Obama offers job to known terrorist sympathizer!!!!!

[Harlan Huckleby]

All you can control is your own behavior.

That's not what you tell us on every other issue. On every other issue, you seem to be telling us which behaviour we should and shouldn't have. How we should redefine marriage, how we should empty our pockets for health care (but not you). You seem perfectly comfortable 'controlling' other's behaviours so that they fit your ideology.

this is too bizarre. how do you get emptying your pockets and not mine? everybody pays taxes.

you seem to equate a compassinate government as "controlling others behavior."

[Tyrone Bigguns]

no sour grapes like conservative sour grapes

Well you guys are the whine experts so you probably know your grapes.

And, this year is a vintage year for whining.

[texaspackerbacker]

And yet he's still your president. (did ya ever think that maybe he's planning on picking up a few while he's in office?)

This is a very valid point. Come on now, fellow conservatives, Obama indeed, IS our president--or will be in January.

We need to be very scrupulous to SHOW THE NEW PRESIDENT EXACTLY THE KIND OF RESPECT THAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS SHOWN TO THEIR/OUR PRESIDENT OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS. It's the only fair thing.

So are you rooting for Obama to fail? Do you realize the position Obama is in right now? Obama's failures and successes over the next 4 years are America's failures and successes. Are you rooting for America to fail, just to prove a point?

No, it's more a matter of expectation. Hoping for bad things to happen to America, that's what your side is all about.

Like a parasite that doesn't kill the host, I don't think the crap Obama proposes will have the intentional effect of destroying America--harming it, yes, but destroying, no. The unintended consequence of terrorism, though, which will be extremely much more likely with Obama, very well could destroy the country.

Furthermore, I actually WOULD accuse Obama of hating the concept of American dominance and American prosperity aove all others. To that extent, he may well INTENTIONALLY bring America down.

[mraynrand]

All you can control is your own behavior.

That's not what you tell us on every other issue. On every other issue, you seem to be telling us which behaviour we should and shouldn't have. How we should redefine marriage, how we should empty our pockets for health care (but not you). You seem perfectly comfortable 'controlling' other's behaviours so that they fit your ideology.

this is too bizarre. how do you get emptying your pockets and not mine? everybody pays taxes.

you seem to equate a compassinate government as "controlling others behavior."

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government wants to be 'compassionate' by handing out bennies they have to take it from someone else. The more they want to hand out (the more compassionate they get on one end) the more they have to take on the other end and the lower and lower they have to define down 'rich.' Forcing you to hand over more dollars is controlling your behaviour.

[texaspackerbacker]

Technically, the money does NOT have to come from somewhere--at least not somewhere other than the government printing presses i.e. deficit spending.

I'm NOT advocating Obama-esque social welfare spending; And I freely acknowledge that obama and the Dems indeed DO intend to confiscate the money they dish out from people in the upper income levels; I'm just saying, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY! You do NOT need to "pay for" government spending with higher taxes or whatever. The economic growth generated by the spending with subsequent enhanced overall taxable income and tax revenue to the government negates the need for tax increases. Unfortunately, neither the damn socialist-leaning Dems nor the "fiscally responsible" Republicans seem to understand that.

[MJZiggy]

All you can control is your own behavior.

That's not what you tell us on every other issue. On every other issue, you seem to be telling us which behaviour we should and shouldn't have. How we should redefine marriage, how we should empty our pockets for health care (but not you). You seem perfectly comfortable 'controlling' other's behaviours so that they fit your ideology.

this is too bizarre. how do you get emptying your pockets and not mine? everybody pays taxes.

you seem to equate a compassinate government as "controlling others behavior."

Well, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government wants to be 'compassionate' by handing out bennies they have to take it from someone else. The more they want to hand out (the more compassionate they get on one end) the more they have to take on the other end and the lower and lower they have to define down 'rich.' Forcing you to hand over more dollars is controlling your behaviour.

You know he didn't define "rich" by a dollar figure in the campaign until someone asked. His estimate was the top 5% of earners in the country. The top 5% is never going to be making 40K like you claim. That argument is nothing more than propaganda and it's really not helping anything. Dude hasn't even gotten into office yet and you're already accusing him of shit he hasn't done.

[bobblehead]

All you can control is your own behavior.

That's not what you tell us on every other issue. On every other issue, you seem to be telling us which behaviour we should and shouldn't have. How we should redefine marriage, how we should empty our pockets for health care (but not you). You seem perfectly comfortable 'controlling' other's behaviours so that they fit your ideology.

this is too bizarre. how do you get emptying your pockets and not mine? everybody pays taxes.

you seem to equate a compassinate government as "controlling others behavior."

One party taking money from another under the power of gov't is not an example of compassion.

[bobblehead]

Technically, the money does NOT have to come from somewhere--at least not somewhere other than the government printing presses i.e. deficit spending.

I'm NOT advocating Obama-esque social welfare spending; And I freely acknowledge that obama and the Dems indeed DO intend to confiscate the money they dish out from people in the upper income levels; I'm just saying, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY! You do NOT need to "pay for" government spending with higher taxes or whatever. The economic growth generated by the spending with subsequent enhanced overall taxable income and tax revenue to the government negates the need for tax increases. Unfortunately, neither the damn socialist-leaning Dems nor the "fiscally responsible" Republicans seem to understand that.

I'm pretty sure that this has been disproven over the last 8 years tex. You just refuse to follow your own logic to a logical end. These things have reasons for happening and printing money and handing it out to the "lower class" is not going to stimulate the economy enough to pay for it. Infrastructure spending will pay for itself long term, but nothing like a one year payback like you suggest.

If your logic is true why not print a million for everyone....think of the economic prosperity that would insue...and no inflation or devaluation of the dollar either....oh the nirvana of everyone retiring.

Its really hard for us small gov't proponents to espouse the values of doing it our way when you spew this stuff.

Yes, studies prove that tax cuts bringing rates down to 19% are beneficial and pay for themselves, but that is a far cry from gov't borrowing 100 billion to give away and magically generating 100 billion in revenues. Science simply doesn't back this up. Assuming a 20% tax rate that money would have to create 500 billion in economic growth to pay for itself...now go run the math and show me what our growth has been under bush while we deficit spent and printed about 12% more money per year....around 3%.

[LL2]

And yet he's still your president. (did ya ever think that maybe he's planning on picking up a few while he's in office?)

This is a very valid point. Come on now, fellow conservatives, Obama indeed, IS our president--or will be in January.

We need to be very scrupulous to SHOW THE NEW PRESIDENT EXACTLY THE KIND OF RESPECT THAT THE OTHER SIDE HAS SHOWN TO THEIR/OUR PRESIDENT OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS. It's the only fair thing.

So are you rooting for Obama to fail? Do you realize the position Obama is in right now? Obama's failures and successes over the next 4 years are America's failures and successes. Are you rooting for America to fail, just to prove a point?

I don't think any conservatives want Obama to fail. It's just that his failures, if he has any, will be pointed out fairly or not just like Bush's failures were pointed out over and over again. It's a double edged sword the business The Fraud is in.

[LL2]

no sour grapes like conservative sour grapes

Well you guys are the whine experts so you probably know your grapes.

And, this year is a vintage year for whining.

Do not even start with the bitterness and sour grapes stuff. Puleease! The Democrats and Liberals have been bitter for 8 years! Don't even get into asking for examples. No one has to look further than Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Oliver Stone. I can't even think of a movie put out during the term of a sitting president that is as tasteless and offensive and W. is about Bush. Ty didn't you point out that W. was such a blockbuster success over a conservative movie? There are probably a million examples that could be given of the bitterness of the left from those in Hollywood to the politicians. The liberals and the left never treated Bush with respect. From everything I've seen and read most conservatives have been gracious towards Obama, even several on here. If some have a "we'll see" mentality, well that come with the business. At least a "we'll see" approach is better than the "were fucked" mentality of the liberal lefties after Bush was elected.

[HowardRoark]

no sour grapes like conservative sour grapes

Well you guys are the whine experts so you probably know your grapes.

And, this year is a vintage year for whining.

Do not even start with the bitterness and sour grapes stuff. Puleease! The Democrats and Liberals have been bitter for 8 years! Don't even get into asking for examples. No one has to look further than Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Oliver Stone. I can't even think of a movie put out during the term of a sitting president that is as tasteless and offensive and W. is about Bush. Ty didn't you point out that W. was such a blockbuster success over a conservative movie? There are probably a million examples that could be given of the bitterness of the left from those in Hollywood to the politicians. The liberals and the left never treated Bush with respect. From everything I've seen and read most conservatives have been gracious towards Obama, even several on here. If some have a "we'll see" mentality, well that come with the business. At least a "we'll see" approach is better than the "were fucked" mentality of the liberal lefties after Bush was elected.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

no sour grapes like conservative sour grapes

Well you guys are the whine experts so you probably know your grapes.

And, this year is a vintage year for whining.

Do not even start with the bitterness and sour grapes stuff. Puleease! The Democrats and Liberals have been bitter for 8 years! Don't even get into asking for examples. No one has to look further than Michael Moore, Bill Maher, and Oliver Stone. I can't even think of a movie put out during the term of a sitting president that is as tasteless and offensive and W. is about Bush. Ty didn't you point out that W. was such a blockbuster success over a conservative movie? There are probably a million examples that could be given of the bitterness of the left from those in Hollywood to the politicians. The liberals and the left never treated Bush with respect. From everything I've seen and read most conservatives have been gracious towards Obama, even several on here. If some have a "we'll see" mentality, well that come with the business. At least a "we'll see" approach is better than the "were fucked" mentality of the liberal lefties after Bush was elected.

You really can't follow along can you. We have already been called whiners and experts in it and I didn't deny it. So, it is our purview to determine a vintage year. You are a bit dense.

Bush: Oh, right. There was no honeymoon after 9/11. And, after he was elected..and the election guff ended he wasn't even on the radar. Look at the polls from that time..he was looking like a one termer.

Movies: Oh, we want to go back to that. I thought you guys weren't interested in that after the spanking "an american carol" received. As for W, it has grossed 22 million..far more than "carol." It has also received good reveiws, though customers have given it lesser reviews. Not that i went and saw it.

W cost 25 mill to make..so we are looking right now at a break even..though since i like to be honest, that doesn't take into account distribution costs and marketing.

Stone is hit and miss when dealing with the presidential world. JFK grossed $70.4 million domestically in 1991/1992, yet Nixon did only $13.7 million in '95/'96. It's also worth considering that JFK was not a biopic like Nixon and W. were.