What will Obama "Change"? What particular "Hope" does he offer?

[ilikefox es]

Quote from arealpissedgoy:

^

Why is the average republican dumber than a rotten turd?

This turd above takes the cake. Probably leads the weekly 20th percentile imbecile meetings.

And people wonder why the world despises republicans.

Well, well. Here he is back again.

Now he's wondering, in just a slightly camoflauged way, why rich republicans don't want their money being taken away to give to poor democrats. Yes, he's hit upon it. It's because they're dumb!

He's hoping upon hope that nobody is smart enough to ask why the dumb people are so rich, and the smart people are so poor. Lucky enough for him, when he asks these types of idiotic questions at the dailykos, there is indeed nobody with the ability to decipher his logical fallacies.

Moving on to why the world despises the US, once again you have to overlook same, namely that we gots da money, and dey ain't a gots none. Dey wants it. Pardon me for putting it into language that "world citizens" could understand.

Simply put, when you have no morals, no history of achievement, nothing whatsoever to hang your hat on, you're left with "they sure are dumb".

Nice try, anyway goy.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from hapaboy:

Why isn't Canada the country bin Laden and co want to destroy? Because it has no power whatsoever and is full of whiny citizens who have nothing better to do than watch hockey, read Daily Kos and Al Franken, and then play back seat driver of American politics on sites like this. Liberal Canadians are the tiny Chihuahua that barks annoyingly at all hours behind a large fence, cowers when the fence is open, and shits all over the place.

Or, here's the sensible response: because it didn't maintain troops in Saudi Arabia as Bin Laden objected to.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from ilikefox es:

Moving on to why the world despises the US, once again you have to overlook same, namely that we gots da money, and dey ain't a gots none. Dey wants it. Pardon me for putting it into language that "world citizens" could understand.

It's a fine line between a simple explanation and a simplistic explanation. Bin Laden, for example, the patriarch of the cause is very wealthy.

Your explanation doesn't hold water.

 

[arealpissedgoy]

Quote from ilikefox es:

Well, well. Here he is back again.

Now he's wondering, in just a slightly camoflauged way, why rich republicans don't want their money being taken away to give to poor democrats. Yes, he's hit upon it. It's because they're dumb!

He's hoping upon hope that nobody is smart enough to ask why the dumb people are so rich, and the smart people are so poor. Lucky enough for him, when he asks these types of idiotic questions at the dailykos, there is indeed nobody with the ability to decipher his logical fallacies.

Moving on to why the world despises the US, once again you have to overlook same, namely that we gots da money, and dey ain't a gots none. Dey wants it. Pardon me for putting it into language that "world citizens" could understand.

Simply put, when you have no morals, no history of achievement, nothing whatsoever to hang your hat on, you're left with "they sure are dumb".

Nice try, anyway goy.

what in the world are you rambling about?

Could you mother fuckers be any dumber?

Most of your shit does not make any sense.

You are yet another dumbed down worthless piece of shit. Fucking 20th percentile imbecile.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

...I'm a guy who unflinchingly posts the most anti-PC stuff imaginable yet I'm one of the few white guys here who lives in a majority minority neighborhood.

Then why don't you pack your jackboots and take the next train to the 'burbs, to the considerable relief of your current neighbors?

 

[Hombre]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Give it up. There's no question that taxes will be raised. The country has to pay off five years of nonstop, wasteful, no-bid contract war that it got by repeatedly voting Republican.



The longest serving senator last I heard was Robert Byrd, and the longest serving Republican Senator was Ted Stevens (up on corruption charges).

There are other ways to pay a debt,not just by raising taxes .

Obama wants CHANGE ?
That is why he choose 30+ years insider as a VP and Ted Kennedy as a mentor . That alone tells me that Obama is full of it . Why not to pick someone fresh ? My wild guess is that he preffers old insiders who know how to get all the perks and how not to get get caught.
Something like Bush learned from Cheney .

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Hombre:

There are other ways to pay a debt,not just by raising taxes

Well yes, the government could cut the military to only the level of the top three world countries combined. But that's not going to happen and the country will maintain expenditures on the military at the top 10 countries military expenditures combined. Other topics, such as SS, are a non-starter. So yes, your taxes are going up. (Unless you're poor or middle class and Obama wins.)

Obama wants CHANGE ?
That is why he choose 30+ years insider as a VP and Ted Kennedy as a mentor . That alone tells me that Obama is full of it . Why not to pick someone fresh ? My wild guess is that he preffers old insiders who know how to get all the perks and how not to get get caught.
Something like Bush learned from Cheney .

So you want him to have experience on his team, but not actual experience, someone "fresh."

Well Biden seems honest enough. Kind of wimpy, but honest enough.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from Hombre:
There are other ways to pay a debt,not just by raising taxes .

You mean like cut spending? From a democrat congress and whitehouse? That's hysterical! I mean, it's pretty hard to trying to imagine a bunch of republicans cutting government. That's just wouldn't happen. But democrats? I don't know what sort of unicorn-filled, butterfly laden meadow you envision with the "new change", but smaller government is farther away from that then invading Europe. Obama is more likely to nuke Iran, Saudia Arabia and the Sudan than reduce government.

Quote from Hombre:
Obama wants CHANGE ?
That is why he choose 30+ years insider as a VP and Ted Kennedy as a mentor . That alone tells me that Obama is full of it . Why not to pick someone fresh ?

To be fair to the Obamessiah (pbuh), he's pretty much screwed on that choice no matter what. If he picks somebody like an Alaskan Governor with no experience, people step up Biden's "The Whitehouse is not the place to learn to be POTUS" argument. And if he picks somebody from inside the Beltway, then people say the same thing as you've said.

 

[Hombre]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Well yes, the government could cut the military to only the level of the top three world countries combined. But that's not going to happen and the country will maintain expenditures on the military at the top 10 countries military expenditures combined. Other topics, such as SS, are a non-starter. So yes, your taxes are going up. (Unless you're poor or middle class and Obama wins.)



So you want him to have experience on his team, but not actual experience, someone "fresh."

Well Biden seems honest enough. Kind of wimpy, but honest enough.

I know that my taxes going up if BO is elected . That is why I am not voting for him.

I wanted him to bring in a nonpolitician businessman to run country as a company .
Biden is honest enough family man . That's why his son in an attorney general of Delaware .( stricktly on merit, of course )

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from TGregg:

You mean like cut spending? From a democrat congress and whitehouse? That's hysterical! I mean, it's pretty hard to trying to imagine a bunch of republicans cutting government. That's just wouldn't happen. But democrats? I don't know what sort of unicorn-filled, butterfly laden meadow you envision with the "new change", but smaller government is farther away from that then invading Europe. Obama is more likely to nuke Iran, Saudia Arabia and the Sudan than reduce government.

With respect to the GDP, under Clinton spending dropped 0.6% in his first term, and dropped 8.2% in his second term.

Under Bush I (again with respect to debt/GDP) spending increased 13.1%.

Under Bush II, spending increased in his first term 6.9% (but that doesn't count all these "off budget" "emergency" appropriations) and he increased debt a projected (unicorn, fairy tale) 3.9% in his second term (and frankly we'll all be relieved if that's all the damage he does).

Under Reagan, spending increased 11.3% in his first term, and 9.2% in his second term.

Under Carter, spending decreased 3.2%

So... you've got it very, very backwards. In reality, and not talking points, Democrats reduce spending, Republicans crank spending up.