planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:12 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules






Post new topic Reply to topic

Obama rate his presidency.
A 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
B 48%  48%  [ 12 ]
C 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
D 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
F 16%  16%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 25
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
I bet 3/4 of the people speaking on this subject do even call themselves Americans. How can you have even vote for something you know so little about?


Although I am certainly quite not knowledgable on the subject, I most probably still know more about American political situation than quite some Americans. If nothing else, at least I can correctly identify Joe Biden as the current Vice President, something almost 1/3 of Americans could not when asked to take a simple citizenship test. Just being American, or having the feelings of patriotism, is not any given guaranty to be automatically more knowledgeable on the subject of the US Presidency and the politics there than anybody else who may happen to not call him/herself American. Look, for example, you did not know about the unemployment rates in the USA and you wrongly took for factual something that was a complete hoax. Were you to happen to watch John Steward show, you would know it as he was exposing anti-Obama propaganda lies of Fox-news in that particular regard.

In any case, this is rather the international forum and the poll and the OP was oriented to it in that way.

------------
A little anecdote on this same note:

On one of my trips to Vegas, I had enough of the Strip and the casinos and all that, so I decided to rent a car for a few days and rather explore the scenaries outside of the city. And the guy asked me for a driving licence, which I showed up, on his surprise, "Oh, it's not american... then I will need your passport too". I showed that one, asking him, "But couldn't you notice from my accent that I was not an American?" (English not even being my first language), on what he replied, "Oh, you speak English better than many Americans around here".


OK, what does knowing the name of the VP have to do with this subject?

It's sad that so many of my countrymen don't know who the VP is and I'll discuss that as well, if you'd like. We are talking about whether or not you think (or anybody voting here) Obama has done a good job.

What makes America so great is that we've allowed just about everyone to come here and enjoy the freedoms we so cherish. I work with people everyday that English isn't their first language, so what.

I realize that this is an international webpage and forum, hell, I get inquiries from South Africa all the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
HawaiiF1Fan wrote:


I'll also add that despite many promises to the contrary, Obama has used more Executive Orders (now called "Memos") to bypass Congress than any President since Carter(?).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /20191805/


Interestingly, according to this site...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Obama has issued a total of 198 Executive Orders in his two terms thus far.

Which is nearly 100 less than George W's 291 Executive Orders

166 less than Bill Clinton's.

30 more than George Bush 1

and a whopping 190 less than Ronald Reagan.


Care to revist your claim, Hawaii?

IF we want to go back before the line you drew ... Carter (320).... Geral Ford (169) in a partial term, Richard Nixon (346), Lyndon Johnson (325), JFK (214), Dwight Eisenhower (484)... and those were at a time when there was a symblance of a bi-partisan congress.


Memorandums are not Executive Orders. And... as Prema has pointed out, the party of "No" has done every thing possible to block whatever he has tried to do. Name ANY of the presidents who started their term with the Senate Minority Leader (now Majority leader) saying that his "job" was to block everything Obama tried to do. The Party of Obstructionism has forced many of these actions on Obama, and NOW they claim that they want to work in a Bi-Partisan way... ie want the Dems to support their measures. Bullsh*t.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Last edited by Blake on Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5233
Steve C, from what we see in the UK, Obama has been up against a lot of opposition inside congress, which has been mentioned by a few posters here including a knowledgeable American whom I generally trust the opinions of. Whether this is because of race, money or political agendas we may never know, but here in Europe Obama is seen as a good world leader, just as I said we're not overly privy to what the situation is like on your home soil.

In contrast, George W Bush was seen as almost a danger to the world because of a lot of his foreign policies.

The.only reason I mention these things and am curious as to what you think and asked to elaborate on is that throughout most of Europe and even in the US, this seems to be what people think except for republican voters. Now my opinion or observations of this may be wrong, but this is why I would like to know how you feel about his policies whether they got passed in congress or not and also why congress seem so determined to stop every change he wants to make as every turn.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:
I bet 3/4 of the people speaking on this subject do even call themselves Americans. How can you have even vote for something you know so little about?


I am sure it less than 3/4 ... As for voting for something they know little about.... well, that happens here in the US every election. I am not proud of it, but only a fool could deny that it happens. I live in a state where they only thing most of the voters need to know is what letter is behind the name on the ballot. If it is an "R", then they get the vote. Hell, there was even an effort at one time to arrange it so a voter could just vote straight party line, not even have to look at names on the ballot..just click the "R" or the "D" on page one of the ballot and turn it in. How damn lazy and ignorant would that be???

Personally, I am all for getting rid of both parties... damn, all parties, and make the candidates create their own platform, and "sell" themselves to the people without outside money coming in to support their campaign, no PACs, no National party money, no Corporate money, no International money affecting our elections.

Then... just maybe, our voters will know what the candidate stands for, not what he is TOLD that he stands for if he wants to get elected.
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:

OK, what does knowing the name of the VP have to do with this subject?


The example of almost 1/3 of Americans not being able to identify their VP was to illustrate the absence of even the absolutely most basic knowledge of political life in the USA in that portion of population. To be able to rate the job of the President, it would require a bit of interest in the politics. But not being even able to answer the question on who is his VP, shows the absence of such. So that was the point, without to go much further.

So you seem to think that Americans who may not know even who is Obama's VP, that they certainly know what his policies are all about? What about 'Obamacare' then? That one should matter, no?

Political ignorance in America is deep and widespread. The current government shutdown fight provides some good examples. Although Obamacare is at the center of that fight and much other recent political controversy, 44% percent of the public do not even realize it is still the law. Some 80 percent, according to a recent Kaiser survey, say they have heard “nothing at all” or “only a little” about the controversial insurance exchanges that are a major part of the law.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/11/ ... -ignorance

Now, this is not meant to be the criticism of Americans, as such is to be found in other countries as well, that many people are simply uninterested and even don't have much of a clue of what is going on in their countries' political arenas. Give them sports and bear and food on the table, and you are their "President". But it is just to say that being an American is not necessarily the overriding qualification when to rate the sitting President/Administration that in particular is not only of a domestic, but the international great importance and relevance.

Quote:
What makes America so great is that we've allowed just about everyone to come here and enjoy the freedoms we so cherish. I work with people everyday that English isn't their first language, so what.


(Guess, those vigilantly militia members patrolling the border towards Mexico are the members of the welcoming committee)

Now, we know that what you are saying is not entirely the truth. Ask those that are called there 'aliens'. Obama has been just criticized for issuing executive orders/presidential memorandums, thus being depicted as a dictator. So what some of those executive orders from the side of the alleged destroyer of American Freedom and Constitution, that his opponents from the right wing have been so upset about, were?

In a speech last night, President Barack Obama announced a series of executive orders that will protect up to 5 million undocumented persons from deportation.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-ob ... rder-legal


"What a total joke our president is", says you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
I bet 3/4 of the people speaking on this subject do even call themselves Americans. How can you have even vote for something you know so little about?


I am sure it less than 3/4 ... As for voting for something they know little about.... well, that happens here in the US every election. I am not proud of it, but only a fool could deny that it happens. I live in a state where they only thing most of the voters need to know is what letter is behind the name on the ballot. If it is an "R", then they get the vote. Hell, there was even an effort at one time to arrange it so a voter could just vote straight party line, not even have to look at names on the ballot..just click the "R" or the "D" on page one of the ballot and turn it in. How damn lazy and ignorant would that be???

Personally, I am all for getting rid of both parties... damn, all parties, and make the candidates create their own platform, and "sell" themselves to the people without outside money coming in to support their campaign, no PACs, no National party money, no Corporate money, no International money affecting our elections.

Then... just maybe, our voters will know what the candidate stands for, not what he is TOLD that he stands for if he wants to get elected.
:nod:


Blake, you've describe the left in our country to a tee. We, the right, wanted to do away with Rs and Ds and it was the low information voters that screamed the most.

We cannot do anything about apathy, people are going to be lazy but I've always said, if you're getting welfare then you don't get to vote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:

OK, what does knowing the name of the VP have to do with this subject?


The example of almost 1/3 of Americans not being able to identify their VP was to illustrate the absence of even the absolutely most basic knowledge of political life in the USA in that portion of population. To be able to rate the job of the President, it would require a bit of interest in the politics. But not being even able to answer the question on who is his VP, shows the absence of such. So that was the point, without to go much further.

So you seem to think that Americans who may not know even who is Obama's VP, that they certainly know what his policies are all about? What about 'Obamacare' then? That one should matter, no?

Political ignorance in America is deep and widespread. The current government shutdown fight provides some good examples. Although Obamacare is at the center of that fight and much other recent political controversy, 44% percent of the public do not even realize it is still the law. Some 80 percent, according to a recent Kaiser survey, say they have heard “nothing at all” or “only a little” about the controversial insurance exchanges that are a major part of the law.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/11/ ... -ignorance

Now, this is not meant to be the criticism of Americans, as such is to be found in other countries as well, that many people are simply uninterested and even don't have much of a clue of what is going on in their countries' political arenas. Give them sports and bear and food on the table, and you are their "President". But it is just to say that being an American is not necessarily the overriding qualification when to rate the sitting President/Administration that in particular is not only of a domestic, but the international great importance and relevance.

Quote:
What makes America so great is that we've allowed just about everyone to come here and enjoy the freedoms we so cherish. I work with people everyday that English isn't their first language, so what.


(Guess, those vigilantly militia members patrolling the border towards Mexico are the members of the welcoming committee)

Now, we know that what you are saying is not entirely the truth. Ask those that are called there 'aliens'. Obama has been just criticized for issuing executive orders/presidential memorandums, thus being depicted as a dictator. So what some of those executive orders from the side of the alleged destroyer of American Freedom and Constitution, that his opponents from the right wing have been so upset about, were?

In a speech last night, President Barack Obama announced a series of executive orders that will protect up to 5 million undocumented persons from deportation.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-ob ... rder-legal


"What a total joke our president is", says you.


Prema, I'm not really sure what you're problem is. This is a motosports forum and it's an international one at that. Why was this question asked here? What business on this forum does it have to be here?

OK, so, with his speech last night, are you telling me that what he said is good, about the protection of the 5 million from deportation? Is this a good thing for him to do?

OK, you're showing your colors, which is ok with me. Our borders should be closed except for those who follow the rules to get in. You see, I believe that we are the most open society on the planet but there are rules to get in. You believe in rules, right? We cannot (although some say we should) send all the illegals home but we can find out who they are and make sure they get punished (mostly by paying a fine(s)). America is in a world of hurt and we cannot afford to take care of everyone anymore.

You may not like our Constitution but it is ours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
he gets an F. I voted for him twice.
Taxes are out of control, most business keep money overseas due to tax code.

Plus I am still listening to him say "if you want to keep your doctor you can, you want to keep your health plan you can" That was a LIE and he know it but he said anything just to get elected and thats where he lost me.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
What a righteous comment that is. "If your getting welfare then you don't get to vote"?????? So some person suffering from a handicap and receiving welfare cannot vote ? I am apalled at the very idea of that. Thank God you are not in a position to force your views.

Are you going to apply that to our soldiers who have come home injured and/or disabled, no help for them either. That would be welfare. What about the farmers who have been getting subsidies for decades, can they vote? That would be welfare. What about the energy companies who have been taking subsidies to build new refineries for decades and our newest refinery was built in 1976? Do they have a say?.... you damn right they do, they have been dictating terms for ages. That may not be welfare, just outright theft would be a better term.

Do you have kids, steve. Do they eat the school lunches? Do they maybe even get lunch cards from the school? Subsidies allow for much of that, especially if it is a poor school district... a form of welfare.

What about you, steve? Ever been out of work and had to draw unemployment? Probably not, neither have I, but I have acquaintances who have found their jobs shipped over seas, or during the economic recession jobs just eliminated as companies cut back. People who have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time have found themselves out of work, struggling to find a job to support their families and in need of help. What would you do for them? Well, we know you won't let them vote, so I guess they will have to choose between keeping their right to vote and starving, or taking some welfare (which their previous taxes help pay for) and not being able to vote for having done so. Seriously?

I am sorry, steve, but I feel that we have an obligation to help those in need of help, be it health or other issues. I won't apologize for that belief. I am not a wealthy man, maybe because I have tried to help others when I could have taken the extremist "tough sh*t" selfish viewpoint. Call it liberal, call it foolish or whatever you will, but I really do believe that a country has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves... and yes, they should be allowed to vote, after all, we let those who want to take their vote away vote... what makes you so much better than someone on welfare? It may be no more than being born into the right family.

Please, Steve... tell me when the "right" who you speak for apparently, has wanted to do away with the Republican and Democratic parties.... I have never heard of it, but then what do I know? When was this and in what way did "low information voters" scream the most about it?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
I agree with Blake, saying you get help then you can't vote is a terrible position to take. We are a nation of people that help others, food stamps, unemployment and welfare are social programs that help our people and should be maintained at all costs.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
he gets an F. I voted for him twice.
Taxes are out of control, most business keep money overseas due to tax code.

Plus I am still listening to him say "if you want to keep your doctor you can, you want to keep your health plan you can" That was a LIE and he know it but he said anything just to get elected and thats where he lost me.


My friend, and yes, even though we are so much polar opposites on politics we have been friends for a long time... I fully expected you to join in at some point.
:nod:

I agree that taxes are out of control. Why is that? They were out of control before this President. Yes, money is being kept overseas (secreted, hidden), as much out of greed as opposition to a percieved unfair "corporate tax rate". Close loopholes that corporations and the top very few percent of earners use to avoid paying the taxes that most of the country does and then maybe lower corporate taxes would get greater support. We have learned the hard way that "trickle down economics" does not trickle down very damn far. Never has, never will. I know a company that has double in annual revenue, reduced staff by nearly 40%, and the workers have not gotten a raise in 5 years...... but the top management has done very well to say the least. This is what happens all too often with "trickle down", it gets absorbed by the top and the middle class just keeps disappearing.

If you could give me proof that by reducing our corporate income tax rate by even 20% would dramatically cut back on money being hidden off-shore, would bring a wealth of well-paying (as opposed to minimum wage) jobs, and stop jobs from being shipped overseas, I will stand by your side and scream to the rooftops for lowering that rate. But, Astoria, you know that won't happen, and so do most of the voters, I suspect.

Catch ya later, gotta head out.
:-P

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I agree with Blake, saying you get help then you can't vote is a terrible position to take. We are a nation of people that help others, food stamps, unemployment and welfare are social programs that help our people and should be maintained at all costs.


I knew there was a reason we have remainded friends! You do have a heart!
:nod:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
What a righteous comment that is. "If your getting welfare then you don't get to vote"?????? So some person suffering from a handicap and receiving welfare cannot vote ? I am apalled at the very idea of that. Thank God you are not in a position to force your views.

Are you going to apply that to our soldiers who have come home injured and/or disabled, no help for them either. That would be welfare. What about the farmers who have been getting subsidies for decades, can they vote? That would be welfare. What about the energy companies who have been taking subsidies to build new refineries for decades and our newest refinery was built in 1976? Do they have a say?.... you damn right they do, they have been dictating terms for ages. That may not be welfare, just outright theft would be a better term.

Do you have kids, steve. Do they eat the school lunches? Do they maybe even get lunch cards from the school? Subsidies allow for much of that, especially if it is a poor school district... a form of welfare.

What about you, steve? Ever been out of work and had to draw unemployment? Probably not, neither have I, but I have acquaintances who have found their jobs shipped over seas, or during the economic recession jobs just eliminated as companies cut back. People who have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time have found themselves out of work, struggling to find a job to support their families and in need of help. What would you do for them? Well, we know you won't let them vote, so I guess they will have to choose between keeping their right to vote and starving, or taking some welfare (which their previous taxes help pay for) and not being able to vote for having done so. Seriously?

I am sorry, steve, but I feel that we have an obligation to help those in need of help, be it health or other issues. I won't apologize for that belief. I am not a wealthy man, maybe because I have tried to help others when I could have taken the extremist "tough sh*t" selfish viewpoint. Call it liberal, call it foolish or whatever you will, but I really do believe that a country has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves... and yes, they should be allowed to vote, after all, we let those who want to take their vote away vote... what makes you so much better than someone on welfare? It may be no more than being born into the right family.

Please, Steve... tell me when the "right" who you speak for apparently, has wanted to do away with the Republican and Democratic parties.... I have never heard of it, but then what do I know? When was this and in what way did "low information voters" scream the most about it?


Welfare is a bitch and should be a last resort. I feel the need to help those who are truly in need and I do by many different agencies but I am taxed enough. I grew up watching families getting free lunches while getting dropped off at school in a brand new Cadillac. Is that fair that my parents worked hard to make it and others who did not get free stuff. This is a generational thing. Too many people believe we owe them something, it has to stop SO I stand by what I've said and many others do as well.

How will people get out of this hole they're in if we keep giving them things? Many many people need to get off.

I didn't say anything about being handicapped and it shows me a lot about you that you would read that into it. You know damn well what I mean, do play dumb with me. This is a long battle we've had.

I can fix this, BTW.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
he gets an F. I voted for him twice.
Taxes are out of control, most business keep money overseas due to tax code.

Plus I am still listening to him say "if you want to keep your doctor you can, you want to keep your health plan you can" That was a LIE and he know it but he said anything just to get elected and thats where he lost me.


My friend, and yes, even though we are so much polar opposites on politics we have been friends for a long time... I fully expected you to join in at some point.
:nod:

I agree that taxes are out of control. Why is that? They were out of control before this President. Yes, money is being kept overseas (secreted, hidden), as much out of greed as opposition to a percieved unfair "corporate tax rate". Close loopholes that corporations and the top very few percent of earners use to avoid paying the taxes that most of the country does and then maybe lower corporate taxes would get greater support. We have learned the hard way that "trickle down economics" does not trickle down very damn far. Never has, never will. I know a company that has double in annual revenue, reduced staff by nearly 40%, and the workers have not gotten a raise in 5 years...... but the top management has done very well to say the least. This is what happens all too often with "trickle down", it gets absorbed by the top and the middle class just keeps disappearing.

If you could give me proof that by reducing our corporate income tax rate by even 20% would dramatically cut back on money being hidden off-shore, would bring a wealth of well-paying (as opposed to minimum wage) jobs, and stop jobs from being shipped overseas, I will stand by your side and scream to the rooftops for lowering that rate. But, Astoria, you know that won't happen, and so do most of the voters, I suspect.

Catch ya later, gotta head out.
:-P


Blake, our corporations here in the States don't want to leave here. They know where the money is. Our corporate tax rate is the highest or near the highest on the planet. If you want jobs to stay here, slash their rates. It has happened before and will happen again.

How much of my hard earned money should I be allowed to keep? This is a question I always ask anyone who talks taxes and most are amazed at who pays the taxes in this country.

I also love reading anything about the minimum wage. What should it be in Blake's world? Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
Blake yes you know that I am liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, that is just my NYC upbringing. I agree with most of what you say socially, economically I can't support your position :)

If you know how much tax I pay annually it will make you ill. I don't complain about it, its part of being here and living in this great country

If it wasn't for these people taking risks to better themselves and the country where would we be?

Remember Andrew Carnegie around 1900 was the richest man in the world, he funded the public library system in the US, he just stroked a check and it was done. Today with taxes a man like that can't do these things.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7543
Steve C wrote:
Blake wrote:
What a righteous comment that is. "If your getting welfare then you don't get to vote"?????? So some person suffering from a handicap and receiving welfare cannot vote ? I am apalled at the very idea of that. Thank God you are not in a position to force your views.

Are you going to apply that to our soldiers who have come home injured and/or disabled, no help for them either. That would be welfare. What about the farmers who have been getting subsidies for decades, can they vote? That would be welfare. What about the energy companies who have been taking subsidies to build new refineries for decades and our newest refinery was built in 1976? Do they have a say?.... you damn right they do, they have been dictating terms for ages. That may not be welfare, just outright theft would be a better term.

Do you have kids, steve. Do they eat the school lunches? Do they maybe even get lunch cards from the school? Subsidies allow for much of that, especially if it is a poor school district... a form of welfare.

What about you, steve? Ever been out of work and had to draw unemployment? Probably not, neither have I, but I have acquaintances who have found their jobs shipped over seas, or during the economic recession jobs just eliminated as companies cut back. People who have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time have found themselves out of work, struggling to find a job to support their families and in need of help. What would you do for them? Well, we know you won't let them vote, so I guess they will have to choose between keeping their right to vote and starving, or taking some welfare (which their previous taxes help pay for) and not being able to vote for having done so. Seriously?

I am sorry, steve, but I feel that we have an obligation to help those in need of help, be it health or other issues. I won't apologize for that belief. I am not a wealthy man, maybe because I have tried to help others when I could have taken the extremist "tough sh*t" selfish viewpoint. Call it liberal, call it foolish or whatever you will, but I really do believe that a country has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves... and yes, they should be allowed to vote, after all, we let those who want to take their vote away vote... what makes you so much better than someone on welfare? It may be no more than being born into the right family.

Please, Steve... tell me when the "right" who you speak for apparently, has wanted to do away with the Republican and Democratic parties.... I have never heard of it, but then what do I know? When was this and in what way did "low information voters" scream the most about it?


Welfare is a bitch and should be a last resort. I feel the need to help those who are truly in need and I do by many different agencies but I am taxed enough. I grew up watching families getting free lunches while getting dropped off at school in a brand new Cadillac. Is that fair that my parents worked hard to make it and others who did not get free stuff. This is a generational thing. Too many people believe we owe them something, it has to stop SO I stand by what I've said and many others do as well.

How will people get out of this hole they're in if we keep giving them things? Many many people need to get off.

I didn't say anything about being handicapped and it shows me a lot about you that you would read that into it. You know damn well what I mean, do play dumb with me. This is a long battle we've had.

I can fix this, BTW.

What you say here sounds more like tightening the restrictions on who gets welfare, to avoid people taking advantage of the system.

We have similar problems here in the UK, but surely this is an issue of who gets welfare, stopping anyone who receives welfare from voting isn't the answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
OH, please tell me who pays the taxes. I am prepared to be amazed.

BTW, So far I have looked up two sources on the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and you can breath easier, so far, the US is not highest in either source. Japan in one, and the UAB in the other. The other consideration is just how they choose to figure the tax rates to make their rankings from. I do not deny that the US is right up their with the highest, but then so to, are most of our business partners.

When has slashing corporate tax rates kept the jobs here before, steve? I have seen it said, I have seen it used by those wanting lower tax rates, but then I keep seeing jobs going elsewhere... so when was it done and how do we measure the success of it?

You already keep more of your "hard earned money" than do many people around the world.

I Love the idea of low taxes, it would be great. However, there has to be money available to run the country. We have a military expenditure larger than the next 9 largest put together. Who pays for that? We have a huge country with a huge, and crumbling intrastructure. Who is going to pay for that? We have aging schools and communities who cannot afford to update or even maintain them, who pays for that when the communities cannot? Medicare and Social Security, programs which should have been able to maintain themselves for years, but what happened, we kept borrowing from them to support other programs and now they are threatened. If we lower taxes dramatically, where will the income come from to protect our shores, take care of those who cannot take care of themselves, fix our schools and our roads???

It takes "X" amount of money to run a country or state, you can slice it up whatever way you wish. Lower property tax, but higher taxes on income? Lower property and income tax, but then make up the difference with food taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, cigarette taxes, and on and on and on.

I too have earned my money, and I cannot tell you how much I should be allowed to keep... I honestly do not know who can.

As for minimum wage... there wouldn't be a minimum wage issue of employers were truly fair in their salaries they offer. How much is reasonable? I don't know, but this may come as a surprise to you, all of us are in one world, not Blake's, not steve's. I was fortunate to be born in a time and place and in a family that might have been lower middle class at best, but there are a whole helluva lot who have not been near as fortunate as I, and I suspect as fortunate as you. I have lived to the age of 68 with reasonably good health, but my best friend has a grand-daughter who is unlikely to ever be healthy, probably never be able to work except at a desk if at all. The child's parents both work lower level jobs to try to put food on the table, much less get her the help she needs. That could have been one of my kids, or it could have been you... personally, I count my blessings.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Blake yes you know that I am liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, that is just my NYC upbringing. I agree with most of what you say socially, economically I can't support your position :)

If you know how much tax I pay annually it will make you ill. I don't complain about it, its part of being here and living in this great country

If it wasn't for these people taking risks to better themselves and the country where would we be?

Remember Andrew Carnegie around 1900 was the richest man in the world, he funded the public library system in the US, he just stroked a check and it was done. Today with taxes a man like that can't do these things.


Then we are largely in agreement. I took a recent magazine poll, and it said i was just exactly that, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative a conflicting combination. I don't know what you pay in tax, my friend, but if it is high, then so too is your income. I don't make what you do, but I make a hell of a lot more than the family I was discussing above, so I too pay more taxes. I don't know the answers, Astoria, I really don't. I just know that it takes a lot of money to make things work, be it countries, states, towns, and even more importantly famillies.

If everybody paid their fair share, the almost everybody's share could be a lot less. It takes a strong middle class for a society to survive. The poor cannot afford taxes, and many of the wealthy have means around paying them. That leaves the middle class to carry the burden, and we are losing our middle class, and the leverage it gives us. At one time I thought a flat tax rate was the answer, but then even if it was but 8% (wasn't that the number Steve Forbes was using), 8% for some family making $12,000 is a huge hit, whereas 8% of someone with 100 million dollars still leaves them 920,000,000 dollars to live on. So what do we do?

The one thing I know is that Obama is no more the cause of all these issues than those who went before him, or those who will follow.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
I dont blame Obama for the taxes in fact he has done a great job bringing unemployment down.

a flat tax is the way to go. Today lets say you make 50,000 us and you pay what 20% Income then state tax. what your left with then you pay tax on clothes, gas, electricity, food, and then pay real estate tax, excise tax on your car. come on tho sis what we fought those silly Brits for back in 1776 :)

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I dont blame Obama for the taxes in fact he has done a great job bringing unemployment down.

a flat tax is the way to go. Today lets say you make 50,000 us and you pay what 20% Income then state tax. what your left with then you pay tax on clothes, gas, electricity, food, and then pay real estate tax, excise tax on your car. come on tho sis what we fought those silly Brits for back in 1776 :)



Flat Tax or the Fair Tax but Blake isn't going to like it because it taxes all incomes the same. I'm all for it either way but have leaned more towards the Fair Tax because it captures all who spend money here, both citizens and visitors (legal and illegal).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
No, now we have "representation", my friend, unless you live in Nebraska that is... then your non-Republican voting has just given you the right to complain! Hell, I even voted for myself for Senate last race. Never even saw my vote represented in the newspaper tally the next day!
:lol:

Damn, I have been here for an hour and a half after work, no wonder I am hungry!

Ciao!

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Blake yes you know that I am liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, that is just my NYC upbringing. I agree with most of what you say socially, economically I can't support your position :)

If you know how much tax I pay annually it will make you ill. I don't complain about it, its part of being here and living in this great country

If it wasn't for these people taking risks to better themselves and the country where would we be?

Remember Andrew Carnegie around 1900 was the richest man in the world, he funded the public library system in the US, he just stroked a check and it was done. Today with taxes a man like that can't do these things.


Then we are largely in agreement. I took a recent magazine poll, and it said i was just exactly that, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative a conflicting combination. I don't know what you pay in tax, my friend, but if it is high, then so too is your income. I don't make what you do, but I make a hell of a lot more than the family I was discussing above, so I too pay more taxes. I don't know the answers, Astoria, I really don't. I just know that it takes a lot of money to make things work, be it countries, states, towns, and even more importantly famillies.

If everybody paid their fair share, the almost everybody's share could be a lot less. It takes a strong middle class for a society to survive. The poor cannot afford taxes, and many of the wealthy have means around paying them. That leaves the middle class to carry the burden, and we are losing our middle class, and the leverage it gives us. At one time I thought a flat tax rate was the answer, but then even if it was but 8% (wasn't that the number Steve Forbes was using), 8% for some family making $12,000 is a huge hit, whereas 8% of someone with 100 million dollars still leaves them 920,000,000 dollars to live on. So what do we do?

The one thing I know is that Obama is no more the cause of all these issues than those who went before him, or those who will follow.


It isn't anymore anymore an R vs D thing. We need to slash Gov't, all places but remember, the military is one if the things our constitution says we're suppose to be doing. But we can change and remove military bases from places overseas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Blake wrote:
What a righteous comment that is. "If your getting welfare then you don't get to vote"?????? So some person suffering from a handicap and receiving welfare cannot vote ? I am apalled at the very idea of that. Thank God you are not in a position to force your views.

Are you going to apply that to our soldiers who have come home injured and/or disabled, no help for them either. That would be welfare. What about the farmers who have been getting subsidies for decades, can they vote? That would be welfare. What about the energy companies who have been taking subsidies to build new refineries for decades and our newest refinery was built in 1976? Do they have a say?.... you damn right they do, they have been dictating terms for ages. That may not be welfare, just outright theft would be a better term.

Do you have kids, steve. Do they eat the school lunches? Do they maybe even get lunch cards from the school? Subsidies allow for much of that, especially if it is a poor school district... a form of welfare.

What about you, steve? Ever been out of work and had to draw unemployment? Probably not, neither have I, but I have acquaintances who have found their jobs shipped over seas, or during the economic recession jobs just eliminated as companies cut back. People who have done nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time have found themselves out of work, struggling to find a job to support their families and in need of help. What would you do for them? Well, we know you won't let them vote, so I guess they will have to choose between keeping their right to vote and starving, or taking some welfare (which their previous taxes help pay for) and not being able to vote for having done so. Seriously?

I am sorry, steve, but I feel that we have an obligation to help those in need of help, be it health or other issues. I won't apologize for that belief. I am not a wealthy man, maybe because I have tried to help others when I could have taken the extremist "tough sh*t" selfish viewpoint. Call it liberal, call it foolish or whatever you will, but I really do believe that a country has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves... and yes, they should be allowed to vote, after all, we let those who want to take their vote away vote... what makes you so much better than someone on welfare? It may be no more than being born into the right family.

Please, Steve... tell me when the "right" who you speak for apparently, has wanted to do away with the Republican and Democratic parties.... I have never heard of it, but then what do I know? When was this and in what way did "low information voters" scream the most about it?


Welfare is a bitch and should be a last resort. I feel the need to help those who are truly in need and I do by many different agencies but I am taxed enough. I grew up watching families getting free lunches while getting dropped off at school in a brand new Cadillac. Is that fair that my parents worked hard to make it and others who did not get free stuff. This is a generational thing. Too many people believe we owe them something, it has to stop SO I stand by what I've said and many others do as well.

How will people get out of this hole they're in if we keep giving them things? Many many people need to get off.

I didn't say anything about being handicapped and it shows me a lot about you that you would read that into it. You know damn well what I mean, do play dumb with me. This is a long battle we've had.

I can fix this, BTW.

What you say here sounds more like tightening the restrictions on who gets welfare, to avoid people taking advantage of the system.

We have similar problems here in the UK, but surely this is an issue of who gets welfare, stopping anyone who receives welfare from voting isn't the answer.


Perhaps taking away a vote might be a bit strong but I'll stand by it for now because those who vote and receive a check from the Gov't will never vote to change that, right?

What I don't like is when someone, usually from the left, accuses me and my conservative friends of being heartless when in fact it's the opposite. We've always felt that helping those truly in need and helping those others to fend for themselves and by cutting Gov't so that we all keep more of our hard earned money is one simple way to start. Human nature will try an survive so if you take away the check, most will find a way to fit back into society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I dont blame Obama for the taxes in fact he has done a great job bringing unemployment down.

a flat tax is the way to go. Today lets say you make 50,000 us and you pay what 20% Income then state tax. what your left with then you pay tax on clothes, gas, electricity, food, and then pay real estate tax, excise tax on your car. come on tho sis what we fought those silly Brits for back in 1776 :)



Flat Tax or the Fair Tax but Blake isn't going to like it because it taxes all incomes the same. I'm all for it either way but have leaned more towards the Fair Tax because it captures all who spend money here, both citizens and visitors (legal and illegal).


That is because you don't give a damn whether someone can live on what they have after taxes or not, as long as you get your "hard earned income". Sorry steve, but your comment on anyone getting aid not having the right vote labeled you in a very undesireable way...

Quote:
"This is a generational thing. Too many people believe we owe them something, it has to stop SO I stand by what I've said and many others do as well."


So you have decided that NOW is the time to stop with these welfare programs, how very convenient for you, and how very sad for those who really need it.

As I have said before, a much of one's lot in life is a matter of where, when, and to whom they were born. As a former teacher (yes, I know, one of those damn liberals), I have seen the other end of lifestyles, I have seen parents crying in front of me because of their struggles and how they are affecting their kids, and they fear, the kids future. I have see kids getting in trouble with the law as their parents are not at home when they get out of school because both parents are still at work.

I know all too well that there are those who abuse the system, and I have not problem with ending such abuse. However, I fear that the definition of "abusing the system" that you would have and that I would have, would be dramatically different.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I dont blame Obama for the taxes in fact he has done a great job bringing unemployment down.

a flat tax is the way to go. Today lets say you make 50,000 us and you pay what 20% Income then state tax. what your left with then you pay tax on clothes, gas, electricity, food, and then pay real estate tax, excise tax on your car. come on tho sis what we fought those silly Brits for back in 1776 :)



Flat Tax or the Fair Tax but Blake isn't going to like it because it taxes all incomes the same. I'm all for it either way but have leaned more towards the Fair Tax because it captures all who spend money here, both citizens and visitors (legal and illegal).


That is because you don't give a damn whether someone can live on what they have after taxes or not, as long as you get your "hard earned income". Sorry steve, but your comment on anyone getting aid not having the right vote labeled you in a very undesireable way...

Quote:
"This is a generational thing. Too many people believe we owe them something, it has to stop SO I stand by what I've said and many others do as well."


So you have decided that NOW is the time to stop with these welfare programs, how very convenient for you, and how very sad for those who really need it.

As I have said before, a much of one's lot in life is a matter of where, when, and to whom they were born. As a former teacher (yes, I know, one of those damn liberals), I have seen the other end of lifestyles, I have seen parents crying in front of me because of their struggles and how they are affecting their kids, and they fear, the kids future. I have see kids getting in trouble with the law as their parents are not at home when they get out of school because both parents are still at work.

I know all too well that there are those who abuse the system, and I have not problem with ending such abuse. However, I fear that the definition of "abusing the system" that you would have and that I would have, would be dramatically different.


Oh I do give a damn and show it monthly. I believe that you and I know better how to run our lives. Some have made mistakes but we need to teach NOW how to survive. This generation and probably the next is gone but I have faith in mankind that we can teach others to stay in school, make good grades, find good jobs and become good citizens.

You've given up, I still think people can learn. That's the difference


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:

Perhaps taking away a vote might be a bit strong but I'll stand by it for now because those who vote and receive a check from the Gov't will never vote to change that, right?

What I don't like is when someone, usually from the left, accuses me and my conservative friends of being heartless when in fact it's the opposite. We've always felt that helping those truly in need and helping those others to fend for themselves and by cutting Gov't so that we all keep more of our hard earned money is one simple way to start. Human nature will try an survive so if you take away the check, most will find a way to fit back into society.


If you don't like it, don't show it. You say now that you are in favor of helping those truly in need, but most of your recent posts don't show that. You have acted like almost everybody on welfare is out to steal out of your pocket.

Your post gives you away, steve. It reads like you are saying take it away from them and they will either find a way or who cares.... Cutting Gov't so you can keep more of your money might be a start, if we are all willing to pick up on what Government used to do on our behalf. Donate more of that money we just got to keep to food pantries, use that money we just got to keep to help create a new job, step up and help someone with health needs. Are you ready to take that newly saved money and do that?

As I said, there are definitely problems, and there are those who abuse the system, but if we just rely on individuals to help their fellow man to the same degree that we can en mass with well operated government programs, many less fortunate than you and I will be in big trouble. As I have stated before... trickle down does not trickle down very far.

And now, I really am heading out!

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:

Perhaps taking away a vote might be a bit strong but I'll stand by it for now because those who vote and receive a check from the Gov't will never vote to change that, right?

What I don't like is when someone, usually from the left, accuses me and my conservative friends of being heartless when in fact it's the opposite. We've always felt that helping those truly in need and helping those others to fend for themselves and by cutting Gov't so that we all keep more of our hard earned money is one simple way to start. Human nature will try an survive so if you take away the check, most will find a way to fit back into society.


If you don't like it, don't show it. You say now that you are in favor of helping those truly in need, but most of your recent posts don't show that. You have acted like almost everybody on welfare is out to steal out of your pocket.

Your post gives you away, steve. It reads like you are saying take it away from them and they will either find a way or who cares.... Cutting Gov't so you can keep more of your money might be a start, if we are all willing to pick up on what Government used to do on our behalf. Donate more of that money we just got to keep to food pantries, use that money we just got to keep to help create a new job, step up and help someone with health needs. Are you ready to take that newly saved money and do that?

As I said, there are definitely problems, and there are those who abuse the system, but if we just rely on individuals to help their fellow man to the same degree that we can en mass with well operated government programs, many less fortunate than you and I will be in big trouble. As I have stated before... trickle down does not trickle down very far.

And now, I really am heading out!


I do t think a person standing in a line to receive an Obama phone is truly in need. I don't think a person who has a better cell plan than I do is truly in need. I don't think anyone who I has a strong back is truly in need. Yes, we need this discussion. Can you tell me who is truly in need? I'm talking about the poor now not the handicap person.

Well operated government programs, HA! Give me the power to give to the needy and there won't be any needy. Remove the government and things will get better. Far too many people rely on the Gov't. My judgement of how the Gov't is doing is this. I believe the more people not needing assistance is better than more people on assistance. That pretty much sums up the conservative vs liberal view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
Prema wrote:
HawaiiF1Fan wrote:

I'll also add that despite many promises to the contrary, Obama has used more Executive Orders (now called "Memos") to bypass Congress than any President since Carter(?).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /20191805/


At the same time, Obama has been probably one of the most undercut and sabotaged president. The recent shut down of the government by the side of Republicans just for the sake of exposing the president as incapable of presidency, tells it all. It's all political games. Either Obama was to be a sitting duck there in the White House and not be able to accomplish just anything due to the opposition using all the legal means at their disposal to bind his arms behind his back, or he was to use all the available legal means to unbind himself and do something. And then the right wing, through their mouthpieces such as FOX-news, will size the opportunity to expose him as a dictator. Obama was to be maneuvered so to be exposed as either a completely useless and incapable president (which he indeed would have been was he not to circumambulate the obstructors in this way), or he was otherwise to be depicted as a dictator that is destroying the Constitution.

Frankly speaking, I am quite surprised that those right wing extremists "freedom fighters" in the US have not shot him yet.




I think that the "undercut" is a bit dramatic. One has to realize that Obama has had a majority of Democrats during his first term. The fact that he was not able to pass legislation cannot be only laid upon the feet of the Republican party.

For the record I am neither really a Republican or Democrat, rather when I take tests I fall between both and am pretty anti-Govt, so technically I'm a Libertarian more than anything else. So please don't think that my views on Obama's Presidency is colored by a political party.

Lastly he is circumventing the process. By issuing so many Executive Orders and Executive Memos he is effectively bypassing Congress which he has promised he would not do on numerous occasions. It's one thing when someone says they will do something unpopular and do it and something else when they blatantly lie about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:

I do t think a person standing in a line to receive an Obama phone is truly in need. I don't think a person who has a better cell plan than I do is truly in need. I don't think anyone who I has a strong back is truly in need. Yes, we need this discussion. Can you tell me who is truly in need? I'm talking about the poor now not the handicap person.

Well operated government programs, HA! Give me the power to give to the needy and there won't be any needy. Remove the government and things will get better. Far too many people rely on the Gov't. My judgement of how the Gov't is doing is this. I believe the more people not needing assistance is better than more people on assistance. That pretty much sums up the conservative vs liberal view.


steve,

have you ever worked or spent any time with the poor, the homeless, or handicapped? Have you ever worked with young mothers whose boyfriends/husbands et al have run off,or worse? Have you? If you have, you certainly are not showing any degree of compassion that you would/should feel. When did you last stand serving in a food line at Thanksgiving for the homeless? When is the last time you had any contact with those so much less fortunate than you appear to be? Did you ever go over to the "other side of the tracks" when you were growing up? From what I am seeing in your posts, I seriously doubt it.

I have never met you, steve, so all I have to go "know" you is what I see you posting. Things like those who get government help shall not vote! If you have a strong back, you need no help, you are just a lazy donkey. All you appear to care about is your "hard earned money". There are people in dire straights who also once "hard earned money", only to find the rug pulled out from under them, often by greed and/or those companies who sent their jobs overseas. They did nothing wrong, they were victims. They don't like taking handouts as you suggest, many of them find themselves looking for work where little to non-exist, and often those who get them get low paying jobs when once they were making several times that amount. But that is OK, if they have a strong back, they don't need any help, after all it might come from your pocket.

I must say that I am more than a little taken back by this delcaration on your part.

Quote:
Give me the power to give to the needy and there won't be any needy.


Seriously? steve c will take care of all the needy? Rather an arrogant comment, there. The whole US welfare program can be make solvent and efficient by steve c. Oh, if only Bush or Obama had known of such genius. I have to admit, I have to wonder at what cost you will eliminate the needy. What cost to the government (oh wait, you are taking them out of the picture). What are you Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Waltons all wrapped up in one? Or are you the Koch brothers, as we all know how generous they are!

How are you going to get everybody in need of a job taken care to the point to where they will no longer be in need of help? Put them to work painting picnic tables in village parks? No problem from me on that. Re-evolve the WPA? Again, I have no problem with that. As I said, many, if not most, of those on welfare would like to feel as though they are earning their money... but wait, where is THAT money going to come from? The same local business that sent jobs elsewhere, or downsized costing jobs? Are they going to help out now that the government is not involved? Maybe it will be the banks that put some of them out on the street when they were no longer able to pay their house payments? I know I am painting extremes, but seriously, steve, you are saying that you can do what no one else has been able to do?

You feel that if you take way their check they will find a way back into society.... what if they do not? Do you really think it is as simple as taking away their checks, then turning our backs and walking away from them? That appears to be what you are saying. You act as though they will be able to just snap their fingers and walla, they will be your equal... having fit back into your society.

I see that statement of yours and I think about the old joke about putting all the lawyers on a ship, sailing it far out into the ocean and then sinking it................... problem solved.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
HawaiiF1Fan wrote:
I think that the "undercut" is a bit dramatic. One has to realize that Obama has had a majority of Democrats during his first term. The fact that he was not able to pass legislation cannot be only laid upon the feet of the Republican party.

For the record I am neither really a Republican or Democrat, rather when I take tests I fall between both and am pretty anti-Govt, so technically I'm a Libertarian more than anything else. So please don't think that my views on Obama's Presidency is colored by a political party.

Lastly he is circumventing the process. By issuing so many Executive Orders and Executive Memos he is effectively bypassing Congress which he has promised he would not do on numerous occasions. It's one thing when someone says they will do something unpopular and do it and something else when they blatantly lie about it.


Is it really "dramatic", Hawaii? Don't you remember the Kentucky senator basically saying before Obama's inauguration that his "job" would be to stop everything Obama wanted to do? What President has had that kind of a start? yes, he had a Democratic senate initially, but he had a Republican house. You are right though, it is not ONLY the Republican party that failed us, it was both. I too am not a registered Republican or Democrat, because I feel both parties have failed me... just one more than the other as I see it.

Yes, Obama has issued many Executive Orders and memos, but he is not out of line with previous administrations when it comes to Exectutive Orders, in fact, he is near the bottom of the list of Presidents in that resect since Eisenhower. However, to be fair, if he did not apply Executive Orders nothing would have been accomplished the past few years. There truly has been an attitude of Obstructionism in the House, and the Senate. He was elected based on a platform he put out of things that he wanted to do for the country, and yet, nearly everything on that platform was fought against tooth-and-nail by the opposing party. It doesn't make for easy leadership when the opposition virtually refuses to work with you. Even good ideas are ignored, wrong party.

With so much controversy over Obamacare, it should be remembered that it was based on a progam similar to what Mitt Romney had while governor of Massachusetts. When it was first brought forward there was naturally and justifyably a lot of debate, arguing, et al about aspects of it. The next time it was brought forward, there were many of the changes the Republican congressment wanted, and even those were rejected... their own ideas the year before, now because they were part of the President's program are no longer valid?

I hate, and I do mean HATE, the extreme partisanship that has dominanted our government in recent years... it has crippled us all too often, it has cost us some very worthy programs, it has embarrassed us internationally, particularly with parties playing games with the budget. The sadest part of all is that I see no way for it ever to be turned around baring at the very least an electoral revolution. Even more sad, is that with the party-line redistricting, even that can probably never happen.

To say the least, I am frustrated., in truth, I am depressed with it.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:

I do t think a person standing in a line to receive an Obama phone is truly in need. I don't think a person who has a better cell plan than I do is truly in need. I don't think anyone who I has a strong back is truly in need. Yes, we need this discussion. Can you tell me who is truly in need? I'm talking about the poor now not the handicap person.

Well operated government programs, HA! Give me the power to give to the needy and there won't be any needy. Remove the government and things will get better. Far too many people rely on the Gov't. My judgement of how the Gov't is doing is this. I believe the more people not needing assistance is better than more people on assistance. That pretty much sums up the conservative vs liberal view.


steve,

have you ever worked or spent any time with the poor, the homeless, or handicapped? Have you ever worked with young mothers whose boyfriends/husbands et al have run off,or worse? Have you? If you have, you certainly are not showing any degree of compassion that you would/should feel. When did you last stand serving in a food line at Thanksgiving for the homeless? When is the last time you had any contact with those so much less fortunate than you appear to be? Did you ever go over to the "other side of the tracks" when you were growing up? From what I am seeing in your posts, I seriously doubt it.

I have never met you, steve, so all I have to go "know" you is what I see you posting. Things like those who get government help shall not vote! If you have a strong back, you need no help, you are just a lazy donkey. All you appear to care about is your "hard earned money". There are people in dire straights who also once "hard earned money", only to find the rug pulled out from under them, often by greed and/or those companies who sent their jobs overseas. They did nothing wrong, they were victims. They don't like taking handouts as you suggest, many of them find themselves looking for work where little to non-exist, and often those who get them get low paying jobs when once they were making several times that amount. But that is OK, if they have a strong back, they don't need any help, after all it might come from your pocket.

I must say that I am more than a little taken back by this delcaration on your part.

Quote:
Give me the power to give to the needy and there won't be any needy.


Seriously? steve c will take care of all the needy? Rather an arrogant comment, there. The whole US welfare program can be make solvent and efficient by steve c. Oh, if only Bush or Obama had known of such genius. I have to admit, I have to wonder at what cost you will eliminate the needy. What cost to the government (oh wait, you are taking them out of the picture). What are you Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison and the Waltons all wrapped up in one? Or are you the Koch brothers, as we all know how generous they are!

How are you going to get everybody in need of a job taken care to the point to where they will no longer be in need of help? Put them to work painting picnic tables in village parks? No problem from me on that. Re-evolve the WPA? Again, I have no problem with that. As I said, many, if not most, of those on welfare would like to feel as though they are earning their money... but wait, where is THAT money going to come from? The same local business that sent jobs elsewhere, or downsized costing jobs? Are they going to help out now that the government is not involved? Maybe it will be the banks that put some of them out on the street when they were no longer able to pay their house payments? I know I am painting extremes, but seriously, steve, you are saying that you can do what no one else has been able to do?

You feel that if you take way their check they will find a way back into society.... what if they do not? Do you really think it is as simple as taking away their checks, then turning our backs and walking away from them? That appears to be what you are saying. You act as though they will be able to just snap their fingers and walla, they will be your equal... having fit back into your society.

I see that statement of yours and I think about the old joke about putting all the lawyers on a ship, sailing it far out into the ocean and then sinking it................... problem solved.


Other than being with working with mothers who have been abused, I've done it all and do it all. Why is it alway you liberals scream "you've never walked in my shoes" or "you don't know the poor like I do"? Blake, whether or not you believe it or even understand it, life is a b!tch. There are always going to be people who cannot make it. What are we suppose to do? Tell me, please but do give me the same old BS, we've tried it for decades now and it doesn't work. Stop blaming the rich. Stop blaming the corporations.

Again, get the Gov't out of the way.

If you make it down to the USGP next year, the first beer is on me, I promise. I'm not the devil and want everyone to succeed but know that the Gov't isn't the answer. The people are the answer. Freedom is the answer.

We need to get our Gov't under control. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime but he isn't that different from Bush. I liked Bush but he wasn't in anyway a conservative. We have got to get rid of the Big Gov't elite, slash taxes to all and become s nation that works again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
HawaiiF1Fan wrote:
I think that the "undercut" is a bit dramatic. One has to realize that Obama has had a majority of Democrats during his first term. The fact that he was not able to pass legislation cannot be only laid upon the feet of the Republican party.

For the record I am neither really a Republican or Democrat, rather when I take tests I fall between both and am pretty anti-Govt, so technically I'm a Libertarian more than anything else. So please don't think that my views on Obama's Presidency is colored by a political party.

Lastly he is circumventing the process. By issuing so many Executive Orders and Executive Memos he is effectively bypassing Congress which he has promised he would not do on numerous occasions. It's one thing when someone says they will do something unpopular and do it and something else when they blatantly lie about it.


Is it really "dramatic", Hawaii? Don't you remember the Kentucky senator basically saying before Obama's inauguration that his "job" would be to stop everything Obama wanted to do? What President has had that kind of a start? yes, he had a Democratic senate initially, but he had a Republican house. You are right though, it is not ONLY the Republican party that failed us, it was both. I too am not a registered Republican or Democrat, because I feel both parties have failed me... just one more than the other as I see it.

Yes, Obama has issued many Executive Orders and memos, but he is not out of line with previous administrations when it comes to Exectutive Orders, in fact, he is near the bottom of the list of Presidents in that resect since Eisenhower. However, to be fair, if he did not apply Executive Orders nothing would have been accomplished the past few years. There truly has been an attitude of Obstructionism in the House, and the Senate. He was elected based on a platform he put out of things that he wanted to do for the country, and yet, nearly everything on that platform was fought against tooth-and-nail by the opposing party. It doesn't make for easy leadership when the opposition virtually refuses to work with you. Even good ideas are ignored, wrong party.

With so much controversy over Obamacare, it should be remembered that it was based on a progam similar to what Mitt Romney had while governor of Massachusetts. When it was first brought forward there was naturally and justifyably a lot of debate, arguing, et al about aspects of it. The next time it was brought forward, there were many of the changes the Republican congressment wanted, and even those were rejected... their own ideas the year before, now because they were part of the President's program are no longer valid?

I hate, and I do mean HATE, the extreme partisanship that has dominanted our government in recent years... it has crippled us all too often, it has cost us some very worthy programs, it has embarrassed us internationally, particularly with parties playing games with the budget. The sadest part of all is that I see no way for it ever to be turned around baring at the very least an electoral revolution. Even more sad, is that with the party-line redistricting, even that can probably never happen.

To say the least, I am frustrated., in truth, I am depressed with it.


Remember, Obama had both houses for the first two years and couldn't pass anything of substance. Don't blame politics, blame him.

It's interesting you mention revolution, in part, because I believe we're heading in that direction. Here's why...

1. Either we're heading back towards a small limited Gov't with lots of tough choices ahead.
or
2. We're heading more towards a total Gov't control of our lives.

Either way, IMHO, will lead to a revolution. The people paying the taxes will revolt because they're paying too much and there aren't enough of those anymore or the poor that won't be getting a free ride will revolt. It's tough to say because it's our country but we're going down the drain.

Major civilizations of the past haven't lasted much past 200 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6426
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:

Other than being with working with mothers who have been abused, I've done it all and do it all. Why is it alway you liberals scream "you've never walked in my shoes" or "you don't know the poor like I do"? Blake, whether or not you believe it or even understand it, life is a b!tch. There are always going to be people who cannot make it. What are we suppose to do? Tell me, please but do give me the same old BS, we've tried it for decades now and it doesn't work. Stop blaming the rich. Stop blaming the corporations.

I am still waiting to hear how you are going to talk care of this whole situation as you said you could .... without eliminating the humanity. You want me to tell you what to do with those "people who cannot make it"... You tell me, you are the one who said you can fix it all. I already said that I don't know the answers.


Again, get the Gov't out of the way.

If you make it down to the USGP next year, the first beer is on me, I promise. I'm not the devil and want everyone to succeed but know that the Gov't isn't the answer. The people are the answer. Freedom is the answer.

Amazing how many definitions the word "freedom" has, dependent on who is using it. Same is true of the word "liberal". Fair enough on the beer, but I will likely attend the US Vintage Racing Car championships again if they are held there again, as I did this year.

We need to get our Gov't under control. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime but he isn't that different from Bush. I liked Bush but he wasn't in anyway a conservative. We have got to get rid of the Big Gov't elite, slash taxes to all and become s nation that works again.

Obviously, I disagree with you on Obama, and I don't really dislike W, but I totally dispise a few of his "key" people, starting with dick cheney... who I felt was, in reality, running the country....but then, I am guessing that would open up a whole new can of worms.

See ya next time... Ciao

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
Blake wrote:
HawaiiF1Fan wrote:


I'll also add that despite many promises to the contrary, Obama has used more Executive Orders (now called "Memos") to bypass Congress than any President since Carter(?).

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /20191805/


Interestingly, according to this site...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

Obama has issued a total of 198 Executive Orders in his two terms thus far.

Which is nearly 100 less than George W's 291 Executive Orders

166 less than Bill Clinton's.

30 more than George Bush 1

and a whopping 190 less than Ronald Reagan.


Care to revist your claim, Hawaii?

IF we want to go back before the line you drew ... Carter (320).... Geral Ford (169) in a partial term, Richard Nixon (346), Lyndon Johnson (325), JFK (214), Dwight Eisenhower (484)... and those were at a time when there was a symblance of a bi-partisan congress.


Memorandums are not Executive Orders. And... as Prema has pointed out, the party of "No" has done every thing possible to block whatever he has tried to do. Name ANY of the presidents who started their term with the Senate Minority Leader (now Majority leader) saying that his "job" was to block everything Obama tried to do. The Party of Obstructionism has forced many of these actions on Obama, and NOW they claim that they want to work in a Bi-Partisan way... ie want the Dems to support their measures. Bullsh*t.



I agree that Memorandums are not Executive Orders, however that is not the way that Obama is using them. Obama is de facto using Memoranda as Executive Orders.

From the USA Today article:

"............Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.............."

"..............Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders..............."

So think of this........many of the Executive Orders you point to from earlier Presidents would now be issued as Memoranda. You have to count both together and not disregard Memoranda which until recently were not even tracked.



Image




Finally with regards to the blockage from the Republican Party, following is a summary of the Congressional makeup from just before Obama's first term to the current (sorry about the formatting). You will see that Obama started with a dead split in the Senate in his first term and actually had much greater pull on the Democratic side in the 111th Senate, same goes for the House except that he went from a Democratic majority to an even larger one. So the power resided with the Democrats to make things work.

IMHO the issue is not really the Democratic Party or the Republicans it's that the latest Congress does not work well together (both Democrats and Republicans). Meaning that Congress are far less willing to make compromises than earlier ones and it's this dysfunctional nature that is making things worse lately.


Senate House
Congress Years Total Dems Reps Others Vacant Total Dems Reps Others Vacant
110th 2007-2009 100 49 49 2 0 435 233 198 0 4
111th 2009-2011 100 57 41 2 2 435 256 178 0 1
112th 2011-2013 100 51 47 2 0 435 193 242 0 0
113th 2013-2015 100 54 45 1 0 435 201 234 0 0
114th 2015-2017 100 44 54 2 0 435 188 246 0 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
minchy wrote:
Steve C, from what we see in the UK, Obama has been up against a lot of opposition inside congress, which has been mentioned by a few posters here including a knowledgeable American whom I generally trust the opinions of. Whether this is because of race, money or political agendas we may never know, but here in Europe Obama is seen as a good world leader, just as I said we're not overly privy to what the situation is like on your home soil.

In contrast, George W Bush was seen as almost a danger to the world because of a lot of his foreign policies.

The.only reason I mention these things and am curious as to what you think and asked to elaborate on is that throughout most of Europe and even in the US, this seems to be what people think except for republican voters. Now my opinion or observations of this may be wrong, but this is why I would like to know how you feel about his policies whether they got passed in congress or not and also why congress seem so determined to stop every change he wants to make as every turn.



Minchy, Obama has had lots of opposition from Congress, but that is nothing new. Please see my post above where I give the Congressional breakdown. You will see that the Democratic Party held majority in both the Senate and House of Congress. This means that they had Congressional majority and had the White House. I'm not certain how the Supreme Court stood as far as political affiliation, but currently it's 5-4 Conservative-Liberal.

The difference is Obama could not get cooperation which is what many, myself included, thought his one glaring weakness was. Obama has never run anything in his life. He's an academic and junior Senator who became President. In my job building things, one of the largest - if not the largest is dealing with people and finding ways to connect and motivate them.

Consider this...........Obama's two largest challenges taking office were the downturn in our economy and trying to sell universal healthcare (aka Obamacare). I've personally been on projects (2009+) where we had to make (extra) federal reporting to justify employment figures and I can say how things are reported are skewed towards what the report gatherers want to see........nuff said on that.

Secondly you need to understand that universal healthcare is one thing, but implementation of such a system within the US is a monumental task. As can be seen in the massive failures to sign up online (website failures, massive overruns in costs, failures to tie into state systems, etc.) and over-exaggerated figures it is not the resounding success that the public would be led to believe. Now implementation is one issue the second is how this is funded..........if anyone can tell me I'm open for discussion, because I work numbers on multimillion dollar projects and I can't see how the program can be funded.


Last edited by HawaiiF1Fan on Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:

Other than being with working with mothers who have been abused, I've done it all and do it all. Why is it alway you liberals scream "you've never walked in my shoes" or "you don't know the poor like I do"? Blake, whether or not you believe it or even understand it, life is a b!tch. There are always going to be people who cannot make it. What are we suppose to do? Tell me, please but do give me the same old BS, we've tried it for decades now and it doesn't work. Stop blaming the rich. Stop blaming the corporations.

I am still waiting to hear how you are going to talk care of this whole situation as you said you could .... without eliminating the humanity. You want me to tell you what to do with those "people who cannot make it"... You tell me, you are the one who said you can fix it all. I already said that I don't know the answers.


Again, get the Gov't out of the way.

If you make it down to the USGP next year, the first beer is on me, I promise. I'm not the devil and want everyone to succeed but know that the Gov't isn't the answer. The people are the answer. Freedom is the answer.

Amazing how many definitions the word "freedom" has, dependent on who is using it. Same is true of the word "liberal". Fair enough on the beer, but I will likely attend the US Vintage Racing Car championships again if they are held there again, as I did this year.

We need to get our Gov't under control. Obama is the worst president in my lifetime but he isn't that different from Bush. I liked Bush but he wasn't in anyway a conservative. We have got to get rid of the Big Gov't elite, slash taxes to all and become s nation that works again.

Obviously, I disagree with you on Obama, and I don't really dislike W, but I totally dispise a few of his "key" people, starting with dick cheney... who I felt was, in reality, running the country....but then, I am guessing that would open up a whole new can of worms.

See ya next time... Ciao


I thought I did a good enough job explaining.

The ones who cannot make it we completely help. These are the truly poor. Again, we conservatives are the compassionate ones, we just think that the human being is better off making most decisions. The ones that cannot make those decisions are always going get the need.

I never said I could fix it all but believe that doing it the same way we've been doing it for decades and expecting a different result is just wrong. Wait, that's a definition for something...

You said earlier that our schools need rebuilding and the roads I'd expect is in that pot as well, so, put those on welfare who can work on rebuilding the schools and roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Wow, I did not know that the US attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris but didn't go to the march. Wow!

While NONE of the USA executive office attended the march, we Americans were there in thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I agree with Blake, saying you get help then you can't vote is a terrible position to take. We are a nation of people that help others, food stamps, unemployment and welfare are social programs that help our people and should be maintained at all costs.




I do to agree that something of this nature then yes the Govt should help and yes those people should still be allowed to vote..............however I think that the way in which welfare is handled is seriously flawed.

When you go to a store and see people on welfare buying booze, shrimp, steak, lobster, cigs with welfare.............yeah that doesn't sit well with me. Given that some of this is not compensable, but how the rules are enforced needs some serious oversight and accountability, two things which big government is not known for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
Blake wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Blake yes you know that I am liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues, that is just my NYC upbringing. I agree with most of what you say socially, economically I can't support your position :)

If you know how much tax I pay annually it will make you ill. I don't complain about it, its part of being here and living in this great country

If it wasn't for these people taking risks to better themselves and the country where would we be?

Remember Andrew Carnegie around 1900 was the richest man in the world, he funded the public library system in the US, he just stroked a check and it was done. Today with taxes a man like that can't do these things.


Then we are largely in agreement. I took a recent magazine poll, and it said i was just exactly that, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative a conflicting combination. I don't know what you pay in tax, my friend, but if it is high, then so too is your income. I don't make what you do, but I make a hell of a lot more than the family I was discussing above, so I too pay more taxes. I don't know the answers, Astoria, I really don't. I just know that it takes a lot of money to make things work, be it countries, states, towns, and even more importantly famillies.

If everybody paid their fair share, the almost everybody's share could be a lot less. It takes a strong middle class for a society to survive. The poor cannot afford taxes, and many of the wealthy have means around paying them. That leaves the middle class to carry the burden, and we are losing our middle class, and the leverage it gives us. At one time I thought a flat tax rate was the answer, but then even if it was but 8% (wasn't that the number Steve Forbes was using), 8% for some family making $12,000 is a huge hit, whereas 8% of someone with 100 million dollars still leaves them 920,000,000 dollars to live on. So what do we do?

The one thing I know is that Obama is no more the cause of all these issues than those who went before him, or those who will follow.



The problem with (over) taxing rich people more is it can stagnate the economy and kills incentives.

I make a fair amount of money, but then again I've been busting my butt in school and at work for the better part of my life. I find it hard to swallow that I should bust my butt for someone who is unwilling to work hard for themselves and/or their kids.

There is a reason why pure Capitalism doesn't work and on the other side there is a reason why pure Socialism doesn't either. What Obama tried to do with Obamacare is take the US closer to pure Socialism than any President has before him. Even FDR whom I consider one of the greatest Presidents ever never took us that far. He gave the US workers jobs and a way to make money, he didn't give people handouts. People of that generation expected a fair days wages for a fair days labor.

Today's generation expects something for nothing. I think that is one of the biggest issues that the US faces today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:56 pm
Posts: 1705
Location: Hawaii
Steve C wrote:
Wow, I did not know that the US attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris but didn't go to the march. Wow!

While NONE of the USA executive office attended the march, we Americans were there in thought.



Been in a news coma since I've been working such long hours...........but I thought Kerry was going?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group