One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: jack sequim wa
Page: <<prev 1 ... 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 ... 672 next>>
Mar 16, 2015 10:11:17   #
robert66 wrote:
Saying man is born of sin sounds like an excuse to do anything you want. "Oh lord forgive me for blocking food and shelter to children who will die as a result , I cannot help it because I was born of sin". Meanwhile the people who don't claim to be Christians help the kids.


http://www.christiantoday.com/article/new.research.suggests.religious.people.are.more.generous/37949.htm
Robert, that makes no sense even from your perspective. Christians in christ, don't seek to sin, under the cover of forgiveness. I'm pretty sure you know the response to your statement, and trying to argue. Common Robert. ...
Go to
Mar 16, 2015 08:43:02   #
PeterS wrote:
What does any of this have to do with individual rights not being subject to majority rule? You seem to be using a preponderance to ignore addressing the question I asked. If I start at the top with Ginsburg you are taking her out of context.

>>snip<<

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave a******n opponents a symbol to target.

"Ever since the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on a******n."

"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to a******n a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."

>>end<<

And I supposed to go down your list and try to sort out each one but why do so when you aren't even addressing the question(s) I asked. Like it or not RvW is the rule of law and unless you can come up with an argument why pregnancy negates a women's right to control their bodies you will never be able to get it over turned -- out of context preponderance or not...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_3261187.html
What does any of this have to do with individual r... (show quote)



Your best reply if your not even going to read the evidence may have been, you have lost interest in this topic, but to reply without is disingenuous.
Go to
Mar 16, 2015 08:40:43   #
PeterS wrote:
What does any of this have to do with individual rights not being subject to majority rule? You seem to be using a preponderance to ignore addressing the question I asked. If I start at the top with Ginsburg you are taking her out of context.

>>snip<<

Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave a******n opponents a symbol to target.

"Ever since the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on a******n."

"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to a******n a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."

>>end<<

And I supposed to go down your list and try to sort out each one but why do so when you aren't even addressing the question(s) I asked. Like it or not RvW is the rule of law and unless you can come up with an argument why pregnancy negates a women's right to control their bodies you will never be able to get it over turned -- out of context preponderance or not...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_3261187.html
What does any of this have to do with individual r... (show quote)


The progressives behind closed doors Jammed obamacare, not one gop even had the chance to up or down v**e, is that right too?
My point is an unjust law is no law at all, so now Americans are stuck with it. Only the insane would be proud and supportive of such laws that an overwhelming amount of Americans are against
Go to
Mar 16, 2015 05:03:26   #
Ricktloml wrote:
From The Canada Free Press- Alan Caruba

There is something sickening about Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Ca), and others try to stick President Bush and the Republicans with the blame for the financial meltdown that has put the American taxpayer on the hook for the problem they created.
One need only read the New York Times Sept. 30,1999 article by Steven A Holmes, headlined "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending." Only it didn't aid anything. Instead it abandoned rational, prudent, established guidelines for lending: not the least of which is that you don't make loans to people who are unlikely to repay them.
"IN a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corp. is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."
Holmes reported that "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain it's growth on profits."
The man in charge of Fannie Mae, in 1999 was Franklin D. Raines, a name that has come up in connection with Sen. Barack Obama as an "advisor" on housing issues. Another former Fannie Mae CEO, Tom Johnson, lead Obama's vice president search team.
In 2008, after a civil suit revealed that Raines had "manipulated earnings over a 6-year period" with two others to enrich themselves. Raines agreed to pay $24.7 million, including a $2 million fine. IN addition, he also gave up company stock options valued at $15.6 million. Between 1998-2004, according to a New York Times article, Raines and two others pocketed "hundreds of millions in bonuses."
This makes the political campaign funding Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac gave Sen. Obama more shocking given the fact that he reaped more than any other politician, $42,116 for every year he was in the Senate. It is worth asking why Sen. Obama received roughly four times more money than any other politician during the four years he was in the Senate. Sen. Obama's close ties to both Raines and Johnson are being largely ignored by the media as efforts are being made to make it appear that this is a Bush scandal. It isn't.
In 1999, Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, predicted that, "If they (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry." If you believe the media, however, you would think this was the fault of the banking and investment communities, but both were responding to significant changes in loan arrangements introduced in the Clinton administration.
AS the 1999 New York Times article noted, "By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings."
This was clearly a political ploy to secure the v**es of B****s and Hispanics by deliberately lowering loan requirements. Banks and mortgage loan companies were required to show that they had made these bad loans, thus undermining the stability of the entire financial network.
Why Sen. John McCain is not shouting this from the rooftops is another one of those campaign mysteries, but it is undeniable ans is just one more reason why neither Sen.Obama nor his fellow Democrats should be allowed to retain control of Congress and potentially the White House.
The bailout is necessary to restore the confidence in the nation's banking and investment communities, but it started well before the Bush administration and is grounds by itself to remove all those associated with it from public office. That can be done on e******n day.

So tell us again how this is all Bush's fault. The reason anyone thinks that it is, is because the collaborative media covered for Obama and the Democrats, as they continue to do to this day
From The Canada Free Press- Alan Caruba br br T... (show quote)





BUSH ASK DEMOCRATS (CONGRESS) FOR REG''S

Office of the Press Secretary
October 9, 2008

Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform 
The Washington Times Fails To Research The Administration's Efforts To Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac


  White House News 

      Setting the Record Straight 
      In Focus: Economy 

Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late.  "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade."  (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/08)

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.  In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs.  Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

2001

April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."  (2002 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. 

September: Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."  (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times

October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."  (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)

November: Then-Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."  To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11*6/03)

2004

February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital and calls for creation of a new, world-class regulator:  "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore … should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator."  (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: Then-CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted."  Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."  (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order,"Financial Times

April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue."  At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages.  I don't think we are in any remote danger here.  This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there."  ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker

June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.  Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs:  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System."  (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

2005

April: Then-Secretary Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have t***spired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America … Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system."  (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International

2007

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions.  Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options."  (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, the White House, 8/9/07)

August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position.  (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly.  So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission.  The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start.  But the Senate has not acted.  And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon."  (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, the White House, 12/6/07)

2008

February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully."  (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. 
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.  Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes.  And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator."  (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans."  (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."  (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform legislation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years."  (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg

 # # #

Printer-Friendly Version   Email This Page
Go to
Mar 16, 2015 03:47:38   #
She Wolf wrote:
My God does not have a chosen people. All people are held in the same regard. So the concept is foreign to me. If one group of people,by nothing more than the virtue of their birth, are the chosen people of a God, why would anyone else worship that God? Does it not stand to reason that the commandments are meant for the chosen people?

There are other faiths other than Christianity or the Jewish faith. I feel since most of the doctrines have more in common then different, interpretation could be the problem. I look at all faiths as roads to God. As more than one highway reaches the same city, more than one religion brings you closer to God.

I believe God tries to communicate with each group of people on a level they can comprehend. The Bible, the Torah, or other religions' holy books are God's word to those people. My holy books are God's word to my people. If you compare them, most have the same basic rules. It is when man tries to interpret that the problems begin.
My God does not have a chosen people. All people ... (show quote)



The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob says different,

http://davidsonpress.com/salvation/salvation2.htm
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 20:16:19   #
Mel Havener wrote:
Dear Rev Graham,
Sir, I so much want to help and do more for our country and feel your Father and your self is/was our last hope. Please, please tell me as an induvadul of what more I can do to assist you in your efforts?
I want to do more with the time I have left. I have lived a great life and feel it will not now be here for my kids.
Thank you and god bless you for your efforts.
With much love and respect
1-239-481-5768
dfpole56@aol.com Mel Havener
Dear Rev Graham, br Sir, I so much want to help a... (show quote)




I'm not Rev Graham, but if I were I think he would give you this link

http://gracethrufaith.com/end-times-prophecy/occupy-come/

God Bless,
Jack
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 18:11:41   #
hejohnson43 wrote:
You are right about Jew's turning in Jew's, but it was not only in Germany. I think one of the most famous is "George Soros". I can't believe that they even let him call himself a Jew.



The icon of the progressives, how sad.
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 11:47:39   #
Iggy Rat wrote:
exactly right. but, why ask "how"? since this is clearly the case, why is anyone continuing to fight by the rules? obviously, the system has been coopted. let us elect another one. we have no other options available to us. right?



Haven't seen you around for a while, how goes thing's?

Yes, it's that obvious! !! Last years, months, weeks, yesterday's news. Groundhogs day, with the administration and it's arms of influence, czars.
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 11:42:44   #
Dummy Boy wrote:
Where do you get this data? I would like the link or however it's provided.




No problem here is the link. .

http://www.prophecyupdate.com/prophecy-update-newsletter.html
Go to
Mar 15, 2015 04:17:31   #
[quo newste=robert66]Thank you. These links show what everyone already knows. Fox gets high ratings as an individual station and thank god it's only 28%. That says nothing as to accuracy or t***h. That basically leaves 72% that at least have some interest in reality. The only reason it wins as an individual station is that the close minded grouchy old farts are too narrow minded to consider anything that doesn't agree with what they want to believe. T***h is not important. Listening to someone that caters directly to their bias is. If you notice the rest of the populous listens to more than one source. Does it strike you as odd that one source says one thing on a subject while several others seem to have some agreement on the same subject but with a totally different take ? It probably doesn't because if you believe things in the Bible literally, you have a tendency to believe fantasy. I know that not every bibe toter thinks that way and I also know that a lot of them pretend to buy it to stay in the club to keep their connections to money and such. Since I know that I can't break through to you I will say that I don't think you really do buy all that bible stuff and just like the dishonest tea bag politicians you cannot publically admit that you know a bunch of the bulls**t on OPP and on Fox news about Obama is not true. You cannot admit reality because you have to say the dumb s**t or your out of the club. You lump yourself into a group of dummies who actually do belive the ridiculous crap just to be in the group. It's not about the t***h at all.[/quote]

Actually I like being informed on national and international events, network news is not my sources. It's one thing to listen or read news, and pass it along, but when forming opinions in order to be t***hful to one's self, wisdom dictates a bit of research. That doesn't mean watching something on msnbc, and then verified with mother Jones, or fox news, and townhall.
For example what is the real unemployment rate?
Fox news says xyz, where did fox get there info.?..government website BLS, where does the government BLS get there info? Surveys. How do they conduct their surveys, or methodology? Where can I find supportive evidence that BLS is accurate? Market business reports, other government website, of outside government entity's, state websites reporting avaliable jobs month to month, and states unemployment numbers, and so on. My conclusion, the numbers lie. I'm not going to claim I spend that effort on every topic, however over the years I have formed beliefs, view points that I have confidence in what the t***h is.
Same for my beliefs in God . Right now I'm looking into the last decade, and recent years of spiritual event's, spirit demonic possession, and verification. In Indiana a woman with three children, had a child on all fours walk up a wall, upside down on the ceiling, verified by pokice, child services, and a priest. These events have for some reason started popping up all over America and the world. My point in learning the t***h of genuine verification ( which their appears to be genuine) is the problem it would cause an atheist in debating the after life, a creator. I know from a biblical view, but seek hard facts of verification. I am to understand it exist, but again need to research, so I'll hold t***hs, not stories or opinions.
My point is very few on OPP know if what they believe is actually the t***h, factually.
Another example was watching every second of the travon Martin case, then finding information about the youths not shown during the trial ect.
I'm betting you don't even take the time and effort to dig deep and rely on your most "trusted" news source.
Go to
Mar 14, 2015 22:51:38   #
moldyoldy wrote:
And with fracking, more and more earthquakes, until we stop emptying out what is under us.


The earthquakes that are making historic noise are 5.0 and above, worldwide. The Fracking shakers are not even mentioned in the data.

I receive a new list 7 days a week of data, here is Fridays, 13th 2015 a quite day, notice only 5.0 or above

Sun Triggers Radio Blackout After Monster X-Class Flare

5.3 magnitude earthquake hits near False Pass, Alaska

5.2 magnitude earthquake hits near Yigo Mayor's Office, Guam

5.1 magnitude earthquake hits near Yigo Mayor's Office, Guam

5.1 magnitude earthquake hits near Namie, Japan

5.0 magnitude earthquake hits near Yigo Mayor's Office, Guam

5.0 magnitude earthquake hits the Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Turrialba volcano in Costa Rica erupts to 25,000ft

Costa Rica volcano spews ash in most powerful eruption in 20 years 

Volcanic ash closes Costa Rica's Juan Santamaria International Airport

Colima volcano in Mexico erupts to 22,000ft

Fuego volcano in Guatemala erupts to 15,000ft

Dukono volcano in Indonesia erupts to 13,000ft

More giant craters spotted in Russia's far north

Tropical Cyclone Pam becomes Category 5 storm, menaces Vanuatu

New Zealand, Fiji Brace for Tropical Cyclone Pam's Wrath

Western Australia prepares for impact of Tropical Cyclone Olwyn

Cyclone Bavi brewing, moving to Philippines

Angola floods k**l at least 35 children and 27 adults

"Very unusual" snowfall in Mexico

Northeast Storm to Raise Flooding Risk, Bring Wintry Travel
Go to
Mar 14, 2015 22:23:08   #
robert66 wrote:
What poll says Fox is more reliable? One that Fox did ?


Here are two links, and there are many more

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

http://nypost.com/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-news-network-poll/
Go to
Mar 14, 2015 20:15:33   #
robert66 wrote:
I have a hard time with someone saying that any source is less credible than Fox news. I don't watch news on MSNBC because it's pretty much the same type of programming as Fox. However MSNBC does have other programming like prison documentaries or crime stories. Fox has none of this , it's 24/7 f $#k Obama and anyone that supports him. They have like 10 minutes an hour of reporting , the rest is completely slanted , if not outright falsification , so ridiculously biased that if you believed them the world would end tommorow. They also run radio programming that is even worse , 24/7. If you search Internet news for information, if you go beyond a major well known source it's slanted for wh**ever you want to hear right or left. Never read one side without the other or you will not be informed at all and sometimes I think that is not accurate when the two sides differ too much. When you read that over 50% of Fox viewers believe the president is not a US citizen, you realize how uniformed they are.
I have a hard time with someone saying that any so... (show quote)



Well, he has yet to prove he is. I think he may be a citizen, but he is hiding something, what?
All the polls show fox is most reliable. A.m. is news, p.m. is combination news and opionion. Your view of Fox is not based on fact, but I won't argue that their the best of the worst....I can't blame fox for 24/7 bashing obama, seems as if everyday he does something more to damage America.
Go to
Mar 14, 2015 18:09:43   #
robert66 wrote:
I'm going to sound like a broken record here so I apologize for that. Try finding yourself some more objective sources for information. That social contract link you posted is not objective at all and only has very conservative viewpoints on everything they publish. Do you have any idea how close your ideas are to the president's. You could nearly be copying his plans word for word. Try actually listening to the guy without the interference of some talking head on Fox news. I listened to the speech and read it later concerning the so called amnesty so I could make my own opinion. I think I may have noticed a hint that Obama took the work requirement out of welfare programs. He didn't. He allowed the states to change the programs for their own place. That's what all the conservatives want, more states rights, and they got it. If the work requirement is gone the individual state made it that way.
I'm going to sound like a broken record here so I ... (show quote)



Currently all state programs (that I am aware of) get their funding from the feds, and there is nothing in place to control the hand outs, so long as the feds fund, the states have no incentive to place "REAL" controls.
Let's be honest ( majority not all, emphasis majority) liberal media viewpoints are extremely bias in viewpoint, in many areas the only way to piece information together for t***hs is to include conservative viewpoints.
Example: turn on cspan and watch a debate on tough issue's, then turn on MSNBC (which I do) and watch them use out of context sound bites, twist and lie to the extreme, CNN not to bad, but more twisting with omission, Fox, more reporting, less opinion ( unless your watching orielly, which is more opionion) and yes they lean right, but not blanton fabricated lies such as MSNBC, NBC, CBS. In these days we live in we need to include all sources to be informed.
Go to
Mar 14, 2015 17:53:53   #
robert66 wrote:
Drive around by my house in the fall and see who is working in the fields, all Mexicans. I never see a white guy out there unless he in a truck or operating equipment. Where have you been ? You don't know this is how it works. Is Obama k*****g off unions or is that the sleazy ass right wingers who do anything for their masters, the highest bidder. The stupid asses in the south buy into the bad union baloney and then get paid less. Scummy teabag politicians blame Obama for low wages while destroying the mechanism that allowed workers to get a fair wage to begin with.You show your weakness by using the parroted term , class warfare, instead of having your own ideas. There is class warfare and anyone below the high class is losing big time. The reasons are break the unions and keep your tax rate low. If the government doesn’t make it lower you move your operation overseas. Pay attention numbskull, they weren't losing money they just want to make their profit percentage higher. Notice the word profit. These companies were and are profiting but it's never enough. Their profits go up ,wages do not. What's wrong with that picture ? It actually makes a good argument for socialism. Fox news is not public education it's de-education and apparently if you're conservative you are required to worship it with no questions. Free enterprise does not work without being regulated. Not for everyone anyway, just for people who are already wealthy. Think about it . Who do the richest people and corporations want you to v**e for ? It's not the democrats. I'm not sure what Fox news is saying about the huge gap between rich and poor but the rest of the world thinks it's a problem and it does threaten our country.
Drive around by my house in the fall and see who i... (show quote)



So your talking about a pocket area of the country. That is not representative of nation wide, is it? Washington and oregon has agriculture, apples, potatoes, wine, wheat , and all kinds of other food stuffs, in addition to cattle, fishing, being of an explorer type nature, I have either worked, played, explored every corner of Montana, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, California, Idaho, some Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and Hawaiian Islands. I can say with some amount a certainly that i******s working in these fields are in pockets of the country, more so in California.
I also see in the Northwest higher percentage of i******s working in the hospitality industry, and those are lost jobs to native born. So I would say your both right and wrong.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 ... 672 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.