Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

A Romney Scandal the Libs missed

+3
2seaoat
Joanimaroni
stormwatch89
7 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

26A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:31 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:BHO is in office, one would have to assume he has fronted support for his program already. Since he has summarily threatened to veto any "fiscal cliff avoidance" measure that doesn't contain his specifics it is apparent he is still very much a partisan president unwilling to communicate across the aisle.

So let's review this for a second:

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans will only cut spending and refuse to raise taxes.

From this, you conclude that Obama and the democrats are playing partisan politics? OK. If conceding what the other side wants in order to get what you want - or, compromising as it is also known - is what you call partisan politics, what do you call it when a party refuses to concede anything and only demands that they get their way?

I feel anyone currently holding office needs to be kicked to the curb. And enough of the the sad argument "there won't be any experienced politicians". Repubs need to go for stonewalling, Dems for shamelessly refusing any concession when they had a majority and Reid in particular for his "that bill is DOA" message. BHO needs to go because he has failed in his job as President to LEAD the boneheads in Congress to a consensus that results in a viable fiscal recovery effort. Of course it may have helped if BHO hadn't sidestepped Congress on so many occasions but there you go.

So, again, if conceding what the other side wants in order to get what you want - or, compromising as it is also known - is what you call partisan politics, what do you call it when a party refuses to concede anything and only demands that they get their way?

Further, if one party is willing to concede what the other wants in order to get what they want, and the other is not, you feel the optimal solution is to vote them all out?


_________________
I approve this message.

27A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:32 pm

2seaoat



No true American has a problem with increased revenues if there are cuts which improve efficiencies in government. Only traitors believe that revenues are off the table. It really is that simple. We need balanced budgets. Revenue with 100% certainty must be part of that equation. Selfish traitors or people who are mentally challenged will chirp about all government being evil, but the truth is that the economic operations of this nation are complex and simplistic solutions like no new revenues, or just cut our way to a balanced budget are the realm of idiocy which the Oligarchy has counted on........but fortunately thinking Americans are realizing this grand experiment called America is now asking each of us to show economic patriotism......and the Romney model of cut and run.....well his cowardice in military service and economic patriotism speak for themselves.

28A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:37 pm

Guest


Guest

[quote="boards of FL"][quote="nochain"]
boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:

So, again, if conceding what the other side wants in order to get what you want - or, compromising as it is also known - is what you call partisan politics, what do you call it when a party refuses to concede anything and only demands that they get their way?

Further, if one party is willing to concede what the other wants in order to get what they want, and the other is not, you feel the optimal solution is to vote them all out?

Are you this dense or just playing dumb? Neither side has been willing to concede much of anything so your argument is not valid. The Dems are game playing with their whine that they are willing to raise taxes - on a small percentage of Americans with no real effect on the deficit. The Repubs don't want that but want other things the Dems don't. Stalemate. That is not a definition of bipartisanship where each side agrees to at least take in some parts of what the other side wants.

29A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:40 pm

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote: economic patriotism speak for themselves.

Show us your "economic patriotism" 2SO or does it only apply to certain people?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

30A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:40 pm

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:Are you this dense or just playing dumb? Neither side has been willing to concede much of anything so your argument is not valid. The Dems are game playing with their whine that they are willing to raise taxes - on a small percentage of Americans with no real effect on the deficit. The Repubs don't want that but want other things the Dems don't. Stalemate. That is not a definition of bipartisanship where each side agrees to at least take in some parts of what the other side wants.

Let's start over:

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans are only willing to cut spending and will not raise taxes under any circumstance.

Before going on here, do you agree from the above points that Obama is willing to concede what the republicans want so long as they concede what he and the democrats want? Wouldn't you agree that the democrats are willing to cut spending so long as republicans also agree to raise taxes?


_________________
I approve this message.

31A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:47 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

stormwatch89 wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
What a bunch of raving lunatics...willing to overlook offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts, but are, according to some, "trusts with cataracts", which are a clear violation of the law, willing to overlook the sources of capital for those investments, willing to overlook the influence of the LDS church and "Bishop" Romney's shameful record there, willing to overlook Ryan's adherence to Ayn Rand's doctrines, even though they've been described by members of his own Catholic faith as "satanism"...willing to turn a blind eye to everything evil and self-serving about their candidates just because of the "R", and it's not just the Randian influences, but Ryan's own budget that's come under attack by his own church because it's in direct conflict with the church's humanitarian mission. Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

OK, I really have to laugh at this one, FT.

"offshore investments in what has been called blind trusts"

Are you saying you don't believe politicians have blind trusts? Even your hero has blind trusts and they are.............blind. They also include offshore investments.

"clear violation of the law" Link? Which laws are being violated?

"sources of capital" Such as?

It's completely obvious that you haven't done research on your candidate. When he was running against Kennedy, he called blind trusts a trick, but apparently his family trusts are do not even meet the test of "blind". And there's plenty of evidence that the initial investments in Bain Capital came, at least in part, from Salvadoran exiles in Miami. Do you want to know why they were exiled? Romney doesn't care from whence or where his money flows, so long as it flows.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/purdum/2012/07/mitt-romney-age-old-ruse-blind-trust


An Age-Old Ruse

That’s the way Mitt Romney, back in 1994, described putting one’s assets in a so-called blind trust. But it’s 2012, and the ruse looks pretty serviceable...

(Romney's so-called blind trust is run by his long-time friend and associate, which effectively negates the classification of his trust as "blind".)

---------------------------


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

"In 1983, Bill Bain asked Mitt Romney to launch Bain Capital, a private equity offshoot of the successful consulting firm Bain & Company. After some initial reluctance, Romney agreed. The new job came with a stipulation: Romney couldn't raise money from any current clients, Bain said, because if the private equity venture failed, he didn't want it taking the consulting firm down with it.

When Romney struggled to raise funds from other traditional sources, he and his partners started thinking outside the box. Bain executive Harry Strachan suggested that Romney meet with a group of Central American oligarchs who were looking for new investment vehicles as turmoil engulfed their region.

Romney was worried that the oligarchs might be tied to "illegal drug money, right-wing death squads, or left-wing terrorism," Strachan later told a Boston Globe reporter, as quoted in the 2012 book "The Real Romney." But, pressed for capital, Romney pushed his concerns aside and flew to Miami in mid-1984 to meet with the Salvadorans at a local bank.

It was a lucrative trip. The Central Americans provided roughly $9 million -- 40 percent -- of Bain Capital's initial outside funding, the Los Angeles Times reported recently. And they became valued clients.

"Over the years, these Latin American friends have loyally rolled over investments in succeeding funds, actively participated in Bain Capital's May investor meetings, and are still today one of the largest investor groups in Bain Capital," Strachan wrote in his memoir in 2008. Strachan declined to be interviewed for this story.

When Romney launched another venture that needed funding -- his first presidential campaign -- he returned to Miami.

"I owe a great deal to Americans of Latin American descent," he said at a dinner in Miami in 2007. "When I was starting my business, I came to Miami to find partners that would believe in me and that would finance my enterprise. My partners were Ricardo Poma, Miguel Dueñas, Pancho Soler, Frank Kardonski, and Diego Ribadeneira."




Romney could also have thanked investors from two other wealthy and powerful Central American clans -- the de Sola and Salaverria families, who the Los Angeles Times and Boston Globe have reported were founding investors in Bain Capital.

While they were on the lookout for investments in the United States, members of some of these prominent families -- including the Salaverria, Poma, de Sola and Dueñas clans -- were also at the time financing, either directly or through political parties, death squads in El Salvador. The ruling classes were deploying the death squads to beat back left-wing guerrillas and reformers during El Salvador's civil war.

The death squads committed atrocities on such a mass scale for so small a country that their killing spree sparked international condemnation. From 1979 to 1992, some 75,000 people were killed in the Salvadoran civil war, according to the United Nations. In 1982, two years before Romney began raising money from the oligarchs, El Salvador's independent Human Rights Commission reported that, of the 35,000 civilians killed, "most" died at the hands of death squads. A United Nations truth commission concluded in 1993 that 85 percent of the acts of violence were perpetrated by the right, while the left-wing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front, which was supported by the Cuban government, was responsible for 5 percent..."

---------------------

Romney's a 14-carat asshole.

32A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:48 pm

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

nochain wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Willful ignorance; ain't it grand?

Coming from the most willfully ignorant poster stalking this forum I guess you should know.

Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep

I'm not a stalker, you jerk.

33A Romney Scandal the Libs missed - Page 2 Empty Re: A Romney Scandal the Libs missed 10/19/2012, 12:49 pm

Guest


Guest

[quote="boards of FL"]
nochain wrote:A

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans are only willing to cut spending and will not raise taxes under any circumstance.

The Dems plan to raise taxes on a select group is a voter base gimmick that will not have any real impact. Cut spending???? Give me break - even you don't believe BHO wants to cut spending and if he does it would be in areas that don't affect the Dem base. Both sides are not so gifted gamers.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Joanimaroni wrote:
stormwatch89 wrote:


Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence. Rolling Eyes

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone. Exclamation


Her faith and beliefs are determined by the political party. [/quote]

I know more about your candidate than you do; I know more about the subject of discussion than you do; and no political party determines my beliefs. Like Seaoat, I know a white-collar crook when I see one. You really should read the links I posted, but I bet you won't. Right-wing fascist scum.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

[quote="nochain"]
boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:A

1. Republicans want to cut spending.

2. Democrats want to raise taxes.

3. Obama is suggesting we do both.

4. Republicans are only willing to cut spending and will not raise taxes under any circumstance.

The Dems plan to raise taxes on a select group is a voter base gimmick that will not have any real impact. Cut spending???? Give me break - even you don't believe BHO wants to cut spending and if he does it would be in areas that don't affect the Dem base. Both sides are not so gifted gamers.

The Bush giveaway to his wealthy "base" should have been allowed to expire in 2010. And you're mistaken about the impact of that reversal on the economy, but much more needs to be done. I believe the majority of Republicans just don't care about anyone but themselves.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
stormwatch89 wrote:


Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence. Rolling Eyes

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone. Exclamation


Her faith and beliefs are determined by the political party.

I know more about your candidate than you do; I know more about the subject of discussion than you do; and no political party determines my beliefs. Like Seaoat, I know a white-collar crook when I see one. You really should read the links I posted, but I bet you won't. Right-wing fascist scum.

[/quote][/quote]


You remind me of the typical self rightious better than though think you know it all liberal. Yep, you sure do. Funny thing is ms smug. Sooner or later people like you get shown up for who they really are, just like your master mr odumbo.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Rogue wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
stormwatch89 wrote:


Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence. Rolling Eyes

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone. Exclamation


Her faith and beliefs are determined by the political party.

I know more about your candidate than you do; I know more about the subject of discussion than you do; and no political party determines my beliefs. Like Seaoat, I know a white-collar crook when I see one. You really should read the links I posted, but I bet you won't. Right-wing fascist scum.

[/quote]


You remind me of the typical self rightious better than though think you know it all liberal. Yep, you sure do. Funny thing is ms smug. Sooner or later people like you get shown up for who they really are, just like your master mr odumbo.[/quote]

You should know about smug, dumbass.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Rogue wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:
stormwatch89 wrote:


Obama made a small fortune in his personal off-shore investments. Of course he cashed out days before the oil spill. What a coincidence. Rolling Eyes

Ya know, Joani, I kind of envy FT's passionate, blind faith in someone. Exclamation


Her faith and beliefs are determined by the political party.

I know more about your candidate than you do; I know more about the subject of discussion than you do; and no political party determines my beliefs. Like Seaoat, I know a white-collar crook when I see one. You really should read the links I posted, but I bet you won't. Right-wing fascist scum.



You remind me of the typical self rightious better than though think you know it all liberal. Yep, you sure do. Funny thing is ms smug. Sooner or later people like you get shown up for who they really are, just like your master mr odumbo.

You should know about smug, dumbass.

[/quote]][/quote][/quote]


I'm having a really wonderful time watch you run around lately FT. Very Happy

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:The Dems plan to raise taxes on a select group is a voter base gimmick that will not have any real impact. Cut spending???? Give me break - even you don't believe BHO wants to cut spending and if he does it would be in areas that don't affect the Dem base. Both sides are not so gifted gamers.

Why is it that you cannot simply accept the very basic premise that I gave you? What part of it do you disagree with? Do democrats not want to raise taxes? Do republicans not want to cut spending? Isn't it true that democrats are willing to concede one for the other? Isn't it also true that republicans will only have it their way?

Let's look at this some more.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3605

Democrats Offer Significant Concessions
Plan Is to the Right of Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six


By Robert Greenstein, Richard Kogan and Paul N. Van de Water

The new deficit-reduction plan from several Democrats on the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "supercommittee") marks a dramatic departure from traditional Democratic positions — and actually stands well to the right of plans by the co-chairs of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and the Senate's "Gang of Six," and even further to the right of the plan by the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici commission. The Democratic plan contains substantially smaller revenue increases than those bipartisan proposals while, for example, containing significantly deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid than the Bowles-Simpson plan. The Democratic plan features a substantially higher ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases than any of the bipartisan plans.

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.

The significance of the Democratic plan stands out clearly from its basic numbers:

The Democratic plan contains $73 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid cuts ($475 billion) than Bowles-Simpson ($402 billion), and the same or a greater amount of cuts in this area than the Gang of Six plan.[1]

At the same time, the Democratic plan contains $800 to $900 billion less in revenue increases than the Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six plans.[2]

The cuts in discretionary programs are as deep in the Democratic plan as in Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six. [3]

When considered in conjunction with the discretionary program cuts enacted in the Budget Control Act of this past summer and measured against the baseline that Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six used, the Democratic plan results in a much greater ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases — at least 6 to 1, as Table 2 shows — than Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six, both of which had 2-to-1 ratios, including debt-service savings. Bowles-Simpson and the Gang of Six used a baseline that assumes that the Bush upper-income tax cuts will expire as scheduled. Relative to that baseline, those plans had $1.2 to $1.4 trillion in revenue increases, while the Democratic plan has about $400 billion. Relative to a current-policy baseline that assumes that Congress will extend all of the Bush tax cuts, the Gang of Six and Bowles-Simpson had $2.1 to $2.2 trillion in revenue increases, and the Democratic plan has $1.3 trillion. (See Table 1; under this baseline, the spending-cut-to-tax-increase ratios for the three plans are lower, but a substantial gap remains between the ratio for the Democratic plan and that for the two bipartisan plans.)

The Democratic plan has $200 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts, a level that exceeds the beneficiary cuts in Bowles-Simpson (the Gang of Six is not specific on this point) and is eight times the level of Medicare beneficiary cuts in the budget plan that President Obama released on September 19. Since half of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below about $21,000, it would be extremely difficult to secure $200 billion in savings from increased Medicare beneficiary charges without requiring significantly larger out-of-pocket payments by beneficiaries with incomes as low as $12,000 or $15,000.


_________________
I approve this message.

boards of FL

boards of FL

This bears repeating for you:

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:This bears repeating for you:

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.

And there you finally have it. Stalemate, just as I said earlier. Yet your one dimensional analysis doesn't allow you to see neither side is serious about anything. Bringing me back to my opinion they all need to go home.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:
boards of FL wrote:This bears repeating for you:

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.

And there you finally have it. Stalemate, just as I said earlier. Yet your one dimensional analysis doesn't allow you to see neither side is serious about anything. Bringing me back to my opinion they all need to go home.

Holy shit, you're dense. Let's take this one step at a time. Do you agree with the following statement, nochain?: Republicans want to cut spending <--- Is that true or false?


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:
boards of FL wrote:This bears repeating for you:

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.

And there you finally have it. Stalemate, just as I said earlier. Yet your one dimensional analysis doesn't allow you to see neither side is serious about anything. Bringing me back to my opinion they all need to go home.

Holy shit, you're dense. Let's take this one step at a time. Do you agree with the following statement, nochain?: Republicans want to cut spending <--- Is that true or false?

Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep

I tire of this never ending back and forth; you won't listen, I won't listen. Got it.

boards of FL

boards of FL

nochain wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
nochain wrote:
boards of FL wrote:This bears repeating for you:

Although the new plan thus moves considerably closer to Republican positions than any of the bipartisan plans, Republicans have been quick to reject it. This rejection likely dooms chances that Congress will be able to pass a big, bipartisan plan. The counter-offer by Republican members of the supercommittee, reflecting little or no movement on tax increases and calling for even deeper spending cuts than in the Democratic plan — including severe Medicaid cuts that would impose significant harm on low-income children, parents, and elderly and disabled people — appears to leave little room for progress.

And there you finally have it. Stalemate, just as I said earlier. Yet your one dimensional analysis doesn't allow you to see neither side is serious about anything. Bringing me back to my opinion they all need to go home.

Holy shit, you're dense. Let's take this one step at a time. Do you agree with the following statement, nochain?: Republicans want to cut spending <--- Is that true or false?

Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep Sleep

I tire of this never ending back and forth; you won't listen, I won't listen. Got it.

Translation: Clearly I have no clue as to what I'm talking about, so I will bow out rather than concede the obvious.


_________________
I approve this message.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


A comment from the Vanity Fair link above:

(hlhuntus)

"It is an outrage for Shifty Mitt Romney not to have been prosecuted for perjury by the Securities and Exchange Commission and others. No statute of limitations for murder and fraud and perjury or lying under oath falls under fraud while governor. Shifty Mitt Romney is hesitant to reveal his sources of income in his billion-dollar empire securely-protected and hidden offshore in unknown banks of countries famed as tax-havens. It's not amounts that Shifty Mitt is so sensitive and fearful about but discovery of his multiple sources of income opening himself up for prosecution and lawsuits. Any income tax returns that Shifty Mitt releases is questionable at this point unless they come directly from the IRS. Shifty Mitt's clever accountants have had way too much time to doctor his income tax returns for the past ten years a la Enron. If Shifty Mitt had gotten away with perjury as Massachusetts Governor at Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies, local, state, federal, tax evasion, crimes and misdemeanors for more than 25 years, can you imagine the unbridled monopoly, absolute power and total control he and his undisclosed billionaire bundlers, here and abroad, could wield nationwide and worldwide, if he were elected President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on planet earth? Catastrophic to 99 % of 350 million Americans! God forbid!"

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

FT your name calling is like that of a drunken sailor. Are you really a female....or just a lonely crusty bitter pathetic old man?

stormwatch89

stormwatch89

nochain wrote:
2seaoat wrote: economic patriotism speak for themselves.

Show us your "economic patriotism" 2SO or does it only apply to certain people?

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188


PERFECT!!


VectorMan

VectorMan

FloridaTexan, did you ever do any research on Obama before voting for him? Just curious.

stormwatch89

stormwatch89

Boards, I've seen your home videos and witnessed you're condescending attitude.

Many of us have "been there".

You appear to be an egotistical spoiled brat who thinks he knows more than those of us who have actually survived for twice your lifetime.

Change of presentation would be much better received.

Suggestion from the "old "people gallery.

2seaoat



Boards,

Do not apologize for your intelligence. Do not in an effort to elevate discussions to a rational exchange of facts and concepts allow those who are like frightened children, understanding that the world of their youth is gone.....simply gone, and that folks with different ethnicity, language, and appearance have come to Mayberry, to denigrate your obvious intelligence and make the irrelevant important. You understand numbers. Sadly, some of the people who are now criticizing you are equally intelligent, but they have lost their souls........they are adrift in a sea of revisionism which does not serve them well.

Romnesia is an appropriate concept. We have folks who have become indentured servants to an Oligarchy which has destroyed much of the fabric of this nation in the last 30 years. Sorry, the tax policy of this nation is our shared strategic plan. Some people want me to make some additional tax payments to solve our national debt......children....simply children. I have no problem being patronizing. I respect intelligence. Some of the most intelligent people I have known have never graduated from college. I have had the joy of sharing time with PHDs who were brilliant and exposed a world others simply cannot see. You can lift the intellectual load which allows for cogent discussions of issues, and if you need to kick some sand on some folks to remind them they cannot carry that load.......do not apologize. I feel like some of the folks on these forums would fit into prewar Germany.....they would be very comfortable not questioning, and accepting absurd lies and concepts.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum