By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama, a liar and a bully, all in one press conference.

Kasz216 on 05 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.



Around the Network
txrattlesnake on 05 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:

Pie chart for the above statement... partly to make Vagabond laugh if he comes back.


So assuming 30% of those people who could own stock are all rich friends of his.

The common man still makes $2 to $1 for every dollar apparently made by these guys.

 

      I consider myself a common man and I'm pretty sure that for every $4+ I was putting in my gas tank a couple of years ago another $1 to $2 wasn't mysteriously appearing back in my wallet.

 

Ok.  Here is a question.  Do you know how buisnesses work? 

Here is a quick quiz.

What happens to profits companies make... do they

A) Get reinvested into the company... which raises the value of the stock.  Which raises the money the stock is worth.  Which raises the value of the people who own the stock.  (The majority of the stock being owned by common middle to lower class people.)

B) Put in a big vault for the CEO to swim in.

C) Thrown in a furnace as an alternitive fuel.

When Oil comapnies do better... common people benefit more in stock prices then rich people.   This is ignoring the fact that a lot of the individual investors are likely middle class guys too.

It's the risky stocks that the rich people make a killing on and raise the gini coeeficient on.  The stuff that has a 65% chance of success and quadrupling your money... but a 35% chance of causing you to lose all your invested money.  That's the kind of ventures that the middle class can't get in on cause they need that money.  Unlike the rich who can play it like a game of roulette.

 

      How much money per year are you saying middle class people make?  If you're including people that make over $250,000.00 a year as middle class, then you're actually excluding most Americans from the middle.



txrattlesnake on 05 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.

 

       I'm not lieing.  Obama himself said he plans to redistribute a percentage of the wealth of those making over $250,000.00 to benefit those making under $250,000.00 a year.  And, I'm all for that plan.



TheRealMafoo on 05 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

 

The Libertarian party is the only party with EVERYONE's interest at heart. (well, Libertarian ideals. Not sure about the party).

The poor are given less in a libertarian world, but that's because you are protecting everyone. Today, every dollar given to someone who did nothing to earn it, was taken from some one else.

Taking someone's money for the sole purpose of giving it to someone else, is the taking of ones liberties.

Anyone who is not a libertarian, is for sacrificing one demographic for the betterment of another. Our country was founded to prevent this sort of thing, not practice it.

And again, stop being a talking head of the DNC. The most progressive tax collection, was under Bush. The rich getting richer thing while the poor getting poorer thing was less under Bush then it was under Clinton, and all the presidents in the last 50 years.

Bush was a horrible president for many reasons. That's not one of them. It's just the propaganda used to persuade idiots. Don't fall for the propaganda, and look into it yourself.



Kasz216 on 05 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.

 

       I'm not lieing.  Obama himself said he plans to redistribute a percentage of the wealth of those making over $250,000.00 to benefit those making under $250,000.00 a year.  And, I'm all for that plan.

Bush didn't have a "rich get richer" policy.  Under him the gini policy didn't really move.  His policy created a "The rich and poor stay where they are."

He was better then Clionton and others who also had plans such as Obamas.  The trick is.. they never work out that way.

Taxes have done nothing but gotten more progressive since WW2 yet the gini coeefficent rises.  Do you know why?



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 05 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.

 

       I'm not lieing.  Obama himself said he plans to redistribute a percentage of the wealth of those making over $250,000.00 to benefit those making under $250,000.00 a year.  And, I'm all for that plan.

hahahaha.. Laughing at the "I'm not lieing. Obama himself said he plans to"

Even if he does give money to the poor, they are still poor. In fact, the more they become reliant on government, the more poor they get.

 



txrattlesnake on 05 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.

 

       I'm not lieing.  Obama himself said he plans to redistribute a percentage of the wealth of those making over $250,000.00 to benefit those making under $250,000.00 a year.  And, I'm all for that plan.

Bush didn't have a "rich get richer" policy.  Under him the gini policy didn't really move.  His policy created a "The rich and poor stay where they are."

He was better then Clionton and others who also had plans such as Obamas.  The trick is.. they never work out that way.

Taxes have done nothing but gotten more progressive since WW2 yet the gini coeefficent rises.  Do you know why?

     Exactly and such a policy really enabled the majority of poor people to have the opportunity to rise up and become wealthy didn't it?

 



txrattlesnake on 05 May 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
txrattlesnake said:
Kasz216 said:
txrattlesnake said:
I really don't think the Libertarian party has the interest of most Americans at heart, and from what I've seen most people attending tea parties are wasps.

I think this past election most people in America were so fed up with the rich get richer and the poor get poorer policy of the previous eight years that if only third parties were in the election, then the communist or a true socialist party would still have won.

Once again.  Not what happened.  Bush... best president at maintaining the Gini Coefficent since WW2.

Clinton, Bush Senior, Reagan, Kennedy etc... all had bigger "Rich get rich" policys.  It'd be nice if you stopped lieing.

Bush is one of my least favorite presidents.  But outright lieing to help your political point is unconsionable.

 

       I'm not lieing.  Obama himself said he plans to redistribute a percentage of the wealth of those making over $250,000.00 to benefit those making under $250,000.00 a year.  And, I'm all for that plan.

hahahaha.. Laughing at the "I'm not lieing. Obama himself said he plans to"

Even if he does give money to the poor, they are still poor. In fact, the more they become reliant on government, the more poor they get.

 

      That is one possible outcome.  Another is that by receiving more money and better public education and healthcare, then they would actually have better opportunities  to advance their positions in society and to have as much of a chance as becoming wealthy as anyone else.

 



TheRealMafoo on 05 May 2009
txrattlesnake said:

Exactly and such a policy really enabled the majority of poor people to have the opportunity to rise up and become wealthy didn't it?

 

This mentality really bothers me.

How poor you are in the US, has nothing to do with your ability to "rise up and become wealthy". The only thing that is needed, is some basic level of intelligence, motivation, and effort.

I have seen none of those qualities in you yet, so stop blaming government, gas money, not knowing how to ride a bike, a pain in your hip, your managers and there kids, and everyone else you can think of for your situation.

 

(I threw some excuses in from a past thread)



highwaystar101 on 05 May 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
txrattlesnake said:
TheRealMafoo said, "Please forgive that it’s Fox News,"

stopped reading right there.

 

Then you missed the fact that all I used from the story was two quotes. Obama either said them, or he didn't. There is no bias in the part of the story I extracted.

Only bias on your inability to read information and discern it's validity.

To be honest, when you see a couple of extracts like this it is often the case that they are taken out of context, especially when it is FOX lol. As Lionel Hutz in the Simpsons onec said

"There is the truth, and 'the truth'".

I coud make Halogamer look like an extreme republican hating liberal if I took a few of his quotes out of context.

 

anyways... I like libertarians, they seem to have the majorities interests in mind. USA could really do with a third party too.