Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 7:03 AM Reply   
Nothing new here, But What about CHANGE.!!!!!
The BIG "O" is coming out to SF today for a fund raiser. I know past pres have done this type of crap in the past but It seems pretty crazy in today's state that we as tax payers have to pay to $181 Grand PER HR shuttle the President from town to town on Air Force one so he can swoop up a few million dollars for his Re-election bid. Obama was out in the Bay Area just a few weeks ago doing the same thing. Can we look forward to more of this waste of tax payer money as November gets closer

The Obama's have been banging up their Air Miles on gov payed for Air Travel. Another example of money well spent
http://www.sungazette.com/page/conte...taffers--.html


Air Force One Operating cost's
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...travel-record/
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       06-06-2012, 8:22 AM Reply   
Yawn.

"By Brady's accounting, Obama has now logged 55 days overseas, surpassing former President George H.W. Bush's record of 54 days during his first two years. In total, Obama has visited 26 countries -- some of them more than once -- over the course of 15 trips.

Having been in office only two years, Obama has not come anywhere close to the overall record for presidential travel. That was set by former President Bill Clinton over the course of his two terms in office. Clinton logged 233 days abroad over the course of 55 trips. Former President George W. Bush comes in at a close second, with 215 days abroad over the course of 49 trips."
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-06-2012, 8:31 AM Reply   
Yeah, but those other Presidents didn't have the Republican party to advertise their every action. Apparently the Democrats were asleep at the wheel... or simply concerned about things that really mattered.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 8:50 AM Reply   
I'm so sick of the argument. "what about Bush" this or that. I don't care what was status quo 5 years ago. And just because this guy got away with it doesn't mean it's OK for this guy to do the same thing. I'm upset that this type of waste is not stopped. Republican or Dem doset matter. Waste is Waste.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2012, 9:50 AM Reply   
^The point is Grant, why did you, Fox News, Rush, etc. wait until now to make a stink about it?
Old     (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       06-06-2012, 10:05 AM Reply   
So the President isn't supposed to travel now? Yeah, it costs a lot of money to travel on Air Force One. so what? Should the President (this one and all future ones) fly coach?

Presidents need to travel without restrictions and be well protected when doing so. It'd be great to hear some GOOD cheaper solutions.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 10:18 AM Reply   
Jeremy: Well I figure you can stomp your feel and protest all day all year long and its not going to make a lick of differance, The biggest change you can make is in NOVEMBER. Better say it now then never.. BTW im no FOX or RUSH fan Im just a Tax payer no matter your if your a R or D its a waste. Needs to be called out and fixed.

Brett I see your point. And I agree the Prez needs to be protected. BUT I think its only fair to make the Pres pay for trips that are fund raisers. The trick they have done in the past is They come out for Fund Raisers and then do some sort of white house business and then call the whole thing a "White house Business trip"
Of they go to Africa on vacation and call it "international affairs" and list their daughters as "Seinor Staffers" Straight B.S
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-06-2012, 1:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Jeremy: Well I figure you can stomp your feel and protest all day all year long and its not going to make a lick of differance, The biggest change you can make is in NOVEMBER. Better say it now then never..
OK, now we are down to the brass tacks. Please tell us what you plan to do in Nov to effect change. It's not obvious to me. Perhaps I can follow in your footsteps if you just give me some sage advice.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-06-2012, 2:08 PM Reply   
Unfortunately, for the taxpayer, the President should never be allowed to travel without some sort of protection--even to a fund raiser. It's much too dangerous.
Old     (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       06-06-2012, 11:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
I know past pres have done this type of crap in the pas
Quote:
I don't care what was status quo 5 years ago. And just because this guy got away with it doesn't mean it's OK for this guy to do the same thing.
To me, it does make it okay. The president is the president, he does things a little differently than you and I. Air Force One is more of a symbol than anything else... if Obama stopped using it, people would be up his ass because he "is breaking tradition", or if he took a greyhound people would say "He is making the U.S. look bad" ....
Fox news: Obama
as
Skip Bayless : Lebron James

If I was in office and someone suggested we have a fundraiser etc etc etc and this is how travel/the event was done in the past, I would see no problem with it. Sure as Joe Schmoe sitting on my computer working 8-4, it seems outrageous that I could retire off of the costs racked up by one of his trips, but thats just the way of the world, and it isn't going to stop.

If you want to hate, go ahead and hate but it does no good...... bottom line for me is that no matter who would have been elected, they would have sucked. Not blaming Bush, not blaming Obama, not blaming Clinton for the problems we've got.... time get good, times get bad, just the way things go. Sitting and crying about them doesn't help much though.

Its Always Sunny said it best:
Dennis: Who am I supposed to vote for? Am I supposed to vote for the—the Democrat who's going to blast me in the ass or the Republican who's blasting my ass?
Mac: You see, politics is all just one big ass-blast.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 1:54 PM Reply   
I don't think the argument of "because the last guy did it its OK" to me this makes no sence. And when your running on the platform of "CHANGE" it seems kind of Hypocryitical. And There is no reason we should not be looked down on for pointing out waste.
I started bashing the PRESIDENT in this Thread, But more to the point Im bashing the way things are being done and the way things have been done!
The Idea that if we didn't fly Air Force One around as often we would some how be looked down on??? Come on are you serious? Again that makes no sence.
So using that logic we can fool the rest of the world that we are not in hardship by flying around the world throwing money out the window, LOL LOL LOL
mabey the "Gif" or anamation in the first post makes sence to you, LOL Money aint a Thang! LOL
Weather the last guy did it or not We as Americans should make them accountable. If you believe the President is on some sort of other Planet then I guess you have already Drank the Kool Aid. IMO he is just another guy doing a job and when he is spending our money I don't care if your a D or a R it matters.
As for Voting Advice pick the guy you hate the least
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-06-2012, 3:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
As for Voting Advice pick the guy you hate the least
So you got nothing. That's what I figured. I think everyone is already going to do that. The fact is that your OP makes you look like you've been puppet mastered by the intellectual dishonest. And your follow up pretty much proves it.
Old     (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       06-06-2012, 3:22 PM Reply   
I'm excited to hear what you offer, John.. Since you've obviously not been 'puppet mastered by the intellectually dishonest' and are much more astute than the rest of us. What's your plan to change the country in November?
I have no doubt it will be a mind bending plan that could only be conceived by an analytical thinker such as yourself.

Wait... you only have one vote? Say it ain't so.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2012, 9:33 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
I'm excited to hear what you offer, John.. Since you've obviously not been 'puppet mastered by the intellectually dishonest' and are much more astute than the rest of us. What's your plan to change the country in November?
I'm not the one who started a thread about the need to make a change with no solutions. I'm also not the one who couldn't understand that recognizing Republican's have a past history of abusive spending doesn't mean... "If it's ok in the past then it's ok in the future". Quite frankly it's flagrantly obvious it means that a past history of abuse predicts a future of abuse. Only someone completely ignorant or intellectually dishonest would interpret this to mean we're we're saying past abuse oks future abuse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barry View Post
I have no doubt it will be a mind bending plan that could only be conceived by an analytical thinker such as yourself.
Sarcasm isn't going to work since I've made no claims of having a great plan.

Although I'd rather have Obama in office than Romney, I'm willing to let the chips fall between the two where they may and vote for Gary Johnson. So, no grand plan. I've never felt the need to drop everything and change the world. And I have no desire to throw away my intellectual honesty simply to dupe others for political purposes.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 3:27 PM Reply   
So because I think its wrong to fly around the country and on our money at the rate of $181 thousand dollars per Hr to fund raise for his personal gain I have been some how been puppet masterd! Wow that's a good one.You have been looking at this to long
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-06-2012, 3:48 PM Reply   
So Grant let's say Romney wins in November. Do you think his use of Air Force One will change? He has enough money to buy an airline, but do you think he will contribute one cent to his travel? I will bet you a hundred dollar bill that in three years your defense will be, "Obama did it, why can't Mitt?"

The truth is Romney is a Republican version of Obama. Grant, I challenge you and the other Romney supporters to do a bit of research. Look at his time spent as governor. Look at the healthcare plan he implemented. Look at his views on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues (prior to him becoming a born-again conservative during the GOP primaries) and explain to me why you expect significant difference between Mitt and Obama.

Congressmen earn a pension and a nice health insurance policy, for life, for only two years of service. Why not bitch about that spending? Why not bitch about using a million dollar missle to blow up a ten dollar tent? There is plenty of bloated spending from both sides of the aisle so remember before you start casting stones.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-06-2012, 4:04 PM Reply   
Ok Ok wake you right! after looking at that last graphic. Im a Obama Voter come November. I know Mit had the messed up I-phone app Wes posted a link of I wonder If I can get a Hop-Nosis app!
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-06-2012, 6:44 PM Reply   
The possible repeal of the Federal mandated health care legislation and a chance at the implementation of the school voucher system are two reasons I support Romney.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-07-2012, 7:51 AM Reply   
Yeah, and Romney is going to let Big oil companies drill on government land so we can be energy efficient!
...and vouchers work great here in Ohio, taking money away from excellent public schools!
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-07-2012, 11:15 AM Reply   
So what's wrong with allowing drilling on Federal land? The far majority of oil wells have little environmental impact, no worse than a tanker leaking or an off shore well blowing up, and if public schools are so great, why would people move their kids out of public schools and into a private school in the first place?
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 12:57 PM Reply   
I thought that this thread was going to be about our attorney general using public funds to "protect" voters in minority cities from voter intimidation. Where, I might add, there was no complaint about voter intimidation. Our fine leaders have created an illusion so that minority voters are angered into getting out and voting. It's just another ploy from the left to "puppet master" their public.

but my bad, that's not what this thread is about
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 1:35 PM Reply   
Grant, anyone who opposes Obama is supposed to write a paper explaining their position, complete with footnotes. If you don't, then you have been puppet mastered and are an idiot. I don't agree. There is SO Much information out there. Do your own research.

I agree with the comment about him running on a platform of change. I guess we expected that change to be better for the country. I guess not.

I'm not really sure how his supporters can feel good about what he has done.

I can't wait to hear the justification of Obama care after the Court strikes it down. I also wonder how any of us can feel good about, for example, the Dodd-Frank legislation. This bill created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The appointed head of this committee has very little oversight to his spending. Unlike any other agency, he just has to have a budget of less than 12% of the fed's revenue and it will be approved by the Federal Reserve. The CFPD doesn't have to answer to any of the governing bodies that the SEC, FDIC, CFTC, FTC....have to answer to. There is essentially no checks and balances. They can seize a bank without asking anybody.

There are many more examples of Obama's abuse of power and his methods of circumventing Congress. His dept of interior for example, defied a federal court order invalidating his ban on deep water drilling. Another is his executive order forcing tax payers to fund embryonic stem cell research. Although the courts struck it down, he got around the order because it had already been funded by the time the court ruled.

Many many examples out there for those who really want to know who this President is. He does not care about how the 3 branches of government are supposed to work. He creates ways to get around what the voters/congress want.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-07-2012, 1:48 PM Reply   
"I can't wait to hear the justification of Obama care after the Court strikes it down."

Cliff not to burst your bubble, but the case isn't solely on the constitutionality of Obamacare, but on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Regardless of the Supreme's Court decision, the ACA will not necessarily "die" if the SC rules against the mandate. Not only that, the Supreme Court's decision could also render the GOP's Medicare Part D as unconstitutional.

And again, you criticize a guy about spending and John posted a link that shows Obama's spending is much less than his predecessors.

Your delusion is simply amazing.
Old     (Keith529)      Join Date: Sep 2011       06-07-2012, 2:03 PM Reply   
"And again, you criticize a guy about spending and John posted a link that shows Obama's spending is much less than his predecessors."


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oba...ned-2012-05-22

Here's the article. The way I read it it shows that spending is up 0.4% so he's not decreasing spending, only decreasing the rate at which we increase our spending.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-07-2012, 2:06 PM Reply   
funny that your talking about delusion
Attached Images
 
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 1:55 PM Reply   
your is amazing. You already assume that I don't know anything about what the courts ruling would mean.

As far as spending goes, It's either a flat out lie that Obama hasn't driven us deeper into debt than his predecessors, or it's just plain denial.

It's your delusion that is sad

and read what I wrote. My comments weren't about spending, they were about his ignoring the other branches of government. He is a loose canon. Why that doesn't bother you is amazing.

Last edited by ord27; 06-07-2012 at 1:56 PM. Reason: added comment
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 2:14 PM Reply   
here are a couple of articles.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...rican-economy/

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/1...bt-blame-game/

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/2...urpasses-bush/


I have no answer for Jeremy. It wouldn't matter if Obama himself said that he was an over spender and a poor President, he would argue the point. As for John, I had a good laugh that he is voting for Johnson. He always wants everybody to declare a solution. If they can't or won't, then Obama's the man!
Oh brother......thanks, I enjoyed that

I also find it amazing that if something is reported of Fox, or by Rush or Beck, it's automatically hogwash. I personally watch or listen to both sides. Sometimes both sides report crappola, sometimes they don't

Last edited by ord27; 06-07-2012 at 2:18 PM. Reason: none
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 2:23 PM Reply   
Obama’s Spending Spree: By the Numbers
By Andrew Stiles
February 14, 2011 12:40 P.M. Comments21
Here is President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2012 (and outlook through 2021). And here is a look at some of the numbers that stand out:

$3.73 trillion — total spending this year (25 percent of GDP, highest levels since World War Two).

$46 trillion — total spending over the next decade.

$8.7 trillion — total new spending over the same period.

$26.3 trillion — Total new debt, including entitlement obligations, predicted by 2021.

$7.2 trillion — Total deficit predicted by the end of the decade.

$1.1 trillion — How much the White House estimates the proposal will reduce the deficit over the next ten years.

$4 trillion — How much the president’s deficit commission recommended reducing the deficit over the next ten years to avoid financial catastrophe.

$1.6 trillion — The projected annual deficit for 2011 (11 percent of GDP), up from $1.3 trillion in 2010.

$2 trillion — Amount the budget will raise taxes on business and upper-income families over the next ten years, which includes letting the Bush-era tax rates expire in 2012 (for incomes $250,000 and up).

$50 billion — Amount the administration plans to spend this year on infrastructure and transportation “investments.”

$30 billion — Amount dedicated to a “National Infrastructure Bank to invest in projects of regional or national significance to the economy,” including the much-touted high-speed rail initiative.

$77.4 billion — Funding allocated for the Department of Education, a 22 percent increase from 2010 levels, and a 35 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$29.5 billion — Total spending on the Department of Energy, a 22 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$9.9 billion — Funding allocated for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 30 percent increase from 2008 levels.

$150 billion — Total amount the White House plans to spend next year on research and development programs.

8.2 percent — Predicted unemployment rate in 2012.

Zero — Political risk the president was willing to assume by proposing meaningful reform to entitlement programs. That said, Republicans haven’t exactly been willing to stick their necks either, at least not yet.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2012, 3:08 PM Reply   
Delusion is believing that Obama brought the train wreck. Anyone with half a brain knew the train wreck happened before he took office.

Quote:
As for John, I had a good laugh that he is voting for Johnson. He always wants everybody to declare a solution. If they can't or won't, then Obama's the man!
I want to declare a solution? That makes no sense. All I want is for people to recognize reality. Republicans have no record of fiscal responsibility. So it's delusional to point at the fiscal irresponsibility of Democrats as a rationale for voting Republican.

I know that Johnson has a snowballs chance in heck in winning. But if he can make any kind of waves at all I think it might be worth throwing in some support. That's based on knowing more about his philosophy and him campaigning as an independent.

My philosophy is very simple. If both parties are fiscally irresponsible I'm going to vote for the one that wastes the money on things that I'm more philosophically aligned with. It's a simple as that. The endless desperate attempts to paint Obama as uniquely different and implicitly suggesting that Republicans will solve our problems is like putting a huge sign that says "I'm not credible" on your forehead.

Keith, I think the link to the article was not saying he spent less, but as you said indicated the percentage growth in spending was less than other Presidents. Where Reagan was one of the worst. I believe the time for the govt to pay down debt is when the economy is prosperous. And the time to add debt is when the economy is weak. But the public doesn't care about planning for the future and neither do politicians. Apparently that children's story about the grasshopper and the ant never sunk in.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 3:26 PM Reply   
From what I read, republicans are more opposed to spending on social programs, that in their opinion, entitle people and make them more lazy. Those types of programs add to our downfall, not correct it. There are several other countries throughout history that illustrate this point perfectly. I for one, have only addressed the Obama spending, that makes me not credible? I don't think so. My frustration is that he wants a utopian, everyone is equal, entitlement laden society and will circumvent all other branches of government to get it. Although I would like a President that will give us a balanced budget, take us to a surplus financially, bring jobs back to America and secure our borders, I would settle this time for a President that likes military spending, is big corporation friendly, and cuts entitlements. If all dollars spent were equal, I would take the guy who is business friendly and not a self proclaimed socialist

stop putting words in peoples mouths
its that simple
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 3:35 PM Reply   
furthermore, I never stated that republicans would solve our problems. I have always stated....anybody but Obama. I also feel like I have been clear as to why I think that, stating examples along the way.
Saying that what I've said isn't credible is just avoiding the comments. Then, to say that you are throwing away your vote, is laughable.

Just because someone points out Obama's spending, doesn't automatically mean that they like all of the republican spending either. It just means we don't like Obama's. He was elected on a platform of change. What that meant to me, among other things, was no more out of control spending, lobbyists influence, transparency, and more accountability to the public. All of those categories have just gotten worse. For that alone, he needs to go.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-07-2012, 4:48 PM Reply   
Well Cliff, I simply challenge you to look at Romney's time as governor and compare that to Obama's time as president and please identify the differences. You cannot do it. Other than one is a Republican and one is a Democrat, everything else is similar.

"From what I read, republicans are more opposed to spending on social programs, that in their opinion, entitle people and make them more lazy. Those types of programs add to our downfall, not correct it."

Hypothetically, let's say a billion is given to recipients in food stamps. How much of that money do you estimate will be circulated back into the US economy? Now let's say a billion is spent on the war in Iraq (something you just advocated), how much of that money is circulated back into the US economy? Which one of these two examples are "adding to our downfall"?

"...lobbyists influence"

I guess the NRA doesn't count as lobbyists nor Grover Norquist.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 4:57 PM Reply   
I didn't advocate war. I said that given the 2 choices, socialist entitlement programs or military spending, I choose military spending.

Also, there is a difference. Obama's agenda is all about redistribution of wealth. I don't agree with this philosophy. We could discuss that philosophy forever. I don't think we need to. We both have heard both sides of that argument. I side on the belief that entitlement programs serve some, but mostly just make others more dependent.

One could also argue that war rejuvenates economies. Although I don't believe that to be true currently, It sure did make FDR look like an economic savior.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-07-2012, 5:24 PM Reply   
Okay, but this is no longer the 1940's and I have not noticed the economic rejuventation from the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.

Again, at least "socialist entitlement programs", small business owners and communities can see some type of return from the program. A large portion of that money will end up back into the US economy. We will never see the return of our investment in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 5:49 PM Reply   
I don't disagree with the war comments. I am not advocating war.

I am not even arguing that the money from socialist programs adds to the currency churn rate.

What I am saying is that entitlement breeds entitlement. It's a downhill slope. I prefer a President who's main agenda isn't about entitlements. I am of the school of thought that believes the free market works.

That's really our only/main difference. We somehow always argue about what is right. I'm not sure that we are that far off. I want a small federal government (not Obama's philosophy) and you apparently want a larger federal government that (in most liberals views) protects and cares for those who can't care for themselves.

I think that it would be great to have a nation with no one starving, medical needs met, every one housed. I don't believe that entitlements given "willy nilly" is a solution to that end. I believe that job creation, no over regulation, tax incentives, no monopolies, an education system that isn't watered down, insist on limited numbers of immigrants and their assimilation into society...etc.... are a better solution to that end.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2012, 6:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
I don't disagree with the war comments. I am not advocating war.
There's a lot more evidence to support the Republican's desire for war *and* nation rebuilding than Obama creating a utopian society. When Romney spoke at the Republican convention in 2008 he sounded like he was ready to invade every nation he could.

It's funny how you can ignore events that actually occurred while inventing what you think Obama would do even though he hasn't done it after 3 years in office.

Oh, and I didn't know my vote mattered so much to you. I guess I'll have to vote for Obama so you don't feel so bad about me wasting my vote.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       06-07-2012, 5:56 PM Reply   
Quote:
Hypothetically, let's say a billion is given to recipients in food stamps. How much of that money do you estimate will be circulated back into the US
Im sure most of it get's ciruclated in the form of Booze, KFC, Flat Screen TVs and PlayStations.
Quote:
Now let's say a billion is spent on the war in Iraq how much of that money is circulated back into the US economy?
Its spent back here in the US. Here is a Example of what Im talking about
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/st...s_armora.shtml
This company has hundreds of Employes that are at work via the US goverment. These people recieve a Pay check that they are taxed on, So instead of taking money from the goverment in the form of a hand out Via social Services they are off the Un employment line and Now Paying the goverment in the form of tax's, I think any time the goverment can spend money on american made good's Like war effort goods that money gets circulated right back into our economy in a much better way then social service money does.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-07-2012, 6:46 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
I think any time the goverment can spend money on american made good's Like war effort goods that money gets circulated right back into our economy in a much better way then social service money does.
Yeah, that's right.... all the money spend fixing up Afghanistan and Iraq was spent right here in America.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 6:48 PM Reply   
events that actually occurred are that Obama had us in 3 "altercations" at the same time. I would bet that we would be in Syria tomorrow (without approval) if Russia etal had not specifically asked us not to get involved today

Also, Obama has specifically said that he will redistribute wealth. It actually happened. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that.....
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       06-08-2012, 6:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
events that actually occurred are that Obama had us in 3 "altercations" at the same time. I would bet that we would be in Syria tomorrow (without approval) if Russia etal had not specifically asked us not to get involved today

Also, Obama has specifically said that he will redistribute wealth. It actually happened. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that.....
I guess if you are going to look at it that way, though, Obama is a military genius. Look, our investment of military capital in Libya was very small (comparatively speaking) but the outcome was the toppling of a regime that has dogged us since Reagan was president.

As far as opportunities to change our role in the middle east go, I would hope that we've all learned that while "winning" a war there might not be hard, setting up a government post-win isn't easy at all. Much better to be on the side of the local victors that walk in ourselves.

So to the extent we get into Syria on the side of the insurgents with military aid and training, the payoff down the road could be huge (assuming that we don't piss off Russia by being on the wrong side of their biggest arms customer).
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 8:27 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
events that actually occurred are that Obama had us in 3 "altercations" at the same time. I would bet that we would be in Syria tomorrow (without approval) if Russia etal had not specifically asked us not to get involved today
The altercations aren't the problem. The nation rebuilding is the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
Also, Obama has specifically said that he will redistribute wealth. It actually happened. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that.....
You have to keep repeating it because that's the only way to turn a lie into the truth.
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-07-2012, 7:57 PM Reply   
"Also, Obama has specifically said that he will redistribute wealth. It actually happened. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that..... "
ok, everything is even steven now, the millionaires have been taxed so much they only make $50,000 now and all the poor people are getting their christmas bonuses($50,000), next your going to tell everyone how getting rid of the minimum wage is going to Help America.
"So what's wrong with allowing drilling on Federal land?", absolutely nothing, its the delusional perception that we can be energy self-efficient if we loosen up government restriction(which romney is running his campaign on). Turn Alaska upside down, I have never seen a wakeboarder from Alaska anyway!
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-07-2012, 8:11 PM Reply   
actually, might surprise you, I'm not a fan of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is the biggest lie that the government tells. They raise it for the sole purpose of collecting more tax. The government knows that raising the wage doesn't increase anyones buying power, it instead creates inflation. Employers pass along the expense to the customer......

I haven't paid the minimum wage in forever. You can't run a business that way. All of the quality help will gravitate to where the wages or earning potential is the highest.
I also allow over time. If you need to keep labor lean during certain cycles of year, you pay a lower wage but let them work a ton during higher volume times of the year. The alternative is to reduce your seasonal staff and staff up when needed. This type of management does not develop loyal employees. I've tried it both ways.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-08-2012, 4:22 AM Reply   
"Im sure most of it get's ciruclated in the form of Booze, KFC, Flat Screen TVs and PlayStations."

Show me all of these stores that take food stamps. I guess now you can walk into a Best Buy or a liquor store or the KFC and use a food stamp. Even if that was true, that keeps local businesses going. Explain to me how spending hundreds of billions of dollars establishing a corrupt government in Iraq "creates jobs".
Old     (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       06-08-2012, 5:43 AM Reply   
"I haven't paid the minimum wage in forever. You can't run a business that way."
Wrong!
McDonald's pays minimum wage and they are quite successful.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-08-2012, 6:52 AM Reply   
thanks for that jo shmoe

I will start running my restaurants the same way that the big giant corporate owned ones do.

that wont last long.......
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       06-08-2012, 7:15 AM Reply   
Some interesting comments below the article on Obama's spending. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ng-125445.html
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 8:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
Some interesting comments below the article on Obama's spending. http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ng-125445.html
About as interesting as a clown show. I heard that Romney raised more money than Obama last month.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-08-2012, 8:49 AM Reply   
WHAT?
are you saying that Obama didn't say that he wants to redistribute wealth? It's on video. If I were on my home computer, I would find it for you.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 10:11 AM Reply   
Fail.... I highlighted it for you just so you wouldn't come back with that.

BTW, spreading the wealth is what makes an economy healthy. It isn't a necessary fact that spreading the wealth means only taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-08-2012, 10:15 AM Reply   
I admit, you lost me. Obama did say that. Redistribution is his plan.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 10:28 AM Reply   
It's a good plan depending on how you do it. Bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country so that there are good job opportunities for all levels of education is one way to spread the wealth.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-08-2012, 10:39 AM Reply   
I don't disagree with that line of thought. Obama is talking specifically about increasing taxes on the wealthy, cutting tax writeoffs and using that revenue to fund entitlement programs. I am opposed to that.

I would be in favor of increasing taxes on everyone and eliminating loop holes for the sole purpose of reducing the debt. That is not Obama's game plan.

MOST of the time, John, I think that we are on the same page. We present it differently.
The main difference that I see, is that you don't want to remove a sitting President (even if he isn't effective) with one that doesn't seem to have the answers either. Me, I want Obama out of office before he can do more damage. If you take Obama at his word, his past actions, and his associations, then we are headed deeper in debt with a population that becomes more and more dependent on the entitlement programs.

There is plenty of documentation out there to support my claims. For me, I feel like those that choose to agrue against that, have just decided to not do their research, or just want to ignore Obama's actions and words.

I'm sure that you might feel the same way on your side
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 11:20 AM Reply   
I don't want to remove the sitting President *and* replace him with Romney for a multitude of reasons.

1) The train wreck occurred with a Republican President.
2) Republicans have exhibited behavior that appears to me for the purpose of making the sitting President ineffective.
3) Republicans have a huge credibility problem as a result of creating a torrent of misinformation and lies to gain a political advantage.
4) Republicans consistently support massive military spending and apparently only have a problem with war when it's Obama at the helm with minimal participation (i.e. Libya)
5) Republicans are IMO misguided in understanding what creates employment.

Point #2 makes it difficult for me to reward Republicans even if they could manage to put up a decent candidate. I feel the attacks on Obama and the obstinance to work together for the good of the country makes them traitors for the purpose of political gain.

Philosophically I'm more aligned with Democrats. I value education over invading and then converting nations to democracy. Fiscally speaking I don't see a lot of difference between the parties. They are both fundamentally driven by money and special interests. I'd glad Obamacare passed and I hope the SCOTUS shoots down the mandate. The solution to HC is far more radical and it needs to stay in the spotlight politically until we figure it out.

Neither party wants smaller govt, but I do. The issues I feel that are important are not even issues. I think that defined govt benefit pensions are fiscally irresponsible. I believe that tax deductions for pensions and healthcare do more harm than good. I think the huge trade deficit is bad for the country.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-08-2012, 12:01 PM Reply   
"The truth of the matter is," Obama said, "we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine."


This dumb **** is so out of touch its crazy people still defend him.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 12:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
This dumb **** is so out of touch its crazy people still defend him.
When the only alternative is a Republican it becomes obvious why people defend him. Hardly crazy.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-08-2012, 12:46 PM Reply   
I would take a Republican over this turd anyday.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-08-2012, 12:52 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
I would take a Republican turd over Obama anyday.
You're in luck because that's what they got on the menu.
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       06-12-2012, 7:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
You're in luck because that's what they got on the menu.
Typical. Change what I said to benefit your stance.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       06-12-2012, 12:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Typical. Change what I said to benefit your stance.
Typical, no sense of humor.
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-08-2012, 4:59 PM Reply   
"I would take a Republican over this turd anyday."

Just like I said to Cliff, identify the differences between Obama as President and Romney as governor. You will be voting for a turd when you cast your vote for Romney.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       06-08-2012, 5:06 PM Reply   
I have pointed out differences with Obama and just about everybody ecxept those from the far far left. I also have pointed out that there is plenty of stuff out there to support my stance on how Obama has a share the wealth philosophy. If that doesn't satisfy you that others have a legitimate (but different take than yours) opinion, nothing will.

I've even given examples as to how Obama circumvents the other branches of government. Why isn't that enough for people to not want to vote for him. Saying they are lies and scare tactics is avoiding these issues
Old     (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       06-09-2012, 11:07 AM Reply   
Cliff, vote for who you want, all I am saying is you act as though Obama is the root of all evil in the US and I am simply suggesting that Romney is not that far off from Obama's policies. I can list example after example to substantiate this, but you will believe what you choose to believe. I am fine with that. But the American people always choose presidents that are close to center, look at the past 100 years. That's why all of the "conservatives" were out of the race early. Romney was the most liberal of all of the GOP candidates and look at who is still standing.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us