budsmoker87
New Member
i don't care what the fuking banks report. unemployment continues to rise. it is not a recovery...the greatest depression has been stalled by printing/borrowing and throwing money at it
its already the best in the world....u might want to double check that..lolThe CBO has stated that this Obamacare will cost American's 1.6 trilllion dollars over the next 10 years, and even more over the next 20.
I don't give a fuck about healthcare, IT IS ALREADY THE BEST IN THE WORLD.
I care about my money, which is time, which is freedom.
Increased taxes = loss of freedom. get it?
On the contrary, BadDog. I'm not losing my senses, you missed the point of my post.Where exactly did I say that they had anything to do with healthcare? We may be losing our country but you sir are losing your senses.
its already the best in the world....u might want to double check that..lol
Great post. Seriously. Great.Why do people keep bringing up things that Bush did? And why do you have to be a Bush supporter if you think the government is out of control? I would agree that Bush was a bad president, worst, I don't think so. He abandoned all of his conservative values to appease the left, yet the left would never accept him anyways. His 2nd term was truly disastrous, doing exactly what the left would have done. I gave up my support of him as soon as he tried to push for "amnesty". He might have been an idiot, but he wasn't some radical determined to completely transform this country. Which is why so many people are pissed off. Obama is constantly bagging on republicans and AMERICANS that don't have the same vision for America. It is pretty sick, and won't last. People are starting to wake up from all political affiliations and seeing how this country is being destroyed. And I wouldn't try to prove an argument from an article from the NY TIMES. They are far left and losing readers fast.
Why do people keep bringing up things that Bush did? And why do you have to be a Bush supporter if you think the government is out of control? I would agree that Bush was a bad president, worst, I don't think so. He abandoned all of his conservative values to appease the left, yet the left would never accept him anyways. His 2nd term was truly disastrous, doing exactly what the left would have done. I gave up my support of him as soon as he tried to push for "amnesty". He might have been an idiot, but he wasn't some radical determined to completely transform this country. Which is why so many people are pissed off. Obama is constantly bagging on republicans and AMERICANS that don't have the same vision for America. It is pretty sick, and won't last. People are starting to wake up from all political affiliations and seeing how this country is being destroyed. And I wouldn't try to prove an argument from an article from the NY TIMES. They are far left and losing readers fast.
Yea, thank God Bush acted on reports titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S'. How some of you are able to turn a computer on is beyond me.By Gods grace Bush was President during 9/11.
Yea, thank God Bush acted on reports titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S'. How some of you are able to turn a computer on is beyond me.
So true, but unfortunately the sheeple will continue to point fingers and blame the other party. Just look at the posts after yours. It's pathetic.On the contrary, BadDog. I'm not losing my senses, you missed the point of my post.
Yes, Bush screwed up, especially in his last term. Now, with Obama, we have entered warp speed in the loss of our economic liberty. The point of my post that you missed was, its not just one party and its not about healthcare. Americans are waking up to the fact that we are losing our country to a cabal of corrupt ideologues IN BOTH PARTIES.
Are you not aware that the FBI just nabbed al queda cells in two American cities and foiled another attack ... thanks to THE PATRIOT ACT?
Here's the scoop:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/09/16/2009-09-16_fbi_unit_set_for_more_antiterror_raids_in_queens_sources_fears_of_madridstyle_su.html
Since when was having a private conversation via telephone or computer considered an "essential liberty"? 1759, no doubt...Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Since when was having a private conversation via telephone or computer considered an "essential liberty"? 1759, no doubt...
that was beautiful... these people preach about destroying a country blablabla, and its their very mentality that's destroying it, it's not the government, it's them...Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
does anyone here know what the sarbanes-oaxley act is?? guess who signed it into law?? BUSH... that severe deregulation had a very good cause forAhem, in actuality, Sarbanes Oaxley added more regulation, not less. It had absolutely nothing to do with deregulation.
The act creates a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure
Excepted from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
IMO, it made US corporations less competitive and created a boon for accounting firms.
Apparently you didn't read the second post that clearly states Franklin participated in what you and your ilk would describe as "warrantless surveillance" long after he penned that quote of his that you took out of context.Apparently you have no clue as to the meaning of 'private'.
But I'll play along, your argument is in 1759 there were not phones or computers, so with that I take it you also believe the right to bear arms doesnt apply to any type of automatic or semi-automatic weapons, since of course they were not around in 1776.
does anyone here know what the sarbanes-oaxley act is?? guess who signed it into law?? BUSH... that severe deregulation had a very good cause forjaja... it's funny how googling something makes you an expert.... JAJAJA....Ahem, in actuality, Sarbanes Oaxley added more regulation, not less. It had absolutely nothing to do with deregulation.
The act creates a new, quasi-public agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, charged with overseeing, regulating, inspecting and disciplining accounting firms in their roles as auditors of public companies. The act also covers issues such as auditor independence, corporate governance, internal control assessment, and enhanced financial disclosure
Excepted from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act
IMO, it made US corporations less competitive and created a boon for accounting firms.
take a course on financial markets 101, u might learn something......