social issues are not nearly important as fiscal issues...IMO
bush has proven to be more liberal than ANY OTHER president in history when it comes to SPENDING...
bush is not REALLY a social conservative either tho... he just uses "talking points" to keep the mouth frothers voting for him... do you think being Christion means being conservative? this is another rovism... the actual teachings of Christ tend be socially liberal...
bush is not anti-gay by his own admission, rove just played that card to get you to vote... where's the marriage ammendment? dead in the water... but it sure did motivate the voters in Ohio...
he promised faith based tax funding but, that's just as corruptive as non-faithbased tax funding, and the net effect is to stimulate more corruption in the churches... so he's actually hurting organised religion, which i also pointed out Kate during last years election right Kate?
abramoff even invoked the Almighty in his statement... he is tied in very tight to delays people, arguably one of the most SOCIALLY conservative...
as far as responding to your demand that i show you more liberal GOP's? i don't have a clue what measuring stick you want to use... ( the "social ruler"?)
the healthsouth exec used religion to get a favorable jury verdict in 'bama too..it's a disgrace how people are ABusing religion...
socially i am liberal, i made that clear when i told you i think ID is stupid to teach in science..
the social conservatives are simply a very small minority that has deluded itself into thinking they have a majority... just look at what the "liberal medai" puts on the boob tube every day... you don't really think they put that stuff on TV cuz people don't WANT it do you? LOL.... supply and demand ...supply and demand...
you guys lie to yourselves claiming the media is trying to "control" people... they compete against one another for more viewers..
foxnews is being watched by plenty of people for its sensationalism, but that doesn't mean people agree with everything they say....
fox news is the Jerry Springer of the newsworld....
finally? your attitudes about McCain show me how far gone you are... you really think bush is the better man? he set home during the war with his whiskey bottle... Kerry and McCain are both better men on that criteria. bush is not a great leader by your own admission, the main reason for that is that he has no underatanding of "average america" and neither do you....
[ January 04, 2006, 12:26: Message edited by: glassman ]
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
He spoke of "gooks" the way you speak (note the tense used) of anyone not afflicted with exactly your variety of fanatical extreme evangelical hate.
He got over his ire....I see you can't.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: John McCain
There was some speculation that McCain's longtime friend and colleague, and also the Democratic Presidential nominee, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts would ask McCain to be his running mate. This prompted Bush to run an advertisement called "The First Choice" showing clips of McCain praising Bush. Furthermore, the GOP used this information to ridicule Kerry's eventual running mate, one-term Senator John Edwards of North Carolina
What a tactically smart plan. That could have been the election if the running mate was different.
dubya has had his "people" attack all of his opponent with lies rumors and innuendo...
when he is confronted with what his blind faithful get paid to say? he DENIES them, and his supporters chuckle.... BUSH: The man was not speaking for me. If you want to know my opinion about you, John, you served our country admirably and strongly, and I'm proud of your record, just like you are.
that's not John Kerry Bush was talking to... that was John McCain....
same chit different day.....
one more hypocritical statement in there that is interesting too... BUSH: Yes, I think there needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart.
One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I'd love to see your proof that social conservatives are in the minority, since every major poll I've seen indicatates otherwise.
As social issues are the driving force behind our lives, IMO they are much more important than fiscal issues. Just another thing we are opposites on I suppose. I've found that liberals trying to solve social issues end up creating most of the wasted spending in government. Yet the problems still exist and the spending still increases. Solve the social issues and much of the fiscal issues will be solved as well.
Does your comment of "how far gone you are" make you feel better? It doesn't help your arguement any. None of your personal attacks have. You can say I'm gone, I'm nuts, I'm crazy, I'm in the minority all you want but it doesn't change anything. You don't even know me, you just don't like my positions and you haven't been able to browbeat me into submission.
bdgee,
"He spoke of "gooks" the way you speak (note the tense used) of anyone not afflicted with exactly your variety of fanatical extreme evangelical hate.
He got over his ire....I see you can't.
Since I never have spoken with any variety of fanatical extreme hate, you are just lying again. You need to stop.
The only person I've seen here recently with extreme hatred for anything is you and you make it very apparent with posts such as this one I quoted.
IP: Logged |
I'd love to see your proof that social conservatives are in the minority, since every major poll I've seen indicatates otherwise.
glassman says: show me the polls.....
i watch all kinds of polls, you represent a minority on almost every issue you bring up
i know what people say...
i also know what people do....
you still haven't shown me the last polls i asked for... you just posted that dubya won... even tho we both know he beat the most liberal person they could find.... which is not what i'm comapring myself to when i say i'm a social liberal, i'm speaking in comparison to YOU.... and Falweel, and Robertson and Ralph Reid....
McCain is going to get his pound of flesh, and it's gonna hurt....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
You dim witted fool. You transpire hate of all things not fanatical right wing christain like a fat man sweats in church. He can't help it, but you could. Too bad you are too wrapped in your cloak of misguided ego to know you are a puss pocket of ill will.
IP: Logged |
posted
it's funny that he keeps calling you a liar bdgee, isn't he the one who came on and said that the pledge had been tested in the supreme court twice? LOL... at least he's doing more DD now...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
He has posted so many contradictory claims about most anything, almost any he post has to make one of his previous ones false. But, so help me, he can't understand his own dilima, due to faulty logic.
And don'tcha have to wonder what a guy that NEVER has posted a single time about a stock is doing here in the first place?
There really are people whose sole purpose in life is to harrass and insult people that can't poke 'em in the mouth for being pest, I guess.
IP: Logged |
posted
strider says: I've found that liberals trying to solve social issues end up creating most of the wasted spending in government. Yet the problems still exist and the spending still increases. Solve the social issues and much of the fiscal issues will be solved as well.
glassy-eyed bozo says:
the most wasted spending in government is paying interest... that's not an opinion...
borrowing is BS, your boy borrowed more foreign money than all the rest of the Presidents combined...
i'd say that's worse than worrying about who's getting a welfare check....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
From the chart there is no way to determine where the "other" 13% went but I've seen other budgetary charts showing social spending, welfare, programs around 58% of the budget which would make this particular budget at 57% going to programs not necessary to run the government. If the government weren't spending so much on social programs, that 8% going toward interest wouldn't exist.
IP: Logged |
Asking that intellectual bozo to "figure out" something that is as complicated as third grade arithmatic is stretching he!! outa credulity.
IP: Logged |
The President doesn't control spending, Congress does. The President makes recomendations and requests. You're blaming the wrong individual. He has asked for cuts in/or reductions in growth of numerous social programs, such as farm subsidies as one example and ultimately they get shot down by Congressmen who also fund spending of $200,000,000 for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. This I believe was finally removed once it was discovered by the public, but I'm sure it's still floating around out there waiting for a comeback.
IP: Logged |
posted
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare make up 44%.
Some social spending is necessary but not in the amounts we currently maintain. Other funding would be much more efficient if collected and paid by the states, not the Federal Government.
So I take it you aren't a believer in cutting taxes increasing revenue.
IP: Logged |
posted
I knew that the very first day you showed up and with no reason at all attacked me and my religion. Since then you have proved over and over that you can't discern between truth, fiction, and religious b-ll sh-t. You are a fruitcake of the worst order.
IP: Logged |
What do you call them, they sure aren't retirement programs.
bdgee,
You are LYING again. Anyone caring, which I doubt anyone does, is free to go back and look. I've noticed they don't get rid of posts often here. It's easy to see who attacked who.
It is really sad when you, what did you say? "can't discern between truth, fiction, and religious b-ll sh-t." It's not hard, get rid of the hate, open your mind and look around you. I remain the optimist and believe that even you can if you try.
44% isn't correct? Why please provide the correct figures.
The New York Times is a far-right source, or the peacealliance is a far-right source?
ROTHFLMAO
Glassman,
I don't like the debt either but as a percentage of the GDP, it isn't unbearable. Like you, I would prefer it be eliminated. It will not be until social program spending is gotten under control.
Bush has also attempted to revamp Social Security but the libs don't seem to like that program. As you are here in a Stocks forum, do you believe that Social Security or stocks are the better long term investment?
IP: Logged |
posted
As a follow-up, I have stock in two companies, both increased in the mid 20% last year, the other in the low 30% last year. Both were much better than the return I will see on my Social Security dollar if any is left when I reach retirement age.
IP: Logged |
posted
strider says: Bush has also attempted to revamp Social Security but the libs don't seem to like that program. As you are here in a Stocks forum, do you believe that Social Security or stocks are the better long term investment?
dangit, why is everybody that disagrees with Bush liberal... bush isn't even conservative as i have pointed out with facts over and over again...
you are HOPELESS and this why i (LOL) risk my "credibility" and say things like you are too far gone
wall street didn't want it either... theyzain't libs....
there are some "regualtory hurdles" to overcome before wall street would allow it... i know it sounds good, but.... theres folks on the street that would have to change the way they do biz if bushs plan went thru... it was wacky any way... the govt TAKES money from you and MAKES you invest in the companies THEY pick? nope not gonna happen...
heeeeheeeheee i'd love to be the guy that decides which co's are OK to have on the SS list and which aren't man.... love tooooooooo
hire Cramer ???
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
No one suggested you don't have stock. The problem is you are here insulting people that don't just "own" stock. You aren't here to participate in what Allstocks is about, just to be a pain. You could "own" those two stocks without ever having insulted my religion and without ever having posted here. (No post at Allstocks but in this forum, right? Not one in any thread where the putpose wasn't to harrass someone with your non-stock related bias.)
Many, many people that NEED social security will NEVER be in a position to own a single stock. Moreover, as anyone that has spent much time stock trading will tell you, it isn't so simple as "owning". You can go broke fast that way.
MOST people that are not wealthy never have the combined time and money needed to have much chance of not loosing in the stock market. That simple minded nonsense that they could make more money investing on their own is exactly that....NONSENSE.
IP: Logged |
posted
If Social Security is "welfare" the exact same logical development says the Interstate Highway Program (though it was technically hidden in the defense budget by Eisenhower and his group, because the "conservatives" of that day, declaring it to be "welfare", voted it down rather than grant that much "free" stuff to the public....check your history) and almost every airport in the country are "welfare" programs too.
IP: Logged |
Not everyone that disagrees with Bush is liberal, but it is the liberals that oppose changing social security, probably simply because Bush proposed it. They do oppose his every move it seems. They also start the advertising campaigns geared to scare those who are retired or nearing retirement when the proposed changes don't even affect them.
Wall Street isn't a member of Congress last time I checked.
The propsal might have had problems, that is where sitting down and working them out comes in, not discounting them out of hand and starting a campaign against them.
bdgee,
As I have not attacked your religion (I have no clue what it is), your continued lies to that effect are pointless.
What is harrasment? Correcting someones lies like communists gained power through democratic processes, or Republicans are Nazis? Or going around calling someone an
"intellectual bozo"
or making comments such as
"You dim witted fool. You transpire hate of all things not fanatical right wing christain like a fat man sweats in church. He can't help it, but you could. Too bad you are too wrapped in your cloak of misguided ego to know you are a puss pocket of ill will."
Or repeatedly saying that I am insulting or harrassing people when you are the current king of both of those categories.
I've called you a lier, repeatedly, because that is what you are.
I know of no logical development that says Social Security being welfare equals the Interstate Highway Program or our airports being welfare.
Welfare from Wikipedia:
In the United States, welfare (financial aid) refers more specifically to money paid by the government to those who are in need of financial assistance
Highways and airports are infrastructure required for interstate commerce and economic development, both functions of the Federal government. So no, they aren't welfare programs.
"Not one in any thread where the putpose wasn't to harrass someone with your non-stock related bias"
There are lots of posts where the purpose wasn't to harrass someone, all of them actually.
I don't post in the other forums. I don't consider myself qualified to discuss stocks as I'm very new in owning them. Are you suggesting that people can't come here to read about stocks, to learn about stocks and post in the Off-Topic Post forum? I don't recall reading any such rule when I signed up.
And lastly, what bearing does that have on the subjects discussed here? None. But you keep bringing it up rather discussing the subject matter. That falls into the definition of harrassment I believe.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
