........especially when the racial minority has, in fact, more rights than you or I ever dreamed of having.
That%26#039;s the liberal way. They like to categorize Americans and they constantly point out the differences between people. Divide and conquer method. Pit the poor against the rich, black against white, gay against straight....on and on.
Liberals don%26#039;t like to point out our similarities, that we all have the chance to be successful. No, the victim card must be played at every turn. It%26#039;s kind of sad.
You mean the Natives? I think America is a very diverse country in terms of different people, just don%26#039;t forget what these people did.It%26#039;s like when Americans say, %26quot; don%26#039;t forget the Jewish holocaust%26quot;.
By the way, the Natives were lied to, they%26#039;re still being lied to, so watch out what people spew, it%26#039;s nothing but classless rhetoric.
The liberals power base is the low income uneducated people. (the majority, obama supporters) The Conservatives power base are the educated land owners and business people. ( the people that create jobs for the lower income folk).
so let me get this straight...blacks are 12% of the nation%26#039;s population and you think that we have more rights than you? if you can%26#039;t even solidify the vote of white people that is your own issue. i%26#039;d love to know what rights i have that you do not. could you provide a list of them? can%26#039;t you just go back to your compound and polish your gun? shiny shiny!
Is anybody tired of the constant ranting about race? The only ones who ever bring it up are the ones on the left. Happened all during the campaign and now the left uses it every time some one disagrees with King Obama.
Because they want to help out their People the Black Community well most American Cities will look like Detroit If that ever happens.
%26quot;majority of us%26quot;? Are you hispanic?
gives them more power
They hate all humans who do not think like they do. They grab the weak of mind and tell them what is right and wrong.
Because they use special interest groups to further their own political agendas.
It helps keeping them to get re-elected, doesn%26#039;t it?
libs hate their own race.
They are upset they were born without turd-colored skins.
Because it goes in their favor most of the time.They want the power.
welfare?
bravo Greg!!
It%26#039;s all about buying votes.
Racist much?
They do not.
Why do phony conservative Limbo-cons hate one certain racial minority over the majority of us in America?
You are what people call %26quot;white trash%26quot;.
WAKE UP WHITE PEOPLE!!
(key banjo music)
%0D%0A
Friday, March 27, 2009
What successes did the U.S and NATO troops experience early on?
in the war in afghanistan
the prompt for this essay is why is the us maintaining troops in afghanistan... please answer the question above ;]
they weaked the Taliban enough for them to loose control of the country.
the prompt for this essay is why is the us maintaining troops in afghanistan... please answer the question above ;]
they weaked the Taliban enough for them to loose control of the country.
I got a Speeding Ticket in NY...?
it was $240..and i paid it on time...
i got this other letter from ny dmv saying my new york license is suspended because a failure to pay a driver responsibility assessment, thing is i dont live in NY...and it says 300...WHAT IS THIS? im from Maryland..
do you have proof that you paid it? if so you need to contact the ny dmv and give them the proof. if not, than your pretty much SOL
i got this other letter from ny dmv saying my new york license is suspended because a failure to pay a driver responsibility assessment, thing is i dont live in NY...and it says 300...WHAT IS THIS? im from Maryland..
do you have proof that you paid it? if so you need to contact the ny dmv and give them the proof. if not, than your pretty much SOL
Which US state looks more like a post-apocalyptic wasteland?
or has more probabilities of becoming one?
sort of like Mad Max
I haven't seen Mad Max so I can only imagine two things, either total land with no vegetation (I think about New Mexico, West Texas, Arizona, Nevada) or empty towns with cans blowing down the street (Michigan).
New York,... WHY? If you take away the buildings and roads, well pretty much take away everything that's not alive and LEAVE THE PEOPLE, trees and animals, well there you have it. Millions of potentially hungry people IN ONE TINY AREA!
There are plenty of horror-show towns in the US that look all but abandoned. It goes like this:
Parts of Alabama
Parts of Tennessee
Parts of Missouri and Kansas
Much of New Jersey
It goesm on and on.
Mississippi -- but it has looked like a wasteland ever since the Civil War.
Nevada or possibly Arizona, they're both just huge deserts with cities in random spots
Not a state, but Detroit.
Luisiana near New Orleans looked that way before Katrina
Texas.
Judging from my last visit, it is California.
Cali- for sure, it's becoming a third world country
Texas, Florida, the south (Somewhere hot like hell)
New York or California.
tough call.
nevada
New Jersey
Nevada, for sure. But that's not the fault of Nevadans.
I'll vote Alabama.
sort of like Mad Max
I haven't seen Mad Max so I can only imagine two things, either total land with no vegetation (I think about New Mexico, West Texas, Arizona, Nevada) or empty towns with cans blowing down the street (Michigan).
New York,... WHY? If you take away the buildings and roads, well pretty much take away everything that's not alive and LEAVE THE PEOPLE, trees and animals, well there you have it. Millions of potentially hungry people IN ONE TINY AREA!
There are plenty of horror-show towns in the US that look all but abandoned. It goes like this:
Parts of Alabama
Parts of Tennessee
Parts of Missouri and Kansas
Much of New Jersey
It goesm on and on.
Mississippi -- but it has looked like a wasteland ever since the Civil War.
Nevada or possibly Arizona, they're both just huge deserts with cities in random spots
Not a state, but Detroit.
Luisiana near New Orleans looked that way before Katrina
Texas.
Judging from my last visit, it is California.
Cali- for sure, it's becoming a third world country
Texas, Florida, the south (Somewhere hot like hell)
New York or California.
tough call.
nevada
New Jersey
Nevada, for sure. But that's not the fault of Nevadans.
I'll vote Alabama.
WHAT??? Obama vows to defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
This morning he lied again! He bragged about the 17,000 additional troops he's sending to Afghanistan because the generals over there requested them. The lie was the generals actually requested 30,000 additional troops! He's doing as little as he needs to to keep up the image. If our troops could just be allowed to kick butt, we could get out of there quicker. Quit making our soldiers fight with one hand behind their back! Sending less than what is needed is immoral and will kill more soldiers. Obama is a liar! What will it take before the libs are Americans first, instead of an Obama voter?!
Clearly you did not listen to his campaign in 2008... he clearly stated that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. That Al-Quaeda was more concentrated in there and Pakistan.
He never said that he would remove troops from Afghanistan... He said that he would actually increase troops there and move some from Iraq to do that. Now, he did say that he would greatly reduce the troops in Iraq in 18 months from his swearing in.... it looks like he will not be doing that. You can criticize him on that BUT it is unfair to attack him on the Afghanistan propsal.
This is the problem with the base of the GOP: they do not differentiate the two wars. We are occupying 2 separate nations that do not share a border. One (Afghanistan) is coalition of nations where the United States is heading... the other is solely the United States (and some British troops but they have mostly left that theater). Please research this... this is all well publicized and Obama's intentions were also well publicized.
He stated about a thousand times before he was president that he was going to route Al-Qaida.
Pakistan is in a bad situation right they are trying to please America, but also trying to please their own Muslim extremist which isn't working out to well.
In the near future it might be possible that America and Pakistan start clashing swords.
How can you "bring the troops home" when you're fighting a war. Afghanistan is where the fight is. Iraq hasn't been a war since Dumbya declared "mission accomplished", it's an occupation which it's time to end. The president could just ask John McShame how to get bin-Laden since during the campaign McShame said "I know where bin-Laden is".
Throwing away logic and fact are not wise just to take a swipe at the president, makes you appear stupid.
Is there a question here...? This is exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. it seems a whole heck of a lot of people weren't paying attention. That cult of personality blinded millions of people apparently. That's what happens when you pay attention to style rather than substance. Closing Gitmo, wow. Big deal. He's ratcheting up the war machine to cause real damage and anger millions more radicals. Sounds like Bush redux!
Yea he PROMISED everyone he would bring every troop home. Yea bring them home and send them to Afghanistan. Not that I disagree with the war. I support everything our troops have and are doing!!!!
yes president Obama have voe to rid this country of it's real enemies something Bush and Cheney fail at doing over 7 long years .
Sure but when Gates said that under the Bush Administration... It was bad back then! Gotta love hypocrisy.
OOps maybe just maybe he needs to have a deep hearted chat with russia about Afghanistan.
He would first have to resign. Then half our battle would be won.
He IS the god, right...
He is such a tool.
Where do you think al-Qaeda are based?
sure to the sheep he is going to save planet earth
Um, yeah, that is what we wre supposed to be doing in the fist place before Mr.Bush's little diversion.
Clearly you did not listen to his campaign in 2008... he clearly stated that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. That Al-Quaeda was more concentrated in there and Pakistan.
He never said that he would remove troops from Afghanistan... He said that he would actually increase troops there and move some from Iraq to do that. Now, he did say that he would greatly reduce the troops in Iraq in 18 months from his swearing in.... it looks like he will not be doing that. You can criticize him on that BUT it is unfair to attack him on the Afghanistan propsal.
This is the problem with the base of the GOP: they do not differentiate the two wars. We are occupying 2 separate nations that do not share a border. One (Afghanistan) is coalition of nations where the United States is heading... the other is solely the United States (and some British troops but they have mostly left that theater). Please research this... this is all well publicized and Obama's intentions were also well publicized.
He stated about a thousand times before he was president that he was going to route Al-Qaida.
Pakistan is in a bad situation right they are trying to please America, but also trying to please their own Muslim extremist which isn't working out to well.
In the near future it might be possible that America and Pakistan start clashing swords.
How can you "bring the troops home" when you're fighting a war. Afghanistan is where the fight is. Iraq hasn't been a war since Dumbya declared "mission accomplished", it's an occupation which it's time to end. The president could just ask John McShame how to get bin-Laden since during the campaign McShame said "I know where bin-Laden is".
Throwing away logic and fact are not wise just to take a swipe at the president, makes you appear stupid.
Is there a question here...? This is exactly what he said he would do during the campaign. it seems a whole heck of a lot of people weren't paying attention. That cult of personality blinded millions of people apparently. That's what happens when you pay attention to style rather than substance. Closing Gitmo, wow. Big deal. He's ratcheting up the war machine to cause real damage and anger millions more radicals. Sounds like Bush redux!
Yea he PROMISED everyone he would bring every troop home. Yea bring them home and send them to Afghanistan. Not that I disagree with the war. I support everything our troops have and are doing!!!!
yes president Obama have voe to rid this country of it's real enemies something Bush and Cheney fail at doing over 7 long years .
Sure but when Gates said that under the Bush Administration... It was bad back then! Gotta love hypocrisy.
OOps maybe just maybe he needs to have a deep hearted chat with russia about Afghanistan.
He would first have to resign. Then half our battle would be won.
He IS the god, right...
He is such a tool.
Where do you think al-Qaeda are based?
sure to the sheep he is going to save planet earth
Um, yeah, that is what we wre supposed to be doing in the fist place before Mr.Bush's little diversion.
Today, the president of Brazil proclaimed that
crisis." - is this not a 'carbon-copy' of Nazi philosophy?
Actually no it's not.
He is using blue eyed people as a scapegoat.. just like Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat.
It's actually a reverse of Nazi Philosophy.
I personally think this was a very ignorant statement for him to make. Hell! Im blue eyed and white skinned and i never hurt a fly. I guess you could call me a modern day hippie animal activist. Anyway you can't just say that people will this and that feature are ruining this world. Thats unnecessary.
BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! -
Yes i read it and he is so right . I have only seen white haired white men at these banks yes they are behind the incompetence and greed that we have seen in this country .
No the nazis like white blue eyed people and the brazil guy is balming them so it is the inverse sort of. But both were crazy.
funny that the president of Brazil is white
is he a wigger? denying his own race?
He is entitled to any opinion he wants.*
lol, how stereotypical
he is right !!!!!
its the stone cold truth.
how does it feel?
Actually no it's not.
He is using blue eyed people as a scapegoat.. just like Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat.
It's actually a reverse of Nazi Philosophy.
I personally think this was a very ignorant statement for him to make. Hell! Im blue eyed and white skinned and i never hurt a fly. I guess you could call me a modern day hippie animal activist. Anyway you can't just say that people will this and that feature are ruining this world. Thats unnecessary.
BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! - BILDERBERG! -
Yes i read it and he is so right . I have only seen white haired white men at these banks yes they are behind the incompetence and greed that we have seen in this country .
No the nazis like white blue eyed people and the brazil guy is balming them so it is the inverse sort of. But both were crazy.
funny that the president of Brazil is white
is he a wigger? denying his own race?
He is entitled to any opinion he wants.*
lol, how stereotypical
he is right !!!!!
its the stone cold truth.
how does it feel?
Listen up Dems. do you have a problem with obama spending on stimulus and bailouts or do you think its ok?
HONESTLY
"Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it." - Governor Ronald Reagan, Speech, Nov. 14, 1974.
Democrats attack Bush for spending but think its okay if Obama spends 9 times the amount Bush spent
No.
1) The bailouts will be paid back....with interest. A few of the big banks want to do just that right now.
2) Stimulus is still needed in the expanded economy to get money into the system. If it is not done, the economic effects would be much worse.
3) Economists just came out earlier this week and expect the recession to start to turn around by the end of the year. If the stimulus and bailouts were not done, the end wouldn't occur until 2011.
That's as honest as I can be.
Honestly, I'm a capitalist. But once Bush bailed out the rich greedy bankers...You have to bailout everyone else to keep the playing field even.
The banks should have never been bailed out. They should be allowed to fail. The only banks they have saved are the biggest and most corrupt. The small banks get siezed all the time by the FDIC.
Do I agree with Obama's bail outs? Yes, but only because it was preceded by Bank bailouts.
If we are going to bailout the greedy *** bankers, then we should at least bailout our Firefighters, law enforcement, education, and healthcare.
The sad reality of all of this is that....we don't need blanket bail outs (which are only a band aid). We need widespread reform.
But the Bail outs are better than doing nothing...even if they are only a temporary solution.
I believe Obama is light years better than Bush...but keep in mind, the game is still rigged. The average working person still gets screwed. Of course the average person isn't so bright...but that doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. They should be treated fairly.
Honestly, I actually pay attention.
Bush put us into this horrific mess by wanting to fight his wars, but not raising the funds necessary to pay for them. That forced him to have to borrow the funds necessary to pay for these wars from other countries, at extremely high (and exponentially growing) interest rates.
When Bush got to office, he inherited a $4 trillion National Debt from Bill Clinton. When Bush left office, he left us with a nearly $11 trillion National Debt. That means that Bush managed to spend $3 trillion MORE THAN DOUBLE what ALL 42 of his predecessors needed 224 years to amass.
Bush put us into this mess. Then he trapped us in Iraq for a few months yet; and in doing so also managed to trap us in Afghanistan. We are stuck with his mess, and these expenses continue to be Bush's, not Obama's. Obama cannot save the money necessary to save this economy, because Bush trapped us into continuing to pay for the wars.
So if Obama cannot save money, he is doing the next best thing. He is investing it into our economy, to streamline it so that it can produce more while taking in less. That way, if he cannot save the money, we can instead produce what is necessary to cover what Bush did.
Personally, I would prefer we leave the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately; not 19 months from now. Then we should raise taxes, and move all money saved/raised toward paying down what Bush did so that we can save the dollar. But that is not really practical, and somewhat dangerous since Bush left so many terrorists in Afghanistan so that he could go get revenge for Daddy while satisfying his lust for oil.
So Obama is doing the only real option left. I don't think it's great, but it's all Bush left us with. Perhaps if you guys had remembered Conservatism when it mattered, we would not be stuck in this situation as it is.
Add-on:
And for the record, we have already seen this plan work. Despite what Ronald Reagan said, he was quite the fan of big government. He comes in number 3 on the biggest spenders list, right behind Richard Nixon at number 2 and George W. Bush at number 1.
The difference between Reagan and Bush was that Reagan raised taxes on everyone for the last 7 of his 8 years in office. So he actually covered his spending, whereas Bush did not. That saved the dollar, which in turn saved the economy.
We also saw it in George H.W. Bush's final year in office. His Iraq War had had a similar effect on the economy, destroying the dollar and, in turn, sent us into recession. But his willingness to raise taxes, while having cost him his second term in office, did pay for the first Iraq War and paved the way for Clinton to finish the recovery. That is when we had the good years under Clinton.
We HAVE TO raise taxes to pay for what Bush did. To do that, we have to re-establish the economy and make it produce more so that we can cover everything. It worked for Reagan, it worked for George H.W. Bush, it worked for Clinton.
Then we lower taxes under George W. Bush, and it goes all to h*ll.
So I think I'd rather go with Obama, who is following the first three, rather than following Jr.'s plan--which got us into this mess.
Its not as much the bail outs that I oppose(I think they are a bad Idea too just not the worst one). It is the government taking control of these companies. I don't buy the story that they are putting people in charge who will magically bring life back into these dead companies. If there was someone out their who could don't you think they would have already been hired by the company? The bail outs seem to me just a clever way to disguise the government taking control of private industry. One of the first steps to socialism.
In order to correct Bush's mess, spending is necessary. The republican party of NO SENSE came out yesterday with their economic stimulus plan (14 pages) which says they will triple the tax cuts for the wealthy, triple than what it is now.
Which makes more sense? HONESTLY
Oooooh!! Listen up y'all, 9-12 project has spoken and sound quite huffy too!!
To answer your question, no I do not have a problem with the stimulus. However, as I have always stated, I am not, and was never supportive of the bailout. Hope that calms your nerves a little. *smilin*
i think its fine. because hes also helping us little poor people that never saw help when bush was in office. My family has seen alot of fruits of Obamas labor already....he upped our foodstamps.....and my bfs unemployment was extended and he also recieves an extra 50 dollar check with it now. Hes finally found work again and were getting back on our feet and if Bush or Mccain had been elected we'd still be suffering out here.
He should instead choose to invade another country (preferably a country without WMDs, and which can't defend itself) and spend all the money we don't have there, and double our deficit to boot!
In other words, he should follow in GWB's footsteps.
Want a viable alternative? Every American tax free for 1 year.
OR
Do nothing let the banks and insurance compainies fail and let someone else buy them and give them a workable plan releasing them from bad contracts.
I trust the Democratic party.
Clinton administration pulled us out of the hole the 1st Bush dug.
I beileve the Obama folks can pull us outa this situation created by the Bush repubs again
If I remember how to balance my personal checkbook properly(haven't had enough cash to worry about it recently) it never makes sense to spend money you don't have.
It's OK ! Because i have faith and trust in president Obama he have been brilliant up to this point.
Listen up Con. I have no problem with him fixing this mess at all, so yep it's okay with me.
They're good with it. It was only a problem to them when Bush did it.
See what I mean?
I love it....Obama NEEDS the money for his people.
Can't wait to read these replies.
No, just like Bush.
you can see these m----- s have no brains, they are complete dung wipes
No
Not at all. It does not effect me, whatsoever.
It does not effect the majority of Americans.
Try again.
"Government does not produce revenue. It consumes it." - Governor Ronald Reagan, Speech, Nov. 14, 1974.
Democrats attack Bush for spending but think its okay if Obama spends 9 times the amount Bush spent
No.
1) The bailouts will be paid back....with interest. A few of the big banks want to do just that right now.
2) Stimulus is still needed in the expanded economy to get money into the system. If it is not done, the economic effects would be much worse.
3) Economists just came out earlier this week and expect the recession to start to turn around by the end of the year. If the stimulus and bailouts were not done, the end wouldn't occur until 2011.
That's as honest as I can be.
Honestly, I'm a capitalist. But once Bush bailed out the rich greedy bankers...You have to bailout everyone else to keep the playing field even.
The banks should have never been bailed out. They should be allowed to fail. The only banks they have saved are the biggest and most corrupt. The small banks get siezed all the time by the FDIC.
Do I agree with Obama's bail outs? Yes, but only because it was preceded by Bank bailouts.
If we are going to bailout the greedy *** bankers, then we should at least bailout our Firefighters, law enforcement, education, and healthcare.
The sad reality of all of this is that....we don't need blanket bail outs (which are only a band aid). We need widespread reform.
But the Bail outs are better than doing nothing...even if they are only a temporary solution.
I believe Obama is light years better than Bush...but keep in mind, the game is still rigged. The average working person still gets screwed. Of course the average person isn't so bright...but that doesn't mean they should be taken advantage of. They should be treated fairly.
Honestly, I actually pay attention.
Bush put us into this horrific mess by wanting to fight his wars, but not raising the funds necessary to pay for them. That forced him to have to borrow the funds necessary to pay for these wars from other countries, at extremely high (and exponentially growing) interest rates.
When Bush got to office, he inherited a $4 trillion National Debt from Bill Clinton. When Bush left office, he left us with a nearly $11 trillion National Debt. That means that Bush managed to spend $3 trillion MORE THAN DOUBLE what ALL 42 of his predecessors needed 224 years to amass.
Bush put us into this mess. Then he trapped us in Iraq for a few months yet; and in doing so also managed to trap us in Afghanistan. We are stuck with his mess, and these expenses continue to be Bush's, not Obama's. Obama cannot save the money necessary to save this economy, because Bush trapped us into continuing to pay for the wars.
So if Obama cannot save money, he is doing the next best thing. He is investing it into our economy, to streamline it so that it can produce more while taking in less. That way, if he cannot save the money, we can instead produce what is necessary to cover what Bush did.
Personally, I would prefer we leave the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars immediately; not 19 months from now. Then we should raise taxes, and move all money saved/raised toward paying down what Bush did so that we can save the dollar. But that is not really practical, and somewhat dangerous since Bush left so many terrorists in Afghanistan so that he could go get revenge for Daddy while satisfying his lust for oil.
So Obama is doing the only real option left. I don't think it's great, but it's all Bush left us with. Perhaps if you guys had remembered Conservatism when it mattered, we would not be stuck in this situation as it is.
Add-on:
And for the record, we have already seen this plan work. Despite what Ronald Reagan said, he was quite the fan of big government. He comes in number 3 on the biggest spenders list, right behind Richard Nixon at number 2 and George W. Bush at number 1.
The difference between Reagan and Bush was that Reagan raised taxes on everyone for the last 7 of his 8 years in office. So he actually covered his spending, whereas Bush did not. That saved the dollar, which in turn saved the economy.
We also saw it in George H.W. Bush's final year in office. His Iraq War had had a similar effect on the economy, destroying the dollar and, in turn, sent us into recession. But his willingness to raise taxes, while having cost him his second term in office, did pay for the first Iraq War and paved the way for Clinton to finish the recovery. That is when we had the good years under Clinton.
We HAVE TO raise taxes to pay for what Bush did. To do that, we have to re-establish the economy and make it produce more so that we can cover everything. It worked for Reagan, it worked for George H.W. Bush, it worked for Clinton.
Then we lower taxes under George W. Bush, and it goes all to h*ll.
So I think I'd rather go with Obama, who is following the first three, rather than following Jr.'s plan--which got us into this mess.
Its not as much the bail outs that I oppose(I think they are a bad Idea too just not the worst one). It is the government taking control of these companies. I don't buy the story that they are putting people in charge who will magically bring life back into these dead companies. If there was someone out their who could don't you think they would have already been hired by the company? The bail outs seem to me just a clever way to disguise the government taking control of private industry. One of the first steps to socialism.
In order to correct Bush's mess, spending is necessary. The republican party of NO SENSE came out yesterday with their economic stimulus plan (14 pages) which says they will triple the tax cuts for the wealthy, triple than what it is now.
Which makes more sense? HONESTLY
Oooooh!! Listen up y'all, 9-12 project has spoken and sound quite huffy too!!
To answer your question, no I do not have a problem with the stimulus. However, as I have always stated, I am not, and was never supportive of the bailout. Hope that calms your nerves a little. *smilin*
i think its fine. because hes also helping us little poor people that never saw help when bush was in office. My family has seen alot of fruits of Obamas labor already....he upped our foodstamps.....and my bfs unemployment was extended and he also recieves an extra 50 dollar check with it now. Hes finally found work again and were getting back on our feet and if Bush or Mccain had been elected we'd still be suffering out here.
He should instead choose to invade another country (preferably a country without WMDs, and which can't defend itself) and spend all the money we don't have there, and double our deficit to boot!
In other words, he should follow in GWB's footsteps.
Want a viable alternative? Every American tax free for 1 year.
OR
Do nothing let the banks and insurance compainies fail and let someone else buy them and give them a workable plan releasing them from bad contracts.
I trust the Democratic party.
Clinton administration pulled us out of the hole the 1st Bush dug.
I beileve the Obama folks can pull us outa this situation created by the Bush repubs again
If I remember how to balance my personal checkbook properly(haven't had enough cash to worry about it recently) it never makes sense to spend money you don't have.
It's OK ! Because i have faith and trust in president Obama he have been brilliant up to this point.
Listen up Con. I have no problem with him fixing this mess at all, so yep it's okay with me.
They're good with it. It was only a problem to them when Bush did it.
See what I mean?
I love it....Obama NEEDS the money for his people.
Can't wait to read these replies.
No, just like Bush.
you can see these m----- s have no brains, they are complete dung wipes
No
Not at all. It does not effect me, whatsoever.
It does not effect the majority of Americans.
Try again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)