A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

evil poor at it again

Posted: Feb 9, 2012

from rush's lips to your hips. Last night heard 1 in 5 Americans receives SOME sort of government assistance (ranging from student loans to total disability). This morning the drug-addled gasbag put forth the statement that 1 in 5 Americans are totally dependent upon government aid for survival. Also, 49% of Americans dont even pay income tax. He further went on to state that this is exactly the intent of the democrats because when one is totally dependent on government for survival, ione is certainly are not interested in foreign policy or other issues, only in voting for the individual who will continue their benefits. Ahhhhh, now I get it. Those pesky poor people.

;

Did he happen to mention - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
that 60% of American corporations pay no tax (while making billions)?

no but - I was listening to

[ In Reply To ..]
mark LAvine (another frother) who was going on and on about the banks being the victims in the mortgage crisis fooled by crafty over-reaching poor people. Yet during the news breaks, the reports were about the $25 billion settlement the banks must pay for the mortgage crisis.

Your interpretation is way off - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
Rush's lips to your hips? It would do you wise to lay off the personal insults. Maybe people could take your post more seriously. Don't be calling anyone a "drug-addled gasbag" unless you want to hear it about your own guy there. Besides whether or not you want to believe it what he said is the truth. Yes, I know the truth hurts, but grow up. What he stated is exactly true and it has nothing to do with your ill-attempt at diversion of trying to make people think he was focusing on the "pesky poor people". Your trying to divert from the truth. The truth is exactly as he stated. When the government has people totally dependent on them for survial they are not going to be interested in all the other bull-crap. They will just vote for the guy/gal who promises them stuff for free, whether or not it's a lie. Has nothing to do with being poor.

It would do you wise to lose the attitude. Your lack of compassion for anyone who has an addiction problem AND gets help for it AND is not on drugs anymore shine through loud and clear.

Oh yeah, grow up too. Your post sounded like a 12 year old nasty brat wrote it.

Interpretation way off - What if - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Had to laugh about the drug use; thought she meant Obama...LOL. If anyone actually bothered to research further, having this many people on the government dole, regardless of the reason, and then keeping them there with no viable plan to get them back working, leads to exactly the problems Europe is currently going through. Just look at Greece. They are in such bad shape now because of very similar circumstances. They are now talking about a 20% pay cut across the board (some think it is only government workers or 20% minimum wage, but since the private sector is paying for those that not working, it is an endless downward spiral= just like the USA). They are expecting massive layoffs as a result and cannot even determine the projected unemployment. US is looking more and more like them with our debt load and no end to entitlements the working people cannot afford for those that do not contribute. I often wonder if those of us that continually strive to improve our employment went on strike and refused to work to pay for those that refuse to work and contribute nothing. BEFORE THE FLAMERS START, I AM NOT REFERRING TO THOSE TRULY IN NEED; I AM REFERRING TO THOSE THAT ARE TOO LAZY AND IRRESPONSIBLE...we ALL know people in that category.

Obama money - sm

[ In Reply To ..]

Who can forget Peggy Joseph? "It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

And this:

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN #1: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN #1: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN #1: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN #1: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

WOMAN #2: And we love him.

WOMAN #1: We love him. That’s why we voted for him!

WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

And the other one:

ROGULSKI: Did you get an application to fill out yet?

WOMAN: I sure did. And I filled it out, and I am waiting to see what the results are going to be.

ROGULSKI: Will you know today how much money you’re getting?

WOMAN: No, I won’t, but I’m waiting for a phone call.

ROGULSKI: Where’s the money coming from?

WOMAN: I believe it’s coming from the City of Detroit or the state.

ROGULSKI: Where did they get it from?

WOMAN: Some funds that was forgiven [sic] by Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get the funds?

WOMAN: Obama getting the funds from . . . Ummm, I have no idea, to tell you the truth. He’s the president.

ROGULSKI: In downtown Detroit, Ken Rogulski, WJR News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKb78kJhaMw&feature=player_embedded

nuff said

Obama money-sm - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
I remember the first time I saw this. I actually thought the women was joking and was laughing because I thought she/they were doing a comedy routine. When it became apparent she/they were serious, I actually felt embarrassed for her/them. Too bad there are still a lot that believe as they do. Wonder what they did with all MY/OUR "Obama money" since that is where the stash was coming from.

Obama money- PS to sm - Got a question for you sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Now that we are at the tipping point with the highest number of Americans in history on the government entitlement programs and about 47% paying no federal taxes at all...what are all these people going to do for Obama money when those of working run out of cash and have nothing left to give? Who's going to give them the Obama cash then?

Museum of right wing scapegoats - location please

[ In Reply To ..]
These seems to be a repository of right wing scapegoats for each issue that faces the nation - we have the people described in the previous post with obvious relish. We have the Occupy sh__tter and the occupy rapist. I am certain there are many more and I would like to visit the museum. It seems the prop guys hannity, rove, etc., make it so easy to get their followers worked up emotionally by simplifying the issue using a single person or a few individuals.

and this is why you are more dangerous than Rush et al - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You do understand, don't you, that Rush was capitalizing on a dialogue with a woman who had bought into rumors of free money?

Buying into Rush's spin makes you just as sad and sorry as the woman who bought into the rumors of "free Obama money".

Actual documentation of event:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe2_1254954283

Yeah, can we say grow up LOL - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
The childish nasty snarky comments need to stop. I don't care whether it's a newscaster, a politician, the president, Rush or Keith. People should be able to have a conversation on this board without resorting to nasty name calling. Especially when the main dude on their side is/was one too. And last I knew Rush got help and kicked the habit. Congrats to him for doing so.

I'll tell ya, wouldn't want to be in an accident with that poster, she's the kind to run over you twice, 3 times if your a republican. Scary the mindset of some people.

I've stayed away cos 1, I'm busy working and 2, the board is really going down the drain with all the nasty name calling from people acting like children.

But all in all Rush was right. Like you said the working people cannot afford for those who are lazy and irresponsible. Greece is a good example. Funny thing is some people in this country don't care, as long as a democrats in charge. That's all they care about.

Yeah, can we say grow up LOL - what if - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Got a good belly laugh out of your post about the accident - isn't that the truth. I have not bothered with this board much either because of the reasons you mentioned. It is so much nicer when you can have a conversation with someone, even if you do not agree, without all that childish "I can call you a meaner name than you call me" junk that goes on. Things in Greece are completely out of control now because of all their entitlements, yet they have people rioting in the streets because they have to cut them; no way to pay for them. What do people think is going to happen here? They scream about the 1% (who are paying over 35% of all taxes), but when that well runs dry what are they going do then....eat your dog? Someone that has been working the system is in for a rude awakening. They won't possess any skills to be self-sufficient. Pretty dismal outlook.

it is not childish or snarky - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
to claim a person that disagrees with you would drive a motor vehicle over someone twice. Not at all. That is a statement worthy of one of the greatest mature minds of all time but obviously someone who has never been driven over once, let alone twice can afford to make such a statement. Where is your compassion for the flattened.

Interpretation way off - What if - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
What if - We all know that there are a few on here that can never contribute a post without calling someone names. Pretty sad that is as far as their capabilities go.

hearty chuckles - SM

[ In Reply To ..]
Many of my favorite posts are those posted in the wee hours (they only come out at night) that begin with statements like "lay off the personal insults" and then degenerate into "you sound like a nasty ..." I can just visualize the spittle accumulation and labored breathing as they hunch over the keyboard pecking key by key.

To What if - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
are at it again...guess they just could not pass up an opportunity to flame.

The Gasbag - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
(and I love the name) has never made a true statement in his life. The working poor may not pay income tax but they pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, federal excise taxes on certain items and gasoline tax if they can afford to drive. But my principal question to all you right-wingers is why you are always so worked up about aid to the poor and never say a word about all the money we have spent on wars in the last ten years, including the billions paid to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater?

gasbag OABO - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
You comments are off/wrong on several levels.
1. Completely false that Rush "never made a true statement in his life". That would be exactly the same as saying to you "you never made a true statement in your life".
2. Not one person on this board ever stated that the "poor" did not pay any taxes. They correctly stated that about 47% pay no FEDERAL TAXES and 1% of the WAGE EARNERS pay approximately 35%. Also stated that when the approximate 50% of workers can no longer afford to pay or carry all those on the government dole, then what? All true statements.
3. Your question "to all you right wingers is why you get so worked up about aid to the poor". Another false statement. Posters clearly throughout the threads on this board, did NOT object to any aid to anyone that actually needed help. Their objections were specifically directed to those that take aid that they should not have because of working the system, fraud, theft, or too lazy to work. Tremendous difference.
4. There has been plenty said about money spent on the wars. You assumed the none of those comments came from a Repub or conservative. Your error.
5. Hallliburton/Blackwater - Using your logic, why do none of the left-wingers address the billions spent on Solyndra, millions (probably now billioins) funneled to supporters of Obama/Pelosi such as Chicago Carbon Exchange, loan guarantees to Venezuela to drill oil (real sensible), 10-mill plus spent on Obama and family/friend's vacations, the millions of dollars that white house staff and cabinet members currently owe in delinquent taxes that have not been paid. The Sect. of Treasury that did not pay his own taxes until caught, then never paid the fine/interest that an average citizen has to pay if they do not pay their taxes. There were other cabinet members that also did not pay their taxes.

The Heritage Foundation - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

So I dismiss anything from the Heritage Foundation just as you dismiss anything news source which you call "liberal."

The Heritage Foundation - old and burned out - Better READ-CryBabyLIbs

[ In Reply To ..]
Don't know what you are reading as I said aboslutely NONE of the stuff you attritbuted to me. I know what the Heritage Foundation is; NEVER MENTIONED IT, ONLY YOU DID. I also NEVER "DISMISSED" anything in the previous post as you claim. It was a political term in direct reponse to the previous poster blasting conservatives/Republicans without any support of the criticisms other than poster's own opinion (certainly not fact). Clearly, you do not even bother to read the messages you are critizing since you clearly do not know the content.

Ummm... Rush's latest rant was based on - Heritage Foundation info

[ In Reply To ..]
That's what the point of this post was, right? Rush's latest rant regarding the poor/gov assitance. Well... this particular rant was based on findings by the Heritage Foundation. The link is posted below. Thought you would have known that before telling someone else "better read."

Ummm... Rush's latest rant was based on - Heritage Foundation info - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
I stand by original post to you.

What original post to me? You mean, the link.. - LbNaCl

[ In Reply To ..]
I posted below? That's the only comment I've made on this particular thread. Nice try... OABO I am not, and it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed the one who failed to read. FYI: Rush's rant (the point of this conversation) is based on Heritage Foundation info. So, I guess I stand by my original - and only - post to you.

Take care.

No, you are not OABO, I am - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
and admittedly I sometimes go over the top because there are posters on this board with whom one cannot have a rational conversation as they dismiss all the independent, nonpartisan resources as "liberal" and will only accept info from Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. One of them even stated that Factcheck.org, which is operated by the Annenberg Foundation was part of Obama's Chicago machine even though The Annenberg Foundation is located at the University of Pennsylvania. As has been said before, you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.

Not like I took being "accused" of being you - as an insult

[ In Reply To ..]
But the insinuation that I/you/we was/were "padding" the post was a very desperate attempt to deflect off the fact that you did and they did not READ. Kinda silly.

I got your message - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
I just wanted to reiterate that I will stand behind what I post and I do appreciate a rational voice.

I feel the same way - what if - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
It definitely IS hard not to go over the top when one is unable to have a rational conversation with people in certain parties. Conservatives do not dismiss independent, nonpartison resources as liberal, unless they are liberal and backed by liberals (i.e. $$$). The truly nonpartison and independent resources are a good source for information. When you read articles written by people in other countries, and even here (if they do not have an agenda). But what you don't realized and have not learned in all the posts written here over and over again is that conservatives do not "only" accept info from Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. Yes we listen to what they have to say, but we also have the intelligence to listen then do some fact checking and determine for ourselves whether or not we believe what they say. We know they are not correct 100% of the time, but also "every statement they make in the whole lives is not always wrong" (as one poster stated). Has hatred really blinded some people that they can't even recognize the truth no matter what party says it. They may not be right 100% of the time, but they are at least 80%. All you have to do is research what they say. Pretty easy really. But the liberals (not all, but the majority) on the other hand believes anything a liberal says 100% of the time without questioning anything. They won't listen to anything a conservative has to say, decides before it's even said that they will not agree with or like anything a republican has to say. Olberman and Matthews are the masters of deceit. They've got their listeners brainwashed into not questioning anything or researching, just believe what they say, and MSNBC plays a huge contribution to that too by purposely misleading people and falsely reporting a story that they know is a lie.

I have written before about Factcheck. Don't know if you are referring to one of my posts or someone else's because others have written about them, but no, they are not an independent agency. All you have to do is the research. They are operated by and receive their funding from the Annenberg Foundation, which is part of Obama's Chicago machine. It doesn't matter that they are located in PA. They still get their funding from the same place. There are companies in TX getting funding from DC, places in CA getting funding from NY, so their location does not matter. What matters is the people behind the funding and who they want to protect. Not saying that everything Factcheck says is wrong, but certainly not everything they say is true. Especially when there are facts to prove them wrong. It would be no different if when McCain was running if Fox put up a website called Foxcheck.com and promoted their information supporting McCain as true when there were facts to prove them wrong. No different.

But yes, give me a truly independent site. Love articles that stimulate the mind and give me a something to research and make my own conclusions about issues.

Yes everyone is entitled to their opinions, but facts are not an entitlement, facts are facts. You may not like the facts, but that doesn't mean they are not true.

The Heritage Foundation - old and burned out - Why did you eliminate CNN's contribution

[ In Reply To ..]

Obamaville: A Story of Dependence
February 09, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, there's a story that's been digested, written in a number of places, first from the Heritage Foundation: "Dependence on Government at an All-Time High." It's from the Heritage Foundation. Actually, this is a companion piece to a CNN story from earlier in the week about how one-third of Americans are on means-tested government programs. "The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government, released today, should be a wake-up call for America. Published by The Heritage Foundation for the past 10 years, the Index tracks the growth in government dependence dating back to the early 1960s. This year’s edition shows an alarming trend," with some incredible facts about dependence on government at an all-time high.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: That's right, my friends, according to the Heritage Foundation, dependency is up 7.5% past two years under Obama. And you have to ask, "How can that be? We have millions of jobs being created out there!" The administration is going to project, for 2012, a net addition of two million jobs (2.2 million jobs in the last 12 months); 3.7 million added in 20 months. Net jobs. That's what they're putting out there! The regime is telling us they've created 3.7 million jobs since they took office, with their stimulus bill. And yet government dependence is up higher than ever, according to the Heritage Foundation:

"One in five Americans -- the highest in the nation's history [20%] -- relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance." To put that 20% in perspective, "That's more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington," and how do you think they vote and for whom do you think they vote? Twenty percent totally supported by the federal government. "Government dependency jumped 8.1% in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement." Retirement!

"The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation's average disposable personal income ($32,446)." No wonder so many people are leaving the workforce. Why work when you can get this? "At the same time, nearly half of the US population (49.5%) does not pay any federal income taxes,"
and none of this is accidental. None of this is coincidence. This has all been part of a grand design. It actually started back days of Woodrow Wilson, but was really given a kick-start by FDR.

"As of now," according to the Heritage Foundation which tracks this, documents it, keeps the data, it is inarguable: "70 percent of the federal government's budget goes to individual assistance programs," and you hear from the regime about all the money we're "wasting on wars. " And you hear it from Ron Paul. (impression) "We got too many waaaaars! We've gotta stop all the waaaars!" And yet, "70% of the federal government's budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years." That's... Not only is that astonishing, it is unsustainable! Now, here's the CNN report that I referenced. It's from earlier this week.

It's posted at CNN under a section called "The New American Dream." That's what the title is! It's a story on means-based assistance from the government, and the number is 33%. "One-third of Americans get means-based assistance," and that is reported by CNN under the title, "The New American Dream." Did you ever think you would see the day when more than a third of Americans were dependent on the so-called social safety net and 20% live entirely on government subsidy? Twenty percent! One out of five, two out of ten (however you can best visualize this), live entirely off the government. "The federal government sent out a record," get this, "$2 trillion to individuals in fiscal 2010, up nearly 75% from 10 years earlier."

Not only is that shocking, it's "unsustainable," to use the favorite word of the left.

"The federal government sent a record $2 trillion to individuals in fiscal 2010..." More than a third of Americans are dependent on the so-called social safety net, and that $2 trillion is up 75% from what it was when Bush took office in 2001. This article is unusual, the CNN story, because it distinguishes between those on "means-based" government assistance and those on Social Security and Medicare -- which, after all, are supposed to be programs that we paid into. So this is entirely above and beyond Social Security and Medicare. Usually the media does its best to blur the line between the two kinds of government payouts, but this CNN story's remarkable because they separate them.

And you know the number is still going up. even though "the Great Recession officially ended back in June of 2009," they've been they're telling us (more than 2-1/2 years ago, folks, the recession ended), the elections are still nine months away. The regime wants to get as many people as possible dependent on government before then. And they are doing a bang-up job. Grab audio sound bite 25. I'm gonna take you back. This was in Fort Myers; it wasn't in Tampa. It was February 10th, not even a month after Obama had been immaculated. He goes out and does a town hall in Fort Myers, Florida; a member of the audience Henrietta Hughes stood up and said this to the Bamster...

HUGHES: I respect you and I'm so grateful for you.

OBAMA: Thank you.

HUGHES: Been praying for you. But --

OBAMA: I believe in prayer, so I appreciate that.

HUGHES: I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and place to live in, we it need urgent, and housing authority have two years waiting lists and we need something more than a vehicle and parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help.

OBAMA: Well, I -- listen, I -- what's your name? What's your name?

HUGHES: It's Henrietta Hughes.

OBAMA: Okay, Ms. Hughes. Well, we -- we -- we're going to do everything we can to help you, but there are a lot of people like you. We're going to do everything we can, all right? But the, uh, I'll have my staff talk to you after this, uh, after the -- the town hall, all right?

RUSH: "I have an urgent need. I'm unemployed and I don't have a home." It turns out she did have a home at the time she mentioned this, and later on a couple of Republicans gave her the use of a vacation home that they had. This woman was not homeless. She just said she was. But she needed a new home. She needed a new vehicle. She wanted her own new kitchen and her own bathroom. The president of the United States shows up for a town hall meeting and a citizen shows up, and that's what she thinks the purpose of it is. And even if she didn't think it's the purpose, she thought she could run the scam. Anyway, that's the kind of person, and they run throughout our culture and society.

And the number of people who have become dependent is not accidental. This is why... Folks, this is why I maintain and have forever that the entire welfare system in this country -- the social safety net, whatever you want to call it -- is destroying people. It's robbing them of their dignity. It's robbing them of their humanity. It's robbing them of their potential. There's nothing compassionate about this. There is nothing compassionate about 20% of this country's population being entirely subsidized by the federal government, because the lives that they're living? Yeah, it's $32,000 and it's tax-free, and that's not bad. But that's as good as they're ever going to do.

They're not being trained, educated, motivated, or inspired to do any better than that. And what's worse, they ended up, in their dependent state, voting. The only thing they care about is who the hell's gonna keep this gravy train going. They don't care about anything else. Foreign policy, domestic policy, the circumstances happening to the country because of their dependence, they don't care about any of that. When you've got one source basically to stay alive, that's all you're gonna care about. And if that source isn't you, your life's destroyed. You're over. You are in prison. You are forever shackled, in this case to a state that doesn't care about you individually. It couldn't care less about you -- except one day every four years, and that's it.

They go out of their way to make you think that they have you in their minds each and every day, but this is just... The idea that this is compassion and that liberals love people and care for people better than anybody else, and we conservatives who look at this and find it abhorrent are the mean-spirited extremists, the cold-hearted bigots? This is absurd! An entire segment of our population is being rendered irrelevant. Their lives are being destroyed. Their humanity is being taken away. Their dignity done away with -- all for the sake of the continuation and expansion of power of the Democrat Party and the state. It just makes me sick. And it infuriates me at the same time.

END TRANSCRIPT

One important phrase left out - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
Because one very important phrase was left out:

"Those numbers are on their way up thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath."

While I am not in favor of a welfare society, if you looked at the number on public assistance after The Great Depression you would get a very skewed view of our society. People needed help to get them through some dreadful years after which the country again began to prosper. Hopefully we can do that again.

1 important phrase - - was to old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
who misrepresented what Rush said and then was hammering repubs over what Rush said (obviously with no truth to statements made since they were grossly out of context). The entire transcript was posted because it specifically included input from a liberal entity, which was completely ignored in the original criticisms of Rush. OP criticizing Rush did not even mention it at all, or that Rush had agreed with CNN - just that it was all the Repubs again. I agree with you, but even if you look at post-depression stats, they do not compare to what we have today with people that just are not willing to work at all, have no desire to do their "fair share" and just want everything given to them. Well, the expense of all this has to come from somewhere. I'm being taxed to death and I'm sick of it, especially when it goes to lazy people that are perfectly capable of working, but don't like the pay, the job, the atmosphre and so on, it's owed to me. AGAIN FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT CLEAR ABOUT THIS, THIS DOES NOT REFER TO THOSE TRULY IN NEED OR INCAPABLE OF WORKING.

Don't know what else to say - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
When I started posting on this board I was making a sincere effort to determine why there was so much hatred (yes, hatred) directed at Obama. In subsequent posts, the only real answer I can come up with is that those who do hold these views feel this way in part because they accept only information that is offered by right-wing media and dismiss all the nonpartisan, independent sources as "liberal." There is absolutely no effective way to argue with this.

As for being overtaxed, there is one point where we agree but I still fail to understand why you blame the poor and never mention the fact that the super rich in this country are paying tax rates at the same level that they were during the Truman administration. I think you grossly overexaggerate the number of people who do not want to work. Surely these people exist but not in the numbers to affect the economy in the way the 1% have. There are millions in this country now who cannot find work due to a recession brought about by the super rich some of whom, hopefully, are finally being prosecuted under the Obama administration. And even if they can find work the jobs are often minimum wage with no benefits.

I know that we will never find a common ground on which we can agree but I cannot even determine credible reasons for some of the views expressed on this board other than misinformation which is quoted as gospel.

I will probably decrease my posting here because we are most certainly at an impasse and further discussion seems futile.

Don't know what else to say - old and burned out - Again, not what I said

[ In Reply To ..]
Personally, I never stated I hated Obama; however, I do hate his policies. They are not effective and do far more damage than good. I do believe he is a socialist, based on his own speeches and writings. That is not conjecture on my part or anyone else that is very familiar with his entire history. I have never stated anything as gospel; however, I have seen that employed by the left, not just right-leaning posts as you mentioned.

As for the poor and disabled (but for the grace of God, go I), I wholeheartedly support them and with my own personal funds besides my taxes. There is massive abuse of food stamps, welfare payments, Medicaid enrollment/fraud, Medicare fraud, SS disability fraud. If you corrected the misuse of those funds alone, it comes to literally billions of dollars yearly. One small example: Free cell phones were set up for the "poor", which I wholeheartedly support, and yes I am fiscally conservative. This ended up being abused to the point that the poor were not the ones reaping this benefit, yet we still continue to pay the universal fund tax. There are now over 275,000 people with phones they are not entitled to, multiple phones which they are not entitled to. Based on a mean expense of $50.00 per phone, that comes to an abuse of just this "poor" benefit of $165,000,000 per year. That is my objection to a lot of these programs. The 275,000 that illegally obtained these phones are depriving the real needy people from having them. Rather than "fix" the actual problem, they want to throw more money at it. My question is why? Get rid of the fraud and give the service to the people that need it. This fraud is rampant through all, but not limited to the programs mentioned above. Sooner or later, as a previous poster stated, the 50% paying for everything is going to run of out money, which is exactly what Margaret Thatcher also said about socialism (good read if you are interested). As for the 1% that so many like to bash---there is no getting away from the fact that the actual dollar amount they pay is literally billions of dollars in taxes. It was reduced to a percentage just to make it look worse for the 1%. Furthermore, if someone only wants to look at percentages without the dollar value attached, 5% of taxpayers pay approximately 50% of ALL federal taxes.

I am sorry this is long, but felt your question deserved an answer. Just as a personal way to appreciate what the unending debt does to you personally, take your income, cut it in half and give it to someone that will not get a job, and keep only 50% for yourself. Over time, you can readily see the impact this has on your own life when you are forced to carry someone that will not be responsible for their own. This limits your own ability to pay your own bills, help those you know that are truly in need and eventually your household collapses on itself. Then, no one is cared for. Therein lies the problem with a lot of these policies. Not one poster on this board ever said that the poor should not be helped. But, when you send their "help" to people that are too lazy to help themselves...no one benefits. Minimum wage jobs were never meant or designed to be held for life...they were an opportunity for someone to learn skills, work habits and educate themselves into better positions and better jobs. Yet you hear people refusing to take those even temporarily. I've held plenty of them and learned far more than I ever would sitting at home waiting for a government check. Hope this better explains the viewpoint of conservatives or Repubs, or anyone else fed up with the ever-increasing debt load we are faced with.

You continue to let the 1% off the hook - OABO

[ In Reply To ..]
Our federal income tax is based on percentages, not total dollar amount and a 14% effective tax rate for the super wealthy is neither fair nor reasonable when the middle class pays a higher percentage.

You continue to let the 1% off the hook - OABO - AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG AND MAKING ASSUMPTIONS

[ In Reply To ..]
Not one single one of my posts state leaving anyone of the hook; complete assumption. I think every single person should have skin in the game. If the 1% are paying what they should by tax LAW, if you do not like it, then petition to change the law. Have never seen GE called on the carpet for their spinning of the tax code. I have never seen John Kerry called on the carpet for his spinning of the tax code. I have never seen John Edwards called on the carpet for his spinning of the tax code. I have never seen George Soros called on the carpet for his spinning of the tax code. I notice you never mention the 50% that pay absolutely no federal tax at all....why is that fair? There are multiple tax deductions, credits and breaks that people in the lower income brackets can take advantage of to lower their own bracket (as they should) that the wealthy do not get, but again, that is never mentioned. No matter which way it is spun, the tax code is not fair FOR ANYONE. You have the wealthy establishing residences outside of the US in record number (if you are interested you can look it up and follow the trends). What do you think is going to happen when the top most levels continue to decline? I never see that issue addressed on here by anyone...all I ever see is the bashing of people paying the greatest amount in fed taxes while some pay no fed tax at all. It has been proven over and over, you can take all the money from the 1% you state, and it is not enough money to fix the problem. Living on and with a balanced budget is a huge start (we have not had a budget since Obama took over); they don't even know where the money is going.

You do not have to state it - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
but it is true. GWB administration lowered the tax rate for the top 1% and the Obama administration has been trying to get that reversed and they should have stuck to their guns. Yes, we need to cut some government programs but we also need to increase revenues and yes, the tax code is not fair.

And the lower tax rate for the rich was meant - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
to be TEMPORARY, but the Republicans have their meat hooks on it and will NEVER let it lapse, as it was intended to do.

You do not have to state it - old and burned out - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
Now you're gonna tell us what we can post. No judgment there. News Flash: If they cut the waste and the budget and support of the likes of "Solyndra"...notax increase needed. But heh, if it is a tax increase of Zero on Zero...guess some have it made in the shade. To copy from another THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE IN NEED, JUST THE DEADBEATS.

You continue to let the 1% off the hook when your guys are in charge - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
"We" cannot do anything about the 1%. We are not politicians or lawmakers, however, one thing you always fail to mention is when the democrats are in charge - those same 1% are let off the hook, yet you never mention that. You make it look as though only republicans let the top 1% off the hook and that is totally false and you know it. You just always inconviently leave that part out.

So, just what would you recommend as a fair amount 50%, 75% or more. Heck why not just tax them all 100% that way they won't make anything and you'll be happy. They should definitely be paying a higher bracket than we do, but how much. Are you willing to write up a petition or letter to the president asking him to start taxing the rich more. Have you done anything active to help your cause?

But please spare us with only republicans let the top 1% off the hook. That is totally wrong. Btw - I don't see any poor democrats.

To sm - Ditto that - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Regarding phones - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
Welfare recipients, and others, can receive a free cell phone, but the program is not funded by the government or taxpayer money, as the e-mail alleges. And it’s hardly new.

How It Works

SafeLink Wireless, the program mentioned in the e-mail, does indeed offer a cell phone, about one hour’s worth of calling time per month, and other wireless services like voice mail to eligible low-income households. Applicants have to apply and prove that they are either receiving certain types of government benefits, such as Medicaid, or have household incomes at or below 135 percent of the poverty line. Using 2009 poverty guidelines, that’s $14,620 for an individual and a little under $30,000 for a family of four, with slightly higher amounts for Alaska and Hawaii.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

Regarding phones - old and burned out - Wrong AGAIN

[ In Reply To ..]
I am not alleging anything, I am clearly stating we are taxed for this program whether you are aware of paying it or not. Incidentally, what you neglect to mention, there is a universal service tax applied to each and every phone bill. It is is a tax, it is taken from us; what part of being taxed is not clear. This program is not supported by "contributions" as you state, but rather a direct tax to each and every phone user. I am currently looking at my phone with this tax added to my phone bill...don't tell me it is not funded by a taxpayer. It is a tax and I am paying it. See you never mentioned abuse of the 275,000 that are not entitled to the program that have no problem abusing something set up for the poor. BTW - the tax is specifically stated on my phone bill as "FEDERAL Universal Service Fund" tax; clearly not a "contribution" by the group you mentioned as it is coming directly out of my pocket and I am not associated with SafeLink in any way. If it were not for divulging personal information and names, I would copy my phone bill here so all can see the TAX they are paying and which is so badly abused.

Congratulations - old and burned out

[ In Reply To ..]
You seem to have set yourself up as the sole judge of what is right and what is wrong. I think I will nominate you for the Supreme Court. You will fit in very well with Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, etc.

Congratulations - old and burned out - Thanks for PERSONAL ATTACK

[ In Reply To ..]
Sad that you have to resort to the personal attack. Not one of my posts ever stated any of what you claim....just more assumptions and accusations on your part. If you have difficulty with the truth, that is no one else's problem other than yours. You never addressed the massive waste, never heard any budget solutions from you, never heard how the 50% "workers" are going to support themselves and the other 50% AND pay higher taxes, never heard anything from you about Medicaid/Medicare/SS disability waste, fraud and abuse, never heard any solution about the $165,000,000 in phone fraud DEPRIVING THE POOR (speaking of judging, guess that was not something deserving of addressing- riiight), never heard a reasonable explanation for no budget in over 3 years (not one 1 of the Dems signed onto Obama's budget ideas-what does that tell you)? Just constant slamming of the 1%, with no thoughtful, cohesive statements regarding all the infringements on the poor by the abusers of the system. Everything stated in my posts was accurate, and if you had the desire, you could easily locate all the info you want to support what I posted. I look forward to your nomination...Bait/flame away. Have yet to see any facts in any of your posts...yep, went back and read them all. Just knee-jerk assumptions and accusations and then the name calling.

What name calling? - Good-bye

[ In Reply To ..]
You should be honored to be placed in the same group as Scalia, Thomas,and Roberts.

Goodbye -a nd - Good riddance - Nice try

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Gasbag is not a nice name - don't know why you would like it - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
Rush "has never made a true statement in his life". Really??? No REALLY??? Why do you think that? Not one statement ever? He is 61 years old and has been on the air since at least 1987. Not one statement ever? Do you listen to him 24 hours a day 7 days a week to know every single statement he says. The last I knew and maybe it has changed, but last I knew he has a 3 hour radio show once a week. Now in three hours he must make at least 1000 statements x52 weeks is 52,000 x 25 years is 1,300,000 statements (at least). Now I'm no rocket scientist, but the probability that every single one of his statements he has ever made in his whole life is not true is pretty much nil. Chances are you don't even listen to him, but just repeat the vomit that Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman say. But really...not one statement ever in his life??? That would be like me saying Keith Olberman has never made a true statement in his life. Just cos a person doesn't like someone to come out and say they have never made a true statement in their whole life is just ridiculous. Why do you think anyone will take the rest of your post seriously? I'd like to know.

Conservatives are not "worked up about aid to the poor", but evidently the left-wingers are.

P.S. - Billions are being paid to companies like Halliburton, Blackwater, GE, Microsoft, etc under the reign of the democrats. So why is it okay for them to get paid billions under your guy, but not a republican president?

I'd really like an answer to the above 2 questions.

Wow. News to me about Obama's drug use. - Care to explain? NM

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Obama drug use - Per Obama

[ In Reply To ..]
Obama wrote in his book that he was a cocaine user throughout college; who knows if it was limited to that time period only, or only that drug. Obama has also stated, prior to running, in old interviews and speeches, that he also sold it. Obama camp tries to keep a lid on this, and liberal press very minimally acknowledges or writes about it.

Okay then, let's talk about Bush LOL - and don't say it SM

[ In Reply To ..]
isn't relevant. He was the president for 8 years and, as you said about Obama, who knows if his drug usage was limited to before he was in the White House. The only reason Rush is "important" LOL is because he has a large following of ***** listeners who vote republican so the republican party is forced to react to his ramblings.

Please leave out the name calling - Moderator

[ In Reply To ..]

(?) - nm

[ In Reply To ..]

Maybe the ****? But you can have a moniker - like

[ In Reply To ..]
CryBabyLibs. Maybe I should make mine NeoKKKons?

(?) - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
Notably, the "idiot" remark from 2/5 remains.

A poster this morning responded to me by saying: "I can respond with my opinion, just as you have - with yours." I responded with: "Yeah, I know :)" and was instantaneously reprimanded by email and my post was deleted for attitude. (!)

I give up. I really, really don't get it.

THAT'S OFFENSIVE! - Sarah Bernhardt

[ In Reply To ..]
It's hateful! And, after I'm done posting here, I am going to report your post frantically!!

CryBabyLibs, on the other hand, is perfectly fine.

LOL! Couldn't help myself. - anon

[ In Reply To ..]
On a lighter note, didn't there used to be an MT board where they had separate political boards, one for libs and one for cons? I've looked for it but haven't found it. I used to post there years ago. I noticed there was a lot of cross posting, however.

Hohohehehaha - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
x

What a great name - NM

[ In Reply To ..]
:)

You can have NeoKKKons, if that's what you meant. - Not going to use it.

[ In Reply To ..]
But I think you should feel free to use it and others like it as long as other insulting monikers are allowed and words like ***** or ignorant are banned.

It doesn't bother me either - what if - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Neocons is not offensive. There are neocons in both the republican and democrat party.

Maybe... - what if - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
if you don't like name calling then it shouldn't come from your side. You don't like CryBabyLibs, but you are perfectly fine with Gasbag, right-winger, wingnut, teabaggers (gag, choke, puke), blood thirsty throngs, etc, etc. All I say is if you start name calling then that is what you are bound to receive back. Is that really that hard to understand.

Why is is so hard to discuss something without resorting to calling someone a wingnut or any of the other nasties. Are we not all adults here. My mom and I disagree about politics to the extreme ends, but I would never dream of calling her a nasty because she had a different opinion than I do, nor would she to me.

I hate to use that phrase from Rodney King, but it rings so true here. "Why can't people just get along". Why not dissuss topics like adults. Present information, but lay off the name calling.

Someone said "right-winger?!" How inhumane! - Sarah Bernhardt

[ In Reply To ..]
And I thought I was overly dramatic!

Perhaps some are looking too deeply into posts and the terminology used for a reason to feign outrage, play victim, and then proceed to rant about how name calling is a no-no and to lay off the personal insults. Some here actually seem to thrive on it. It's the main point of many, many posts on here as of late.

No, victim is.... - what if - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Claiming that there is a right-wing conspiracy against libs. Calling people names and them when the names are returned crying wolf/victim.

Perhaps you should lay off the name calling and stick to issues.

One insult does not deserve another but don't cry victim when it is dealt back at you.

Maybe... - what if - sm - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
Some on this board will never get it. Noticed how they skipped over every name you listed, except for right-winger. I actually went back to look at many of these threads. They ALL started with these few that threw nasty, disgusting names or terms towards a Repub or conservative. I don't believe you will ever get through to them. Now, they scream because I used CryBabyLibs after they had told posters to "shut up, they were stupid, teabaggers (sexually obscene-look it up), hypocrites, liars, victims" crazies, questioned everything from a Repubs intelligence to humor, that they wanted the poor to die and children to run homeless in the streets, told a poster to shove a screwdriver through their ear, accused another one of blowing up abortion clinics...and all this was perfectly acceptable to them. CryBabyLibs they found OFFENSIVE...LOLOL. Then there is the one that writes things just to try and bait someone into an argument-pretty easy to spot that one along with the other 3 or 4. The only negative comments sent to them came specifically after their uncalled for, unsolicited attacks on that poster, who subsequently defended themselves (more power to them). It would be a good idea for them to go to a separate board; however, I think their rhetoric would bore them pretty quickly. Their posts are all the same, sounds like they all come from the same person with the same ideas, same words, same ideas, same ideology. Would be like writing back and forth to yourself.

Good observations - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
The hypocrisy is so blatantly obvious. They never mention that they are doing what they accuse others of. Then they make up these lies, rather they are told these totally idiotic statements wanting the poor to die, etc. It really goes to show what happens when you don't think for yourself. It shows.

You're hilarious. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You post "that they wanted the poor to die and children to run homeless in the streets." They don't care if the poor die, that's for sure. That's why they want to end Medicare and Medicaid.

I agree that they don't want children to run homeless in the streets. Instead, they want them to be janitors in school.

You write: "It would be a good idea for them to go to a separate board..."

One of the best things the moderator did was to put the "like" and "dislike" buttons on posts. ***

You're hilarious. - sm - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
Wow...what a spin this is. Never saw anything like what you state on anyone's post. BTW, if you actually REALLY went back and read the posts, the idea for a separate board came from 1 of your other 2 friends. Guess you missed. Would you like some gas for your matches??? :)

This is by far one of the nastiest and threatening posts I've ever seen - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
I have been re-reading all her posts for what you said she wrote. She never wrote anything of the sorts. Re-read her posts yourself.

Who wants them to be janitors in school? That makes absolutely no sense.

Putting a like and dislike button on posts means nothing about whether the majority of readers likes or dislikes a post because as you can see for yourself may of the posts have 150 people who have read it yet 1 or 2 people who vote like/dislike. They do not represent the majority of the people here. However, I just put a dislike on your post.

Your last paragraph borders on attacking the poster you are replying to. "The likes of you and your cohorts"??? You don't know her and I'm pretty sure there are no "cohorts" on this board.

Who wants them to be janitors in school? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Newt Gingrich.

Please see message. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You wrote: "Your last paragraph borders on attacking the poster you are replying to. "The likes of you and your cohorts"??? You don't know her and I'm pretty sure there are no "cohorts" on this board."

From the Free Dictionary by Farlex:

"co·hort (khôrt)
n.
1. A group or band of people.
2. A companion or associate.
3. A generational group as defined in demographics, statistics, or market research: "The cohort of people aged 30 to 39 . . . were more conservative" (American Demographics).
4.
a. One of the 10 divisions of a Roman legion, consisting of 300 to 600 men.
b. A group of soldiers.

Simply put, it means a group of people who agree with each other. That's hardly an attack.

Warning - Stop the personal attacks - Moderator

[ In Reply To ..]
Stop with the personal attacks. It has been said many times to stick to issues. Do not make it personal. No poster should be telling another poster to go to another board. That is not your right.

Please see message. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
This comment -- It would be a good idea for them to go to a separate board; -- was made by CryBabyLibs. I was merely responding to it.

I didn't make any rude comments to CryBabyLibs, as she constantly does to other posters. I was referring to the Republican party and their goals. I was trying to bring the topic back to POLITICS and away from personal insults.

Please, Moderator, be fair. CryBabyLibs was the first person to suggest that those who don't agree with her should go to another board. I responded that the best thing you did was to put the like and dislike buttons on the board. I had also written that if one were to study them, they'd find we're pretty even on the likes and dislikes. For some reason, that statement was removed from my post.

Please don't punish people for responding to posts made by others. If the language is offensive, please punish the ORIGINAL person who said it.

I hope you don't ban me for simply trying to defend myself and explain where my post came from, while CryBabyLibs continues to storm this board with her extreme rudeness, hatred and personal insults.

CryBaby isn't an insult - Tammy Faye Boehner

[ In Reply To ..]
Aint nothing wrong with crying!

Your're right, but it's rough on the orange - foundation and

[ In Reply To ..]
heavy mascara.

Insults and name calling - Moderator

[ In Reply To ..]
We are trying to get civility back on the board. Many people are tired of the insults. Calling a group of people names because you don't agree with them is not civil. Many people have expressed their wishes to get the board back to its intent. To discuss issues and topics.

I believe we can all discuss topics and issues and leave out the name calling.

I wrote that post, and when I use the word - ignorant, I don't mean SM

[ In Reply To ..]
that as name calling. Ignorant to me means uninformed, not meant to be derogatory.

You used it to insult many people - what it - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
And I see you didn't like it being removed so had to write it again to make sure everyone knows what word you used. Still can't stop with the name calling can you. If it was removed for a reason why are you using it again.

Calling people ignorant is name calling. It's derogatory and it's meant to upset people. Since it was removed the first time you just had to write it again cos you didn't like it being removed the first time.

So why didn't you just use the word uninformed instead of calling people here ignorant. It makes no sense unless you get off insulting people here. And what you wrote is just your opinion. People who listen to Rush (or Beck or Fox or Olberman or Matthews for that matter) do not deserve to be called ignorant. You may think they are uniformed, but the information they learn from all the different shows they watch make them very well informed.

If you don't like it that's just too bad. I thought it was expressed enough times to leave out the name calling, but I guess not enough times for some to understand.

This is unbelievable. The ****** stood for - ignorant??!?

[ In Reply To ..]
That's the word that was considered insulting?? Really????

This board needs a new sticky stating that posts will be deleted/changed and/or posters banned based on either: a) The number of times a post is frantically reported (I don't know if the posts reported numerous times are the only ones that are addressed), or b) Based on the POV represented in the post.

It has to be one or the other because this is getting absolutely ridiculous.

Yes - please read - Moderator

[ In Reply To ..]
We are trying to get civility back to this board. Calling people names is not civil and needs to stop. Everyone here is an adult and should be able to discuss issues without resorting to name calling, insults, and foul language. Expressing your opinion is one thing, but leave out the name calling. Do not call other people what you don't want to be called. Express your opinion, but stop insulting posters because they don't share your point of view.

I'm not going to ban anyone because they have a difference of opinion. Freedom of speech is welcome from everyone.

If you can't post without name calling and insulting posters here then don't. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you agree with what the poster wrote. Stop insulting posters here because you don't agree with them. That is for all sides.

A vote for civility - ...

[ In Reply To ..]
I think most of us would agree that we enjoy the exercise of freedom of speech on this board. That said, I think we all know the difference between opinion and name-calling. If you feel name-calling needs to stop, I would welcome your stopping it.

I find it troubling that some posters run rough-shod over the board with name-calling and personal attacks, and I am baffled as to why this abusive behavior is tolerated.

Vote for civility - Conservative

[ In Reply To ..]
Being the receiver of some of this verbal abuse, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Do not visit this board much anymore specifically for the vulgarity and abuse that was so prevalent. Thank you!!

If you want civility back on this board, the key - is to be CONSISTENT

[ In Reply To ..]
in the moderating.

I have been posting here for quite a while. Usually I would rarely report a post on the Politics forum because I'm an adult and read and followed the rules posted in the stickies above. However, whenever I would report a post in the past, it was NEVER addressed even though a clear violation was apparent. One particular incident that comes to mind (there were others, but this one stands out in my memory) is a poster (or posters) a few months back who would like to post messages that CLEARLY belonged on the Faith Board and did this repeatedly. One post called "the antichrist" that contained nothing but a biblical quote was reported by me (and I'm sure by others) and remains on the Politics Board even now if you search. http://general.mtstars.com/281168.html

In the interim, I have seen numerous posts with name calling, trolling, policing (policing is VERY popular lately), and some even bordering on stalking those who choose to use a consistent moniker. Again, I followed the sticky rules, developed a thick skin, and tried to ignore with the hope that they would go away... but then I saw this dandy: ■You're an idiot - How's that term of endearment http://general.mtstars.com/288389.html

Does this not qualify as name calling? Why is it still there? The fact that this (and other obnoxious posts) remain even after being reported and even though they clearly violate the rules is leading some posters to believe that the inconsistency in the moderating is voluntary and the guideline being used for post removal/editing/banning the poster is the POV from which the post is made. If not voluntary, then it's due to not thoroughly looking into all posts that have been reported.

Whatever the reason, it's ridiculous, and I will no longer be coming to this site. Please keep in mind that in my family, there are 3 (including myself) people who would use this site quite regularly. One has already been permanently banned, I'm choosing to not use this site anymore, and the third I'm sure has had it as well. Please take this post as constructive criticism if part of maintaining this site is to make sure that people frequently come back.

This is unbelievable. - Not for most us

[ In Reply To ..]
that follow the rules and respect others in our posts. There are some on here that just will not stop with the insults and think they're funny. Can't understand why they're on here as they don't contribute, just insult, name call, make outrageous all-encompassing statements towards groups that are completely false, make fun of poster's grammar/spelling...and the list goes on. When confronted with any of the above, they scream "victim" and turn people in. What do you expect? It reminds me of the bully that runs wild until someone stands up to the bully and then the bully wets himself in fear. POSTERS ON THIS BOARD ARE SICK OF THE INSULTS. IF YOU CANNOT POST WITHOUT USING THEM, LEAVE - YOU WILL NOT BE MISSED. Pretty simple solution since you have expressed your disgust for the POV for the majority on this board, and those that want to have a CIVIL, POLITE, INFORMED exchange of ideas.

I wrote that post, and when I use the word - ignorant, I don't mean SM - Could simply use "uninformed" then

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Bush is not relevent - Let me explain - what if

[ In Reply To ..]
Bush is not the current president and he does not have a radio show or is in the spotlight right now. He is nothing. He is gone and nobody hears from him. If you are going to go down that road then you have to include Clinton, Reagan, JFK, etc and every president before him back to George Washington. Bush and past presidents are not the issue. We are living in the current here. But this is not about drug (prescription or illegal) that past presidents took. If you want to talk about that subject that would be a whole new thread. This is about the current president and a person in the media.

You don't like Rush, okay we get it. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are other people. People who listen to him are well informed. Just because you don't like what he says does not mean he has ***** listeners (can imagine what word you used). Not all listeners who vote republican listen to him. We are not "forced" to do anything. What you don't understand or seem to get is that republicans listen to everyone. We have the intelligence to gather information from all sides whether or not we like what they have to say and we make our own well informed decisions. We don't blindly go down the road and vote party line because that's what we are told to do. In fact many republicans vote for a democrat if they feel he/she is the better candidate for the job.

You think he "rambles". I guess no more so than Olberman, Hannity, Mathews, or O'Reilly. However, much to your dislike he does bring to the attention of many viewers important issues that are happening that a lot of us don't know about. Many didn't know what was in the stimulus, but thankfully people like Rush and Beck brought it to our attention. Yes, I know you think we should not be informed of what our government is doing behind our backs, that is if democrats are in charge. But just something you will have to deal with.

Bush is not relevent - Let me explain - what if - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
Good post. Find it strange that the libs that bash and insult republicans and conservatives on here, employ exactly the same tactics and actions that they accuse the repubs of. NO ONE rambles more than Oblablah, but I guess when someone is enthralled with socialism and socialists, it's music to their ears. Still waiting for someone to explain to me the following: When half of the population no longer has anything left to give to the other half on the government books, what then? It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out, sooner or later, the money tree dries up. You can pick any country in history that practiced excessive spending, high taxaction and yes dare I say it...socialism, marxism, communism and every single country failed with the general public suffering far worse than the political elite.

Okay then, let's talk about Bush LOL - and don't say it SM - CryBabyLibs

[ In Reply To ..]
Old saying "if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing". Since liberal press refused to "investigate" the Obama drug use and WH minimized the situation with Obama, it is an issue. The press did everything but gather Bush's toenail clippings. Bush was very open about it, discussed it in several interviews, answered questions. Obama did none of that. You exercise no class in your disguised name calling. Can you not come up with an intelligent use of the English language and have a reasonable, respectful discourse??

Okay..I think I got it now. I was totally confused - for a while!

[ In Reply To ..]
Lemme get this straight... Obama wrote about his experience in a book, and Dubbleya had to have his drinkin'-and-drivin' escapade leaked, but I'm supposed to think that Obama is hiding something and GWB was forthcoming. Got it!

Totally confused - YES YOU ARE

[ In Reply To ..]
No where was it said Bush info was "leaked". He openly discussed it, as his wife did on numerous occasions, long before he was ever in office. Yes..Obama hides alot. Pretty clear ...just want to bash the people you carry such hatred for. Obama is not a god and puts his pants on one leg at a time like every other man. Obama just won't admit it. Have a nice life...you seem wired pretty tight.

"seem wired pretty tight" - thought we were - supposed to refrain

[ In Reply To ..]
from personal attacks here. That lasted a long time. NOT!

And you're personally attacking those of us - Sarah Bernhardt

[ In Reply To ..]
who ARE wired pretty tight!

Plan to frantically report this message too! It's abusive, and I'm offended!

And you're personally attacking those of us - Sarah Bernhardt - Hehehehehaha

[ In Reply To ..]
x

I admitted I was confused. Thanks for your - insight. Otherwise...

[ In Reply To ..]
I could have actually believed stuff like this:

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=218

Just in case anyone is interested... here's the - transcript

[ In Reply To ..]
This way, folks can read exactly what was said and decide if Rush is telling the "truth."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/09/obamaville_a_story_of_dependence

Similar Messages:

Sep 14, 2011
Oh, I'm just raging this past week! A year ago this month, my 26 y/o niece died. My sister, her mother, has been shattered by this loss. For several weeks, I had planned a retreat to the mountains for my family (husband and 3 sons, aged 21, 15, 14) and my sister's family (she and 2 surviving daughters, aged 19 and 22). My sister and I will hang out, the husband will take the kids out for hiking and tubing - fun stuff. Other side of stor ...

Sep 08, 2012
and his offshore accounts. Too bad the democrats didn't mention Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Valerie Jarrett and Princess Pelosi when they were talking about that evil sort of behavior. I guess it is okay for them to have offshore accounts but let's tar and feather Mitt Romney. ...

Nov 26, 2014
anyone else have a husband with an evil twin? 99% of the time he's so much fun to be around, but then... And I don't know how to deal with the evil twin. Today he asked me if all the bills were paid for the month and I said yes, but December looked scary. Out came the evil twin. Apparently I question everything he does. I apologized. I apologized again. It's no use apologizing to the evil twin. He does not accept apologies. You kno ...

Jun 12, 2010
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0611/rfk-center-bp-discouraged-crews-respirators/ ...

May 02, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/01/seattle-mayor-issues-emergency-order-after-may-day-mayhem/ ...

Mar 03, 2011
Just so you know a little of where the libs are coming from. Paranoia 2011: Beware of the Koch behind every bush By: Mark Tapscott 03/02/11 8:05 PM Editorial Page Editor William F. Buckley Jr. struck a blow for reason and truth when in 1962 as National Review editor he effectively excommunicated John Birch Society founder Robert Welch from the conservative movement. Welch had for a decade been telling anybody who would listen that President Eisenhower was a "dedicated, conscious ...

Oct 08, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skyx2BH3dso ...

Jul 28, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015"You cannot defeat evil until you admit it exists"by digbyBobby Jindal immediately after Chattanooga: “It’s time for the White House to wake up and tell the truth…and the truth is that Radical Islam is at war with us, and we must start by being honest about that. There have been many bad things that have happened under President Obama. One that stands out to me was the horrible shooting at Ft. Hood…which was clearly an act of terrorism by a Radical ...

Mar 06, 2011
...

Aug 19, 2011
As usual, Jon Stewart has a very good way of explaining this. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over ...

Mar 23, 2010
Twelve or 15 years of college, then all those student loans to repay. They worked so hard! To have CommieCare destroy everything. Today's residents must be REALLY P.O.ed. I hope they can take their livelihood off the continent so they can provide for their families. We are LOSING all that talent!! ...

Apr 26, 2012
VR caught "The mother did the child in today for examining of" Dr dictated: "The mother brought the child in today for examination of ..." ...

Sep 12, 2012
I've never much cared for her professionally, but right now I'd like to wrap her in a hug. She looks like she's carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. I can only imagine what pain she must be in right now. Hers is not an easy job. ...

Nov 07, 2012
in a cloak of lies and deceit and even wore diamond studded flip-flops. Ultimately he was shown to be naked. Adios Mitt... give Refalca an extra apple for me. CLINTON/DUCKWORTH '16 ...

Feb 02, 2017
I have trouble being too sympathetic towards the First Lady - surely she knew what Mr. Trump was like when she agreed to marry him, and I've heard plenty of people call her a gold digger, which is hard to refute. And yet, this clip of her expression changing after Mr. Trump looks away still strikes me as a very sad thing. Yeah, she made her bed, but still, I'm sorry to see she's so unhappy in it. ...

Jun 09, 2016
Dear old Bernie meets with BO with the hope of ousting Debbie DirtyHair Whatshername and BO follows the meeting up with an endorsement for the criminal. ...

Nov 15, 2014
The Beatles saw this turkey coming: He's a real nowhere manSitting in his nowhere landMaking all his nowhere plans for nobodyDoesn't have a point of viewKnows not where he's going toIsn't he a bit like you and me?Nowhere man please listenYou don't know what you're missingNowhere man, The world is at your commandHe's as blind as he can beJust sees what he wants to seeNowhere man, can you see me at allNowhere man don't worryTake your time, don't hurryL ...

Dec 07, 2016
It is really getting sickening the ugly remarks about Trump just because your beloved Hillary didn't win. He is not even president yet and someone called him some stupid name like a little kid would call our president elect. Don't ya think you should give him the courtesy of waiting to see what he does before you start uglying him to death. I mean there is not one nice thing I could say about Hillary except I hope I don't have to see or hear her again just like old Harry ...

Aug 14, 2016
What a sad state of affairs. ...

Oct 03, 2012
nm ...

Nov 04, 2012
RCP Electoral Map | Changes in Electoral Count | Map With No Toss Ups | No Toss Up Changes Polling Data PollDateSampleMoEObama (D)Romney (R)Spread RCP Average 10/22 - 11/4 -- -- 47.9 47.4 Obama +0.5 CNN/Opinion Research 11/2 - 11/4 693 LV 3.5 49 49 Tie Pew Research 10/31 - 11/3 2709 LV 2.2 50 47 Obama +3 Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/29 - 11/1 1000 LV 3.1 48 48 Tie NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 11/1 - 11/3 1475 LV 2.6 48 47 Obama +1 ...

May 08, 2013
Wow! Special agent Nordstrom looked so nervous, frightened, tearing up and angry all at the same time and having such a hard time talking because of all his mixed emotions. Pretty cool to see when Greg is talking with Stevens' mom in the background. ...

May 09, 2013
is going to keep Nancy from visiting the troops in Afghanistan this year for Mother's day. Who on earth would want a visit from her on Mother's Day, except maybe her son, if she had one, and even that's kind of iffy. Besides, didn't Obama promise we'd be out of there 5 years ago? What'd I miss? ...

Nov 10, 2013
TPM DC MAP: The 5 Million People The GOP Cut Out Of Obamacare Share Email Bookmark? AP Photo DYLAN SCOTT – NOVEMBER 8, 2013, 8:00 AM EST38494 Starting Jan. 1, nearly five million people who were supposed to be covered under Obamacare won't be because their states have refused to expand Medicaid. The Medicaid expansion field is tentatively set for 2014, and the nation is split down the middle: 25 sta ...

Mar 11, 2015
that she can have more than one email account on 1 device. She thinks she needs a device per acct. Awww. Someone should really explain this to her. ...

Mar 25, 2016
big cry-baby. ...

Feb 27, 2016
This absolutely wasn't Rubio's year to run for President, and any advisor could have told him as much. In the first place, he simply doesn't have the time-in-grade. He needed to spend a lot more time (perhaps even 12 years) in the Senate to develop the "gravitas" necessary to be a viable candidate. Second, although I hate the fact that a candidate's physical appearance should have anything to do with voter decisions, appearance DOES matter - and you ...

Feb 05, 2016
Nothing against her, a nice woman, no doubt - but does he really think she's going to pull votes for him?? ...

Jul 28, 2017
The judge would not let them take him him, ruled against. They put him in Hospice, took off his oxygen and he died. I simply cannot understand why these parents had to go through a court instead of coming straight to the USA when there was still some time to have tried the treatment. Judges, doctors and hospitals obviously know more than the parents and have the rights, not the parents. ...

Feb 25, 2011
http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-pay-lowest-tax-loopholes-2011-2# Hmmm. . . take a look at Boeing. I am glad for the employees--but shouldn't companies pay a fair share as well? ...