If Obama loses in Nov., great - then we will stop spending so much money, and we can work on destroying the Democratic party, followed by destroying the Republican party. If Obama wins in Nov., great - then he'll probably go off the deep end even worse, and the country will see how liberalism is a nutty, unacceptable philosophy which will help the Democratic party to be self-destroyed, followed by destroying the Republican party. We can't lose. And yes, I mean it.
In a way I agree with you. We survived George Bush and we will survive whatever Republican wins, if Obama loses. If Obama is re-elected the Republicans will continue with their policy of 'just say no'. If Obama is not re-elected the Republicans will go back to their previous attitude of not caring about deficits.
If people start respecting each other and unite with pvsi.net...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXCELLENT
I don't think they'll be allowed to do that. The political corruption has become too obvious and revealed. CERTAINLY the left won't want to allow it, and I think that enough of the mainstream right won't allow it. Hopefully it will be the beginning of the end for the hyper partisan two party system. We can do without that. The majority of Americans are on the same side, and they coming around to realizing that.
He'll have won a campaign where the public is aware that spending is the current number one enemy. Romney will know better than to spend as much as Obama is spending ---even if he doesn't ALREADY know better than that. Romney is also not as Nanny state as Obama is. Nanny state-ness is TERRIBLE for minorities. And something very important for me is that I firmly believe that Romney has a better view of morality, considering that I don't think that Obama is very interested in looking to the Principle of morality which some of us call God. Obama tends to look at what he thinks is the HUMAN definition of morality. Most obviously, Romney knows how to run a business. Obama doesn't have a clue how to run a business or by extension, an economy. And Obama doesn't listen to those who do have a clue.
You mean the guy who owned a corporation that sliced and diced companies up, and made a $10,000 bet? Aren't people calling him a liberal for a reason? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cP-FTX5tVg"]Raw Video: Heckler Interrupts Obama Fundraiser - YouTube[/ame] Yes, how moral. Psst bringing up Bain and Capital along with how rich he is, isn't going to win the vote in the general election.
I'd say let Obama have another term. After he runs up a 30 trillion dollar debt with massive increases to welfare and unemployment perhaps the people will realize that liberals are not good for this country.
I certainly don't share this optimism. In fact, I see a lose, lose situation. This is one of the most defunct and wretched GOPs I have seen in awhile. The Dems are better, but not by much and certainly nothing to brag about. However, after the disaster of the Bush administration, the marginalized GOP should have been wiped out from the pages of history. Unfortunately, the (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor Democratic Party resuscitated them and breathed new life into them as witnessed by the midterm elections. Once Republicans gain back power, it won't be because they made the much needed changes they need to make, but because of the (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor Democrat Party. Then once Republicans screw up enough, then Dems will take back power, not necessarily because they deserve it, but because the GOP will screw up....ad infinitum, unless something changes.
More lies!! Bush was actually allowed to spend more money than Obama. And Obama can't even get a budget passed so all the spending we are doing now is straight from Bush's budget policies. And I guarantee you Romney or Santorum would find a way to spend even more than Bush and Obama. Most likely sending us to war against Iran.
You left the Supreme Court out of the equation. And there will be one or two retirements in 2013-2016. If he wins I care not who's president in the future. Liberals will have free reign to enforce unconstitutional socialism on a scale that would make Lenin blush. Whenever they are in power that is. Do you think that the Rino's in the Senate will block Obama's socialist advocating nominees? Think Sonya Sotomayor and Elina Kagen.
Can you do the liberals a favor? The right wing has been pulling the socialist/communist card for the last 80 to possibly 110 years. It's getting old now and it doesn't work. Can you think of something new?
Its accurate. Therefore there is no need to change it. Either you beleive in unaleinable individual rights or you beleive in the abandonment of individual liberty in the name of fairness and "collective liberty." There is nothing to distinguish democrats from socialists. We and the founding fathers chose Locke and they chose Rousseau/Marx etc. We chose negative liberty and they chose positive liberty. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o"]Negative vs Positive liberty - YouTube[/ame]
You think asking for civil rights is abandoning individual liberty? To me, it seems as if you're trying to gain some.
Where did I say that? Stay in the modern times please. Quit using your grandads democrat to justify the actions of todays democrats. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU"]MAXINE WATERS OUTS THE DEMS SOCIALIST AGENDA - YouTube[/ame]
1. It's not polite to post videos and other things after the person has said something about it. 2. I said last 80 to possibly 110 years. That's a lot of time. 3.http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html
This should clear things up http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...f-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/ Like I said. There is no difference. The fact that you said 80-110 years has no bearing on the fact that my comment was valid. Lets not raise the straw men here. I wont chase them. nice try though. As seen above: "Its accurate. Therefore there is no need to change it." Spaking of distractions, either stick to the topic or find another thread! I'm tired of being hunted down by crazies because they have nothing better to do than argue about unrelated nonsense.
You see, the funny thing about your source is that the story was written in August of 2010, when the report came out almost a year earlier. But that's not all. Look at what I said orginally. I didn't say democrat. You said democrat. Please refute my point. You have not done so. I said 80 to possibly 110 years. I get 80 to possibly 110 years to prove my point. I cited something that was within that time frame. Either disprove it, or you have lost. The only people who ever say that, are those that are losing.
1) Ok listen up son. Time has no relevancy as you cannot change the context of my original post. You can’t choose to raise a straw man to send it off in another direction not ever alluded to in the post you objected to in the first place. 2) The time frame of the story has no relevancy as the progressive caucus was founded by those affiliated with SPA. See here >>> http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497 3) You ever meet a liberal republican who affiliated with SPA? No? Then assume theyre Democrats! 4) Your losing/winning argument kinda reminds me of Charlie Sheen and is argued like a true 16 year old. You age is indicated all over the above post.
Yeah,well what If Obama decides on a new career.He wants to be in the NBA.I mean,like who is going to deny him.David Stern. Yeah right.If Obama can manage buying a Car company { GM once considered the Biggest Company in America circa 1960's } then he can put himself on any NBA Team he chooses.. He can also decide when playing { Minutes } and the referring will be determined.When he gets fouled and what consitutes a foul.If an Opponent looks funny at Obama,that could be a foul. Obama may get en extra foul shot just because.Just because he's in the game.I mean,why not.That's how he approaches most Policy. If the O {Obama} has a bad game,the game can be held under suspension until a more suitable rigging of the score can be waylaid. I mean ... why Not.He's the Oman Ya don't go agin the O.
