so they spend spend spend. That is what fuels this monster, the American public.
Both parties have made good decisions and mistakes up to the Bush Administration.At that point it was one big mistake after another.
I wish you could give credit where it was due and accept blame(you have somewhat)where it is due.
Your biggest mistake is blaming Clinton for anything that is occurring now. The Republicans had Both houses and the office of the President and an even split Supreme court. They could have addressed any issue they wished. To blame Clinton for any ills now is just irresponsible propaganda tactic politics.
The Republican revolution was short lived.They forgot what brought them to Washington.
Clinton never got a line item veto. It isn't available to the President. Bush asked for it too.I am glad no President has had it. I can just imagine what a bought and paid for corporate President could do.
Again, Bush and Rumsfeld were slashing the Military before 9-11. Clinton had given the soldiers the biggest raise they had seen in history. Not the action of a President who hates the military, is it?
You have heard those same talking points you use for a very long time and can't let them go can you? Time to get some real information, move forward, lose Rush and Hannity. They only do harm.