"Obviously, I disagree. Unemployment that high, in this day and age, would be devastating to this country. It's bad enough at 7% in my state."

I never said that 11% unemployment would be a good thing. I am simply saying that 11% unemployment is not the death of this economy or this country as you seem to suggest. This is why your example does not fit reality.

We have seen unemployment this high in the past and the economy comes back.

"If anything, you are not facing the reality that we had to do something, and that many economists came to the same conclusion."

As I said before, I never said that we should have done nothing.

"I think you're setting the bar unintentionally high in an attempt to discredit the program that you don't want to succeed."

No Whidbey... I'm not the one who set the bar. The Obama team did when they put out that chart.

"Who's spending a trillion dollars out there in hopes of revitalizing our country? Last time I checked, jobs are going overseas and companies are downsizing and laying people off."

Right....

And when these companies have to pay higher taxes to cover Obamas spending package how many jobs are they going to send overseas?

Ya see Whidbey... That trillion dollars is going to have to come from somewhere. It is going to come from taxes that companies and people will be paying over time.

"Kind of a dumb argument. I'm sure you wouldn't be making the same claim if the money were spent on things you approve of."

Actually.... Considering that we are spending money that we do not have I would use the same argument even if it was something I approved of. This is because I do not think my child should have to be paying for what we spend today.

"As in? If you say "tax cuts," you owe me twenty bucks...;)"

Well... IF the point of any package would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs then tax cuts would be one way to do it. But since you don't want tax cuts how about this for an idea.....

Since we are basically spending a trillion dollars how about we simply stop collecting all federal taxes until we reach a trillion dollars?

This would give people more money to spend...

This would give companies more money to invest in jobs...

That would be just terrible.....right???

nicksteel Quote 2009-06-17 11:54:53 PM
Karma Curmudgeon: nicksteel: And once you get their story to the world, then what? They will be dead and the world will keep on spinning.

Then you use it to push for political change for peace, justice and liberty.

This is why we were left our republic. It's pretty sad that this has to be explained to you.

You cannot push for political change from outside the country. And you can see how much success people are having in their efforts to do so.

This isn't a game, you twerp. People are dying and you clowns are acting like you are on the front lines. Good lord, you are in your mother's basement.

No shiat. I never said I was on the line. I never said I had anything to lose. Except an opportunity. The opportunity that I, as an American, to support their desire to have a political voice. And to let them know that we love peace so they need not fear us. And yes it does matter. If you don't understand how, let me know, I'll recommend some books for you about movement politics. Some of which will talk at length about how it became politically possible for us to separate from the King.

sorry for the clutter. just trying to stomp out a threadjacking troll here.

Ya See Whidbey...

In 1982 we hit 10.8% unemployment...

The country survived.

And I'm curious if I'm suppose to be the "threadjacking troll" .....

dottedmint:

No. That'd be NickSteel, who was threadshiatting in one of the Iran threads. And then he disappeared when called out on his false accusations. Shocker.

dottedmint: The country survived.

That's debatable. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I believe you'll find that that's the point in time when individual greed became the driving factor in our economy. From that point forward, the balance of wealth has steadily shifted from a broad based and well funded middle class to today's deplorable situation where 1% of the people control 1/3 of the assets and 10% control over 80% of the wealth.

In 1982 10.8% of the workforce lost their jobs, forfeited their assets, and the rich got richer. In 2009 50% of the population can loose their jobs and all the rich will get is the unpaid debt that they were already owed.

Can someone explain to me this Political Inclination Thermo Analyzer thingy? I don't see anything about it in the FARQ..?

How is it debatable RainForest?

The fact that the distribution of assets has changed over the years does not mean this country has been destroyed or anything else.

So what do you think would be a fair distribution of wealth and assets in this country?

dottedmint: Ya See Whidbey...

In 1982 we hit 10.8% unemployment...

The country survived.

Obviously unemployment alone isn't the issue. Reagan inherited a crappy economy and then proceeded to reward the super-rich without doing the rest of the country the service of investing in it.

Since we are basically spending a trillion dollars how about we simply stop collecting all federal taxes until we reach a trillion dollars?

I really don't know. Sounds good the way you pitch it, but I seriously haven't heard any credible economist propose such a measure, quite the opposite, that economists recommend deficit spending.

No Whidbey... I'm not the one who set the bar. The Obama team did when they put out that chart.

So you just flat out deny the information presented there? Scare tactics?

And when these companies have to pay higher taxes to cover Obamas spending package how many jobs are they going to send overseas?

Taxes have very little to do with outsourcing. The desire to pay crap wages and slow growth while maximizing profits is the reason why companies have fled this country. Because they can, and they make more money when they do it.

But you knew that.

That trillion dollars is going to have to come from somewhere. It is going to come from taxes that companies and people will be paying over time.

Taxes collected after they profit from the investments. I'm sure if your company was in line to receive some of this stimulus money, you'd do the right thing and refuse it, wouldn't you? :)

Considering that we are spending money that we do not have I would use the same argument even if it was something I approved of. This is because I do not think my child should have to be paying for what we spend today.

Oh, please. If that were true, you would have been all over Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan. Where's your outrage over the 3 trillion+ down the money hole there?

I don't get you, man. We're finally focusing on doing some right-minded investment here in this country for a change and you still find time to complain about it.

As I said before, I never said that we should have done nothing.


It sure sounds like it to me. You wanted the Void to cancel everything out and back to a clean slate no matter who got hurt in the process, where if people fail, it's their own fault and they don't deserve any assistance.

Utterly disastrous.

Sure, a few savvy people might pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but I wouldn't be surprised if we entered something far worse than the Great Depression.

"Taxes have very little to do with outsourcing. The desire to pay crap wages and slow growth while maximizing profits is the reason why companies have fled this country. Because they can, and they make more money when they do it."

Sigh Whidbey....

When you raise taxes on a company you cut into their profits and they want to try to increase those profits...

Sometimes they will do this by simply raising costs to their customers...

Sometimes they will do this by cutting back on how much they pay their workers...

Sometimes they will do this by how many workers they employ...

Sometimes they will do this by moving their workers to countries where they do not need to pay as much in either wages or taxes...

Link (new window)

June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world's largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama's plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies' foreign profits.

"It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said in an interview. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

"I really don't know. Sounds good the way you pitch it, but I seriously haven't heard any credible economist propose such a measure, quite the opposite, that economists recommend deficit spending."

Not all economists are in favor of deficit spending.....


Link (new window)

"Taxes collected after they profit from the investments."

But again....

You are talking about raising taxes on companies....

This encourages them to either raise costs.... cut wages.... cut employment... or even hold off on expanding their operations.


"Where's your outrage over the 3 trillion+ down the money hole there?"

You clearly forget my complaining about Bushs spending. That was always my biggest complaint about him. That said... Bush took 8 years to rack up his bill while Obama took only a couple of months to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

Oh... and....

For the last two years of Bushs term, Dems were in control of Congress and every dollar that was spent was authorized by the Dems.

dottedmint:
"Where's your outrage over the 3 trillion+ down the money hole there?"

You clearly forget my complaining about Bushs spending. That was always my biggest complaint about him. That said... Bush took 8 years to rack up his bill while Obama took only a couple of months to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

For the last two years of Bushs term, Dems were in control of Congress and every dollar that was spent was authorized by the Dems.

Wait a minute. Let's look at the bolded quote. Bush hid his war spending outside of the budget via 'emergency spending'. Citation: http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2127.cfm

Obama ending this practice and included it in the budget.
Citation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html

Quote: Yet Mr. Obama will inflate his challenge by forsaking several gimmicks that President Bush used to make deficits look smaller. He will include war costs in the budget; Mr. Bush did not, and instead sought supplemental money from Congress each year. Mr. Obama also will not count savings from laws that establish lower Medicare payments for doctors and expand the alternative minimum tax to hit more taxpayers - both of which Mr. Bush and Congress routinely took credit for, while knowing they would later waive the laws to raise doctors' payments and limit the reach of the tax.

Also, the stimulus spending will occur over the next several years. Citation: http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/report-progress

It's not as if the government sent out a 700 billion check to some cronies, although I'm sure some did. It's for all of us. Do you have an idea that can help the ecomony or create jobs? Make a business and apply for some funds. It's that easy. Get involved.

It doesn't matter which party is in control. They are all the same.

Sodden Moxie "Bush hid his war spending outside of the budget via 'emergency spending'."

I'm not exactly sure how it is hidden since everyone knew it was going on. Also as I said before even if it was 'hidden' that spending was approved by a Congress that was controlled by the Dems.

Also, the stimulus spending will occur over the next several years.

Perhaps....

But with one act of Obama this country is suddenly on the hook for basically a trillion dollars.

I did find it interesting that while there is a bunch of money available only a small portion of it has been paid out.

I would have sworn that while this stimulus plan was being worked out that we were told that we could not wait and that we needed to get this plan passed as fast as possible so that we could save as many jobs as possible. And yet we are not using all of the money that is available??? This suggests to me that we did not need to rush this package through...

"Do you have an idea that can help the ecomony or create jobs?"

Well...

How about cutting taxes???

How about cutting government spending???

How about making it easier for companies to hire / employ people???

How about having policies that encourage companies to locate themselves in this country???

I don't think sticking the taxpayers with a bunch of new taxes to pay is a good way to stimulate the economy...

dottedmint: I'm not exactly sure how it is hidden since everyone knew it was going on. Also as I said before even if it was 'hidden' that spending was approved by a Congress that was controlled by the Dems.

Don't forget that while the war spending was not on the official yearly deficits, it was included in the debt. Bush added about 5T in his 8 years, (grumbling holding back some expletives.) Obama's projected debt addition looks like it will add that in the first 4 years. I will give him some slack for the weak economy adding to that numbers but I can see of the 5 2-3 will not be from the weakening economy. Obama is going to be just as bad as Bush when it comes to adding to the debt. This is also with no line of sight of correcting the trend.

And no "bbbbut the money will be spent here". The spending for the wars are only at 1-1.5T the other 4-3.5 was spent here. Can I get a balanced budget?

dottedmint: When you raise taxes on a company you cut into their profits and they want to try to increase those profits...

Sometimes they will do this by simply raising costs to their customers...

Sometimes they will do this by cutting back on how much they pay their workers...

Sometimes they will do this by how many workers they employ...

Sometimes they will do this by moving their workers to countries where they do not need to pay as much in either wages or taxes...

Funny, I immediately thought of two options not listed here. You did not mention reducing executive compensation, and you did not mention reducing shareholder dividends.

Merely an oversight, I'm sure.

BMulligan "You did not mention reducing executive compensation, and you did not mention reducing shareholder dividends."

Good point....

IF you were the executive of a company that just had an increase in taxes would you be happy to have your pay cut?

Occasionally you will see this happen but how much would an executive need to have their pay cut in order to make up the difference?

Also if shareholders see their dividends cut they may be less likely to continue to invest in that company. Then of course if a company gets fewer investments would that improve the condition of that company or make them worse?

Our goal should be to improve the conditions of our companies....

Shouldn't it???

annoyed_grunt: Can someone explain to me this Political Inclination Thermo Analyzer thingy? I don't see anything about it in the FARQ..?

You need to add the pictures underneath to your adblock list.

dottedmint: "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive," Ballmer said in an interview. "We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

They're also "better off" making as much money as possible.

Yeah, uh, thanks for providing two of the richest examples of America imaginable and their unfettered need to address their inner greed, dottedmint.

Doesn't make my point any less valid, that companies screw American workers because...they can. I apologize for not being sympathetic...

Not all economists are in favor of deficit spending.....

LOL another Cato link. Is that supposed to be some kind of trump card?

Sooo...the biggest most stuffiest group of conservatives give Obama's plan the thumbs-down?

I'm SHOCKED. What's more, is that you've posted that link before, and I'm sure I gave you the same reaction then.

Finding some real information that contradicts the current paradigm, would be my advice.

You are talking about raising taxes on companies....

This encourages them to either raise costs.... cut wages.... cut employment... or even hold off on expanding their operations.

They do it anyway. Nothing is stopping them. No outsourcing laws, no punitive measures for taking up stakes and leaving, nothing. They still call the shots, and when multi-billion dollar corporations cry "poorhouse" it's disgusting to anyone with a moral compass.

You clearly forget my complaining about Bushs spending. That was always my biggest complaint about him. That said... Bush took 8 years to rack up his bill while Obama took only a couple of months to add a trillion dollars to the debt.

You never complained once about Bush since I've been engaging you here. Never. Nothing major, certainly not spending.

If you want to pretend you did and backpedal, fine. The inner Political Forum circle will just have a laugh to ourselves...:)

For the last two years of Bushs term, Dems were in control of Congress and every dollar that was spent was authorized by the Dems.

Your point? The Dems didn't exactly have a strong enough majority to override vetoes, which there were none that come to mind.

The Bush administration was the office still cranking out the failed policy.

And now that we're finally investing at home instead of shoveling down a hole in some foreign country, you can't handle it. Suddenly every effort is wasteful.

Amazing.

Whidbey "Yeah, uh, thanks for providing two of the richest examples of America imaginable and their unfettered need to address their inner greed, dottedmint."

Right.....

They leave this country because they can make more money in other countries.....

And the more expensive you make it for companies to operate in this country the more likely they are to leave this country....

Keep raising taxes on corporations....
Keep placing more restrictions on corporations...
Keep making it harder for them to operate in this country...
Keep making it riskier for them to operate in this country...

Fine.

But don't cry foul when they ship jobs overseas...

That's right..... You think they should be thankful to pay high taxes. They should be happy to pay high wages. They should be greatful to face large legal fees. They should love having people like you demand more and more from them.

"Finding some real information that contradicts the current paradigm, would be my advice."

Right....

Any economist that disagrees with Obama must be some right-wing nut.

"If you want to pretend you did and backpedal, fine. The inner Political Forum circle will just have a laugh to ourselves...:)"

You can have whatever selective memory you want but I have complained about Bushs spending for along time.

"Your point? The Dems didn't exactly have a strong enough majority to override vetoes,"

My point??? My point is that I don't recall the Dems even trying to control spending. (unless it was over the Iraq war) Did they ever complain about how much Bush was spending? (other than to complain that he was not spending enough)

Every dollar that was spent over the last two years of Bushs term was approved by the Dems.

"And now that we're finally investing at home instead of shoveling down a hole in some foreign country, you can't handle it. Suddenly every effort is wasteful."

First I never said that every effort is wasteful...

Second while we may be drawing down in Iraq we will be increasing our efforts in Afghanistan.

Third don't think for a second that we are not going to continue to (as you put it) "shoveling [money] down a hole in some foreign country". We have been shoveling money down all sorts of holes all over this world for years and it is not going to end anytime soon.

dottedmint: And the more expensive you make it for companies to operate in this country the more likely they are to leave this country....

Keep raising taxes on corporations....
Keep placing more restrictions on corporations...
Keep making it harder for them to operate in this country...
Keep making it riskier for them to operate in this country...

Uhhh...waaah?

Those poor multi-billion dollar transnational companies. It's good to know there are still people like you shilling for them...

They should be happy to pay high wages. They should be greatful to face large legal fees. They should love having people like you demand more and more from them.

You mean living wages. And if they're being sued, it's very likely for a good reason, like ignoring their own workforce's needs and treating them like peons.

Any economist that disagrees with Obama must be some right-wing nut.

Just pointing out the utter biasness of your source, which you tried to pass off twice.

I really would like to see something critical of this administration that wasn't written by some stiff-lipped George Will/Thomas Friedman character. If I were you, I'd be putting together a folder in your bookmarks.

Every dollar that was spent over the last two years of Bushs term was approved by the Dems.

Right. So you're just going to ignore the fact that the Democrats really didn't have a solid majority to veto major legislation. It's far easier to blame them, I see. That way you don't have to criticize the bad fiscal policy of the Bush administration.

I can read you like a book. Your answers are so down pat, it's pathetic, man.

First I never said that every effort is wasteful...

I'm using powers of deduction. You have nothing but naysaying for Obama's policies. I can only surmise that you would have preferred that we did next to nothing, that the "free market" would have taken care of everything, no matter who suffered or what financial consequences would have occurred.

We have been shoveling money down all sorts of holes all over this world for years and it is not going to end anytime soon.

There's your double standard again. Invest at home, it's a waste, but "shovel money down some hole" in another country like Iraq or Afghanistan?

Peachy. Let's keep doing it.

I swear, you Republicans are nothing more than contrarians.

Anything this administration does you're against, unless it's some baggage left over from Bush and Cheney, and you still find time to whine about it.

I'm pretty happy with what this administration is doing so far. Seriously, is it really that BAD to you that you need to nitpick every move?

"Those poor multi-billion dollar transnational companies. It's good to know there are still people like you shilling for them..."

I gotta say Whidbey that I find your stance kinda funny.

You complain about how companies are greedy and will ship jobs overseas to 'save a buck' but you support policies here that make it even harder for those companies to 'save a buck'.

Simply put....

You support policies that are driving jobs overseas and yet you complain about jobs being shipped overseas....

It would be very good for this country to have those evil, greedy "multi-billion dollar transnational companies" shift more of their operation to this country instead of out of this country. Yet for some reason people like you support policies that drive these companies out of this country.

How many "multi-billion dollar transnational companies" would shift more of their operation (resulting in more jobs) to this country if we taxed these companies at a rate of ....say.... 1%???

Lets just look at companies within the US. How many companies shift jobs to states that have lower tax rates??? They do it all the time. Companies will typically pick lower tax states to expand in instead of expanding in states with high tax rates.

It really is not that complicated.

"And if they're being sued, it's very likely for a good reason..."

Right......

Companies NEVER get sued for frivilous reasons.

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

"Just pointing out the utter biasness of your source,"

And the examples of supporters of Obamas policies that you would post are completely unbiased.... Sure....

Just because the list is put together by Cato does not make these economists in any way less credible.

"So you're just going to ignore the fact that the Democrats really didn't have a solid majority to veto major legislation."

You are joking I hope Whidbey.....

For the last two years of Bushs term the Dems were in control of both the house and the senate. They were in charge of the money. They were in charge of what was or was not spent. They were in charge. Bush could not spend even one dollar without their opproval. Again.... Other than Iraq can you give me an example of where the Dems tried to cut spending.... tried to tell Bush not to spend soo much money... Can you?

If the Dems did not want a bill to come up for a vote they could stop it. They were in control.

"I can only surmise that you would have preferred that we did next to nothing, that the "free market" would have taken care of everything, no matter who suffered or what financial consequences would have occurred."

IF we were going to insist on spending a trillion dollars on a stimulus package it sure would have been nice if it would have been spent in a way that would have actually stimulated the economy and created jobs. So far the numbers are not looking like his policiy was a success. And for the record I care very much what the financial consequences are going to be from his policy. That has been my whole point from the beginning.

"There's your double standard again. Invest at home, it's a waste, but "shovel money down some hole" in another country like Iraq or Afghanistan?

Peachy. Let's keep doing it.

You missed my point.

We have been shoveling money all over the globe long before Iraq or Afghanistan and we are going to continue long after the last soldier comes out of Iraq. Heck we will probably continue to send money to Iraq long after that point as well...

I had a musing today. If the government accounts for half (actually 45%) of all medical money and we are spending twice what most other developed countries spend. Why are we looking to spend more money by the govt in order to match the other developed countries in the efficiency of their health care programs?

we need to stop subsidizing these big corporations and invest in the small business. the big businesses have the means to go anywhere they want. it will never be in their best interest to invest in a local community for long. especially when that community needs those businesses during hardship.

Kirk's_Toupee: we need to stop subsidizing these big corporations and invest in the small business. the big businesses have the means to go anywhere they want. it will never be in their best interest to invest in a local community for long. especially when that community needs those businesses during hardship.

All businesses start small. And they'd go somewhere where labor was cheaper too, if they could afford to.

Obama told the audience at the NAACP that growing up in a violent community is no excuse for getting bad grades. What a dickhead; he grew up in Hawaii, probably one of the most mellow parts of the US (especially if you're non-white). How the fark does he know what it is like to grow up in a farked up neighborhood? You don't really know what it's like to be in farked up situation like that by reading about it.

Befuddled: Obama told the audience at the NAACP that growing up in a violent community is no excuse for getting bad grades. What a dickhead; he grew up in Hawaii, probably one of the most mellow parts of the US (especially if you're non-white). How the fark does he know what it is like to grow up in a farked up neighborhood? You don't really know what it's like to be in farked up situation like that by reading about it.

Hawai'i is a meth state (new window). Apparently there's quite a bit of theft to support that habit. Other than that, sure, it's pretty safe.
But yeah, I'll grant you he doesn't know what a hard neighborhood is like based on his twelve years in Hawai'i. Maybe he lived in the ghetto in Jakarta, though.

I still say the more important question is how do you attract businesses (small or big) to your city, state, or country? I personally do not understand why so many people feel like they need to attack these businesses instead of encouraging them to be around.

I have to warn fellow farkers. Do not go to Canada. It is cursed I tell you, CURSED.

I just came back from there. I went to the Souix Narrows Ontario to do some fishing. Right before I left, I noticed that in just about every healthcare thread there is someone that has a personal testimony about the Canadian healthcare system. They or someone else in their party always has some incident where they have to seek care. Well I must say when I was there someone in my party that had to have a fishhook removed (a northern pike thrashed at the most inopportune time when having a rapala removed.) This sealed the deal, Canada is cursed to all farkers. If you go to Canada, you or someone close to you will have a medical incident.

My testimony... nowhere near close to a good experience. Now granted the nearest hospital was in the biggest city for around 200 miles being 12,000 strong, but dang. The doctor did not perform much in the way of defensive medical practices. Heck he did not even try to clean the area before using a scalpel to make some wiggle room to get the barb out. A slight swabbing with alcohol and then "do you want a bandage?" on your still bleeding wound. The charge for removing the hook was a bit much at $400 (Canadian), BTW everyone keeps babbling on about never receiving a bill when they visit. From the Canadians that I talked to this is not the case.

But I did land my first Musky so the trip was not for naught. 42"er, I cannot imagine the 54" fish you would have to land in order to keep it. The fishing was good even though the weather was lousy.

And I just find it scary that so many people want our health care to be like Canada's.

That would be a step backwards....

I do have to qualify the story. This was bush medicine for the most part. I think we would have seen a more comparable treatment to what most americans would have expected if we would not have been in the middle of freak'n nowhere.

I had an epiphany a while ago while reading an Obama = centrist thread. If you look at the two extremes at the left right spectrum you will see utopian anarchists (complete anti authoritarians but achieve their ideas on the social idea from two different ideas on social interactions). So if you follow that line of thought, the center must be pure authoritarianism. My realization... that the people calling Obama a centrists are calling him worse than Hitler.

/godwin?

Saiga410: /godwin?

Yes. Even from you I expect something better than that...

whidbey: Saiga410: /godwin?

Yes. Even from you I expect something better than that...

I had a hard time deciding whether it was a godwin or not. I am not calling anyone "Hitler" or directly comparing them to Hitler, I am just using Hitler as a reference to the quintessential authoritarian which translates onto the person that most typifies the center(in my observation and not the classical theories) .

Please, you thought anyone on fark was above drunken snarky trollish posting? Are you new to fark?

Saiga410: Are you new to fark?

Yeah, uh I joined last week...:D

Just surprising, since you're usually so "serious" with your usual posting style.

Actually I had a hard time following your line of thought. Perhaps a diagram might help?

How bout that healthcare?

Saiga410: I have to warn fellow farkers. Do not go to Canada. It is cursed I tell you, CURSED.

Hey, thanks for the anecdotal evidence!

Do you happen to have personal experiences relayed from your parents or older relatives about how Canada government officials deemed them too unhealthy to live?

I need information about end-of-life consultation and I only use the words from stories provided by internet people.

"I do not have insurance, Mr. Pharmacist. Please sell me directly the drugs which I need, because I have researched them on the internet. No, I do not have a prescription, I thought I was clear when I said I do not have insurance. It is too costly to go to the doctor and get him to write out on a piece of paper what I should take, as is the follow-up visit he requires to allow me to continue taking the drugs."
"No."

Not a single thread about 9/11 on 9/11. Thank God. You know Bush & Co. are out of office when today is not being widely exploited for political gain and Nielsen ratings.

indylaw: Not a single thread about 9/11 on 9/11. Thank God. You know Bush & Co. are out of office when today is not being widely exploited for political gain and Nielsen ratings.

I am still resentful that there is/was that much to-do about an anniversary without a day off from work.

indylaw: Not a single thread about 9/11 on 9/11. Thank God. You know Bush & Co. are out of office when today is not being widely exploited for political gain and Nielsen ratings.

I was expecting a Freeper head explosion for 9/11 and them claiming that Obama was behind the whole thing or that he didn't keep us safe on 9/11/01.

dottedmint: And I just find it scary that so many people want our health care to be like Canada's.

That would be a step backwards....

Yeh.... no it wouldn't

Ten reasons why America's health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. By Scott W. Atlas. (new window)

Yes it would...

Thanks for winding up the retard doll. Now the chattering teeth/cymbal bashing are going to go on for another two weeks.

Wow Bonnie...

It would be so much better if this page wasn't used at all. Right???

Or would it be better if only comments that you agreed with were posted?

Personally I enjoy debating with "retard dolls" like detfrost1 who think things are so much better in Canada.

dottedmint: Wow Bonnie...

It would be so much better if this page wasn't used at all. Right???

Or would it be better if only comments that you agreed with were posted?

Personally I enjoy debating with "retard dolls" like detfrost1 who think things are so much better in Canada.

In Canada, milk comes in bags. That is why their healthcare is so good. It also comes in bags.

Am I the only one that is a little perturbed by the terror arrests in IL and TX? The more that I read about the cases the more it looks like that the govt found people who made a few anti-American pro-Islamic statements and then groomed them into terrorists. I have a problem with having the govt play the role of O'Brien. (new window) The case against Zazi does not bother me, he actively went out and tried to get into a position to commit terrorism but the other two not so much.

3 more bank failures. I guess it isn't even news anymore.

Good article on Obama's Nobel Prize Win...

Obama Receives An "E" For Effort

A good article, you say?

Really? What was so good about it?

I need a little more from a good article than "Obama the lefty socialist lefty left socialist".

Maybe you meant the opposite of good.

How are these articles???

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

Link (new window)

dottedmint: Wow Bonnie...

It would be so much better if this page wasn't used at all. Right???

Or would it be better if only comments that you agreed with were posted?

Personally I enjoy debating with "retard dolls" like detfrost1 who think things are so much better in Canada.

Excuse me?

I live in Detroit, I've visited Canada I've seen how it is.

I also got cancer in my Senior year of college.

Colo-Rectal Cancer to be specific.

My father had just started a new job, and since I was in college, the new company wouldn't cover me.

I had to choose between death, and bankruptcy.

So fark you, biatch.

Freeper Friday came early today apparently.