If Obama Had Told Us Before His Election

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2009, 13:03:

Probably. McCain/Palin was still a worse choice.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

1 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel_Clavo says on Oct 16, 2009, 15:35:

Anyone who thinks that the community activist would not change his tune after the election is a simpleton. Its like those dopes who voted for Chavez!

RVW orderded me to remove my tagline congratulating the PBH Mods New Golden Boys. Lame.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ddluzdelsol says on Oct 16, 2009, 16:52:

Lcacique.... I was thinking the same!!!

Christmas and New Years in Ibague!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 16, 2009, 19:30:

I say it as someone who has been disappointed by some of his decisions. Still, if the election was today, knowing what I know now, I still would not have voted for McCain and Palin because there is no reason to believe that they would have been better. In fact, their behavior post-election has only reaffirmed that they would have been a horrible team.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 1 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 17, 2009, 04:39:

He for sure fooled some dummies...

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 17, 2009, 11:12:

Tasco..............What exactly has Obama done that has been wrong.....???? ( I'll bet you can't give a straight answer to that question )

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

1 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Oct 17, 2009, 12:00:

good call, raaay.

patriarch

1 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 17, 2009, 13:17:

I disapprove of his decision to increase the number of private contractors in the Middle East. I understand why they are necessary on a certain level - can't send more soldiers for a number of reasons - but that is not much of an excuse in my book. I do appreciate the fact that he is between Iraq and a hard place.

I disapprove of him trying to dissuade Holder from investigating the Bush Administration. I understand the political motivation for publicly stating we need to look forward because he does not want to anger the right; however, the right is not going to be grateful if Holder is ordered to avoid any investigation. If he wants to distance himself from the investigation, he should simply state that it is up to the Justice Department to determine if there are reasons to investigate.

I love that he reaches out respectfully to those he disagrees with; however, when that respect is not returned - when he is confronted by the lunatic rantings of the emotionally retarded - I wish that he would give it back a little. I am all for bipartisanship, but compromise does not always lead to the best solution to a problem. Also, it is clear that many people on the right want him to fail - why compromise with someone who wants to sabotage your policies? Identify the best solution and pursue it without them.

I think that he should have overturned "don't ask, don't tell" a long time ago. Ridiculous.

In my opinion, not nearly enough of the money spent has gone to infrastructure.

I am disappointed that he has not appointed more progressives; however, I was aware from the get go that he was centrist. It always cracks me up when the right-wing paints him as a far left politician. Wrong.

Still waiting to see what is up with Guantanamo and I disapprove of Bagram, another prison that appears to completely ignore the Geneva Convention.

I disagree with the fact that he has adopted many of the Bush abuses of executive power with respect to the war on terror.

I don't agree with his waffling on the public option and I think he has done a poor job countering the lunatics with their exaggerated fear attacks.

There are probably other things as well; however, all in all, I still feel better about him being in office as oppose to Bush or McCain.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 17, 2009, 13:18:

Bush didn't have to fool dummies. They were attracted to him, because he spoke their language.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jimbo67856 says on Oct 17, 2009, 18:54:

Lcacique, damn man, if I had written that it would've sounded exactly the same. Great minds think alike and all. jaja

Another thing he's pretty much ignored is global warming, not to mention truly addressing renewable energy. Then again I'm still happy he's in there cuz I'm not sure gramps or the twit believes in global warming, and of course we all remember "drill baby drill" as their energy policy.

Obama is a disappointment for sure, but at least he's not as old as Noah or as dumb as a bag of hammers. I wish we had a real choice in that election tho. I voted for him mostly cuz I was terrified of the other team (Noah and the bag of hammers). We can't have two presidential administrations in a row which can't pronounce nuclear correctly. jaja

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. ---- Thomas Jefferson

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 17, 2009, 23:31:

He is a politician. He is fallible. There is no way that he could please me 100 percent of the time with respect to his policy decisions. I knew going in that he would disappoint me in some way...again, he is a politician. Even if he completely shared my vision (not that my vision is best for this country), he is forced to work with others which sometimes results in better outcomes and other times it results in worse outcomes.

Agreed, jimbo...the other team was terrifying. I imagine that "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" would be a reality at this point in time.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

1 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 18, 2009, 06:21:

Well Raayyy I guess it depends on your line of thinking. For lefties like you sloop and others to violate the bankruptcy laws of the USA is OK. But not for me and all other law abiding persons. That is just plain wrong:

"But my sadness turned to anger later when I heard what bankruptcy lawyer Tom Lauria said on a WJR talk show that morning. “One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown.

Think carefully about what’s happening here. The White House, presumably car czar Steven Rattner and deputy Ron Bloom, is seeking to transfer the property of one group of people to another group that is politically favored. In the process, it is setting aside basic property rights in favor of rewarding the United Auto Workers for the support the union has given the Democratic Party. The only possible limit on the White House’s power is the bankruptcy judge, who might not go along.

Michigan politicians of both parties joined Obama in denouncing the holdout bondholders. They point to the sad plight of UAW retirees not getting full payment of the health care benefits the union negotiated with Chrysler. But the plight of the beneficiaries of the pension funds represented by the bondholders is sad too. Ordinarily you would expect these claims to be weighed and determined by the rule of law. But not apparently in this administration.

Obama’s attitude toward the rule of law is apparent in the words he used to describe what he is looking for in a nominee to replace Justice David Souter. He wants “someone who understands justice is not just about some abstract legal theory,” he said, but someone who has “empathy.” In other words, judges should decide cases so that the right people win, not according to the rule of law."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-...

"Calling the proposal "neither reasonable nor adequate," an ad hoc committee of GM bondholders said it believed "the offer to be a blatant disregard of fairness for the bondholders who have funded this company, and amounts to using taxpayer money to show political favouritism of one creditor over another".

"What is going on in this country? The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they're getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they're getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023438.php

You can add to that the cash for clunkers program...a total waste of taxpayers money to boost car sales for a few months.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Oct 18, 2009, 06:35:

And you thought cash for clunkers is bad.

Cash for Clubbers
Congress's fabulous golf cart stimulus.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473724099542...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 18, 2009, 06:46:

Yep, Raayyyyyy that is just plain wrong too!!!! I don't know how you can be in favor of this crap.

"We thought cash for clunkers was the ultimate waste of taxpayer money, but as usual we were too optimistic. Thanks to the federal tax credit to buy high-mileage cars that was part of President Obama's stimulus plan, Uncle Sam is now paying Americans to buy that great necessity of modern life, the golf cart.

The federal credit provides from $4,200 to $5,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, and when it is combined with similar incentive plans in many states the tax credits can pay for nearly the entire cost of a golf cart. Even in states that don't have their own tax rebate plans, the federal credit is generous enough to pay for half or even two-thirds of the average sticker price of a cart, which is typically in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. "The purchase of some models could be absolutely free," Roger Gaddis of Ada Electric Cars in Oklahoma said earlier this year. "Is that about the coolest thing you've ever heard?"

The golf-cart boom has followed an IRS ruling that golf carts qualify for the electric-car credit as long as they are also road worthy. These qualifying golf carts are essentially the same as normal golf carts save for adding some safety features, such as side and rearview mirrors and three-point seat belts. They typically can go 15 to 25 miles per hour.

In South Carolina, sales of these carts have been soaring as dealerships alert customers to Uncle Sam's giveaway. "The Golf Cart Man" in the Villages of Lady Lake, Florida is running a banner online ad that declares: "GET A FREE GOLF CART. Or make $2,000 doing absolutely nothing!"

Golf Cart Man is referring to his offer in which you can buy the cart for $8,000, get a $5,300 tax credit off your 2009 income tax, lease it back for $100 a month for 27 months, at which point Golf Cart Man will buy back the cart for $2,000. "This means you own a free Golf Cart or made $2,000 cash doing absolutely nothing!!!" You can't blame a guy for exploiting loopholes that Congress offers.

The IRS has also ruled that there's no limit to how many electric cars an individual can buy, so some enterprising profiteers are stocking up on multiple carts while the federal credit lasts, in order to resell them at a profit later. We should note that some states, such as Oklahoma, have caught on to the giveaway and are debating whether to cancel or limit their state credits. But in Congress they're still on the driving range.

This golf-cart fiasco perfectly illustrates tax policy in the age of Obama, when politicians dole out credits and loopholes for everything from plug-in cars to fuel efficient appliances, home insulation and vitamins. Democrats then insist that to pay for these absurdities they have no choice but to raise tax rates on other things—like work and investment—that aren't politically in vogue. If this keeps up, it'll soon make more sense to retire and play golf than work for living."

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 18, 2009, 08:21:

Jasus Tasco...................This is not difficult..............I asked you a simple question." Tasco..............What exactly has Obama done that has been wrong.....???? ( I'll bet you can't give a straight answer to that question )

Note the last part, " YOU can't give a straight answer."

Sure enough, what do yoiu do ? How do you respond ? A fookin copy and paste from someone else. I'm not reading that long drivel. I glanced at some of it. Something about some lady going bankrupt..?? Something about golf carts.?? I can just imagine sitting at a bar counter, you and I, a couple of cold beers, have a general chit chat about life.

" Hey Tas, wasn't the weather today lovely ? " says Ray

Your response is to whip out the local newspaper, and begin reading a long article about yesterday's weather.

" Ditto heads " are a standing joke in the US right now. These are the people who listen the words of the lunatic right wing, as examplified by Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh etc etc. Some of the most outrageous statements are then repeated by the ' ditto heads " , who are simply incapable of thinking for themselves.

Aztec pointed out a good issue. The " cash for clunkers programme". Here we have something with some actual meat in it. This was a programme that was enacted by Obama and we can see the result. We can tell at this juncture if this policy was right or wrong. There are no opiniions required. Unlike other policies that have been enacted, that still have to run their course, before we see results, this CASH programme can now clearly be given the " thumbs up" or the " thumbs down ". The results are in, the figures are there for all to see. Was it wrong ?....was it right..?

So, to that issue. The first purpose of the CASH programme, was to give an immediate stimulative jolt to the troubled Auto industry. The second purpose was to decrease the number of gas guzzling vehicles nationwide, to go in some way to reducing our dependence on imported oil, and to decrease emmissions into the atmosphere over the longer term.

So, was it right or was it wrong. Now we can tell. Car dealers around the country have raved about the programme. They broke all records in sales. They got the needed cash infusion that allowed many of them to survive. Dealerships all over the country ran out of vehicles to sell. Auto manfacturers have reopened plants to restock inventories. Countless jobs were saved. For each $4500 or $3500 that was spent, a large portion of that actually came back into the purse from sales tax, payroll tax, income tax and corporation tax. Not to mention the savings from avoiding unemployment benifits, that would have to be paid, if the programme had not been introduced.

Every single economist have agreed that this was a good programme, and that it had it's intended effect.

We can all have our opinions on weather a certain policy is good, or not good. We can disagree as to weather a certain measure will work or not. Time is the only factor that will determine weather it is " right " or " wrong "

So, I would ask you once again. What has Obama done that has been wrong. ?

( and pleeeessseee...........spare me the copy/paste )


.


.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 18, 2009, 08:35:

Ohhhh....................as you are a big fan of copy/paste for your OPINIONS..............here is a copy/paste with actual facts and figures.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/08/cash-for-clunkers-final-...


Cash for clunkers: The final results

Final numbers are in for the so-called “cash for clunkers” program, and by most measures, the program looks like a roaring success:


•690,114 cars were purchased under the program; two-thirds of those bought by consumers were passenger cars

•The average rebate was $4,170.18, for a total of $2.878 billion. The rest of the $3 billion budget will cover administrative expenses.

•The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720.

•The Department of Transportation credits the program with saving 42,000 jobs in the auto industry and says it expects those jobs will be sustainable, because automakers have ramped up production to meet the clunkers demand.

•Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.


.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 18, 2009, 13:12:

"Jasus Tasco...................This is not difficult..............I asked you a simple question." Tasco..............What exactly has Obama done that has been wrong.....???? ( I'll bet you can't give a straight answer to that question )

Note the last part, " YOU can't give a straight answer.""

Raaaayyy I know it is hard to read when you are still drunk from your Saturday night binge drinking. No surprises here.

I said it was wrong to to violate the bankruptcy laws of the USA for political motives.

I said it was wrong to to use taxpayers money to boost car and golf carts for a few months.

That is as straight an answer to a sober person one can make, but obviously I should have known it was just a waste of time with you. Next time I will give you an answer you can understand such as “BURP!” or paste some fly animation.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 18, 2009, 13:20:

OK, Raaayyyy I think I found something you can understand:

http://www.boombastick.net/boomepi01.html

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 18, 2009, 13:36:

Ahhhh........ok, fair enough. In among your insults, it appears you have an opinion. But, you haven't expressed it.

" I said it was wrong to to use taxpayers money to boost car and golf carts for a few months "

Why ??

Why was it wrong ??

Also,for some reason you decided to add this golf cart thing. This was not part of the CASH programme, nothing to do with it.

The golf cart thing was part of the tax incentives for electric vehicles. They did not qualify under that programme, but as the law was going through Congress, an ammendment was added to the bill, by Republicans, to allow certain modified golf carts to qualify as electric vehicles.

The owner of one of the largest golf cart manfacturers is a Republican, who donates heavily to the GOP.

.

.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Oct 19, 2009, 10:05:

"I love that he reaches out respectfully to those he disagrees with; however, when that respect is not returned - when he is confronted by the lunatic rantings of the emotionally retarded - I wish that he would give it back a little."

LC, I am assuming that here you are referring to the love he gave Putin, Ahmenijad, Chavez and the Dear Leader and was not returned, no?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 19, 2009, 11:47:

"I love that he reaches out respectfully to those he disagrees with; however, when that respect is not returned - when he is confronted by the lunatic rantings of the emotionally retarded - I wish that he would give it back a little."

jajajaja, go tell that to the GM bond holders....

“One of my clients,” Lauria told host Frank Beckmann, “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 19, 2009, 12:38:

copy/paste copy/paste copy/paste................................. coimcal. It explains why Fox " news " will never go out of business.


.
Ditto

.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 19, 2009, 13:22:

What's quoting the Washington Examiner got to do with Fox news Mr. Burp?

Funny too see you lefties hate and would like to close down the one TV channel that is not openly pro Obama. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of press under your Socialist rule.

OK, let me put something to your level of iq:

http://www.boombastick.net/boomepi03.html

Now go harass somebody else.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 19, 2009, 16:33:

.Tascoo..........your hostility knows no bounds. It's quite typical of someone, who doesn't have anything useful to say. I haven't looked at that thing you keep copying/pasting. I assume it's humourous, you certainly seem to be getting fun from it.

It's probably insulting to you, that I keep refering to your habit of copying/pasting so much.It's really not meant as an insult. I just happen to enjoy a discussion/argument/debate/conversation about anything political. I also believe political discussion should and can be civil.

Regardless of one's political persuassion, it's just interesting to tease out a topic to it's fullest. On this thread,after some comment, you or someone else made, I asked, " What has Obama done wrong ? " Not, what do people dis-agree with him about. Not, their feelings that something he is embarking on, is stupid, is right, is daft. Purely something he has done that has been wrong. What that really means is, show me something that he implemented that simply did not work.

Obviously it is to early to tell if a lot of the things he has put in motion, will actually work. Which makes me wonder, why the deep hatred, what is it ?

You gave some sort of an answer, but com'n ............something about some bankruptcy thing and golf carts !!!!! The animosity you very plainly show comes from that,,?? These are what you consider the President of the United States has gotten wrong !!

Com'n..............dig deeper. What has he gotten wrong ?

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 19, 2009, 17:33:

billyb: Sure, you could include them; however, I am more concerned about those who are a little closer to home.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 20, 2009, 05:26:

"Tascoo..........your hostility knows no bounds"

jajajaja...now that's funny coming from the Obama Brown Shirt that keeps on stalking and harassing me on PBH.

I think I understand a little better now why desi told you to “SHUT THE F… UP”.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Oct 20, 2009, 05:55:

Rich Lowry

"Republicans needn't trouble themselves to nominate a presidential candidate in 2012. No matter what, President Obama will be running against George W. Bush.

Bush will be Obama's eternal foil. At this rate, when Obama writes his post-presidential memoir, it will be titled "An Audacious Presidency, or How I Saved America From That Bastard Bush." His presidential library will have a fright-house wing devoted to Bush's misrule. "

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 20, 2009, 09:00:

Stalking you..????? What a silly statement. Surely when YOU post something here, it is partly to invite commentary/opinion/discussion.....no..??

I rarely address you. When I do, it is usally to ask you a question about something you said. But you can never seem to answer the damn question. You usally make a feable attempt...........change the subject.....and for some unknown reason, you resort to insults. If you post something here, you are inviting a response. If you can't handle someone else's point of view, why bother posting ?

Many people will have their own reasons for not liking the current President. Nothing wrong with that. When I'm in a conversation with someone that absolutely despises him, I just love to ask the same question. What has he done, so far, that he has gotten wrong...???

I have yet to meet someone give me a straight answer.

Sorry for any typos..............I'm driving and Pres Bush left the roads and the rest of the infastructure in a bit of a bad state. I hear there are good roads in Iraq though.


.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 20, 2009, 09:14:

Aztec...............Have to dis-agree with you. In politics, people's memories are short. Running against Bush's record worked in the last election.....only just. Remember, on the popular vote, it was not any kind of landslide.

Next time around, Obama will be runnimng on his record over four years. Bush will not be a factor. It'll be on whatever way the current health care proposals actually turn out. It will be on the economy. Depending on what happens around the world over the next few years, foreign policy will be a major factor, or not so major. Who knows, security at home could be a major factor, depending on if there has been any terrorist activity......??? But Bush....??? Very unlikely.


.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 20, 2009, 09:19:

"When I do, it is usally to ask you a question about something you said. But you can never seem to answer the damn question. You usally make a feable attempt...........change the subject.....and for some unknown reason, you resort to insults."

I answered your question to the point, which surprised you, so having no arguments left you started with the insults. All I did then was to give you a taste of your own medecine. But apparently, or not surprisingly you don't can't accept either.

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 20, 2009, 09:34:

You answered the question..????? You are kiddin me.........Your response to " what has Obama gotten wrong " is that some modified golf carts have been included into the tax incentive scheme, to encourage the purchase of electric powered vehicles.

??????????

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 20, 2009, 11:07:

Actually, the answer I posted for you Raaayyyy was this one:

http://www.boombastick.net/boomepi01.html

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Oct 20, 2009, 12:26:

LOL.................I still haven't opened it. Only because it's quite obviously an insult or joke or whatever. But once again, tasco, it's been fun. When it boils down to it, conservatives just can't think of something to say.

All your bluster on this thread and others, doesn't hide the fact that you couldn't come up with a credable answer to my little question, " What has Obama gotten wrong ? " LOL

And incedentially, the thing that seems to most evoke your distaste for Obama, ie. the IRS including some modified golf carts, into the tax incentive scheme for electric powered vehicles, is actually an interesting story. After you posted that as your source for such venom to this President, I did some research on it. It's actually quite an interesting story.
http://www.wired.com/cars/coolwheels/magazine/17-10/ff_ecars?currentPa...

Take care.............and lose the hostility...it's just politics.


.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 20, 2009, 13:29:

BURP!

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 22, 2009, 22:12:

at this point, and we are still early on, I think he will be reelected. He needs to stay with what got him into office, the vision thing, and try not to get too bottled up in the always nasty political gamesmanship. He does not have to keep us with the details, which he tends to do, but needs to stay with his principal leadership, vision qualities. That is what he is good with, and that is enough, if we will get out of his own way, and let things play out a bit.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 22, 2009, 22:16:

He is not an extreme liberal, as the other side wants to portray, and that so much infuriates the extreme left. He seems very pragmatic, with a bit of gusto thrown in with the speech making. I think Reagan was like that. He was not so much of a right winger, but stood by his basic principles, regardless of other's opinions, and was an outstanding speaker, and visionary.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 22, 2009, 22:29:

All Hail to The InFallible Chief!

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Oct 23, 2009, 05:49:

Homebuyers' Handout -- Worse Than Cash for Clunkers

By RANDALL W. FORSYTH | MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR

That $8,000 subsidy costs $43,000 per extra house sold, assuming it doesn't grow to $292,000.

Following the cash-for-clunkers idiocy, the federal government may extend its subsidy for homebuyers. The $8,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers is due to expire Nov. 30, but our solons in the Senate are looking to push back that deadline and possibly expand the credit to $15,000 to most homebuyers, not just newbies.

As with the clunker cash, Uncle Sam is giving money to folks to do what they would have done anyway. Cash for clunkers temporarily juiced auto sales in August, but they fell back to their previous, depressed pace in September. And some 85% of the subsidy was pocketed by the dealers, not car buyers, according to one estimate ("Clunker Cash: No Boost for Consumers," Sept. 29.)

As an inefficient use of taxpayer money, clunker cash pales besides the homebuyer handout. With housing affordability currently the best it's been in most of our lifetimes, with marked-down home prices and mortgage money in the 5% range, you wouldn't think homebuyers would need a subsidy.

But there it is, and it's a lot more expensive than you think.

According to estimates by Ted Gayer at the Brookings Institution, each additional home sale generated by the $8,000 first-time homebuyers' tax credit actually costs the government $43,000.

How's that possible? Gayer figures that of the 1.9 million homebuyers that will get the $8,000 tax credit, 85% would have bought a house anyway. The price tag of $15 billion -- about twice what Congress had intended -- he reckons will result in approximately 350,000 additional home sales, at a price tag of $43,000 for each additional sale.

That's nothing compared to the tab for a possible one-year, $15,000 tax credit for all home buyers (except those with high incomes.) Gayer figured that would cost the Treasury $73.9 billion, which he estimated would increase house sales by a total of 253,000. Each of those extra home sales would cost the Treasury $292,000 ($73.9 billion divided by 253,000.)

The National Association of Home Builders, not exactly a disinterested bunch, figures the subsidy would boost house sales considerably more, by 700,000 homes. That implies each of those additional sales would cost American taxpayers only $133,000 -- still "a very expensive and poorly targeted subsidy," writes Gayer.

Unbelievable, you say. But remember, everybody gets the subsidy, both the vast majority who would have bought any way and yet are getting a windfall, plus those who were lured into the market by the largesse. It's like buying free drinks for a crowd that's bellied up to the bar with their wallets open already.

In actuality, that cost does not come in the form of checks being mailed out to homebuyers. They get an $8,000 credit to their 2009 taxes when they file their return next April 15 -- a "tax expenditure" in the jargon of Washington. Either way, there's less money in the Treasury after it racked up a $1.4 trillion deficit in the fiscal year just ended -- equal to 10% of gross domestic product, a percentage not seen since the nation was paying to fight World War II.

"There are two larger points we should not lose sight of," Gayer writes. "First, tax expenditures are not a free lunch. The billions of dollars spent on the tax credit will ultimately have to be paid back through higher, economically distorting taxes. And while a tax credit is unlikely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, our growing debt burden is something to fear.

"Second, government policies to promote homeownership (or, more accurately, home-borrowership) were partial contributors to our housing and credit market problems," he continues. "Ultimately, we need to decrease the government's housing incentives, including the mortgage-finance subsidies, the mortgage-interest deduction, and the favorable capital gains treatment for housing. A good place to start this weaning would be by not extending or expanding the home-buyer tax credit."

That's the view from Brookings, which never has been accused of being a conservative, free-market outfit. But this isn't a question of right or left, just common sense.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125609957458798391.html?mod=BOL_hp...

The trouble with free elections is, you never know who is going to win (Leonid Brezhnev)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 23, 2009, 23:42:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRx5ethd8JU

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 23, 2009, 23:43:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDR47EKTrCQ

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 23, 2009, 23:46:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnp4kj5lLOU

They call it fox news for a reason.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 24, 2009, 00:33:

la-di-dah-di-dah, dah, dahhhhhh.
My, but isn't "the chief" clever.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bam m says on Oct 25, 2009, 18:47:

what about Zira??

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 25, 2009, 22:31:

What about Dr Zaius??

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bam m says on Oct 25, 2009, 22:58:

great point...i think he''s one of the 100,000 czars that now run our country.....

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 26, 2009, 18:38:

how pathetic

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Oct 27, 2009, 08:30:

Obama isn't the most important socialist and advocate of massive government control who ever existed (FDR was), and he won't be the last. But he's the one who achieved superstar status in an era that seems to care more about such status than anything else, something most had given up on for "liberals" for good. Of course, Obama has already lost that status with all but his core supporters, and it's unclear how much status he will enjoy after another 3 and a half years of attempting, hopefully with limited success, to completely drive what's left of the United States into the ground

1 funny, 1 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 27, 2009, 22:35:

Well said esanch

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Oct 28, 2009, 08:23:

Esanch and Rocco, it seems to me that Obama is bound and determined to drive the United States into the ground. With the deficits he is running, it seems to be his deliberate policy.

Obama is a nerd that the media worships and for whom the media has gone prostrate. The media has pretty much given Obama a free ride so far, but I see that beginning to change.

Obama is just compounding Bush's folly. The US can only run these trade deficits and budget deficits as long as the world continues to accept the US dollar as the reserve currency. The moment that stops (if it stops), the US will go the way of the Weimer Republic. Then there will be an unimaginable crisis.

I am beginning to wonder if Obama is trying to hurry that process along.

How much longer will the world (foreigners mostly) continue to buy US bonds?

As much as I disliked Clinton the man (mainly for what he did in Serbia), it makes me long for a Clinton White House and a Republican Congress. At least the national finances were in good shape.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bam m says on Oct 28, 2009, 09:07:

he is the devil.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 28, 2009, 16:57:

Yeah, he is basically a Rock star. I don't even blame him, its not his fault. He gets nominated for the Nobel peace prize after being President for 2 weeks? I can guarantee he's embarrased. Mother Theresa took like 30 years. He's on the cover of Time magazine because some media metro likes his physicality at the beach?? Look folks we have problems to solve and work to do.

I love it...in kind of a sick and twisted way hope this all goes soo much further down the drain. Its the only way Americans will wake and see what really matters. No more excuses about insider trading, reacial preference, sexuality, illegals and all that shit we fill our day with worry over. When everyone has been reduced back down closer to the natural state of humanity its dog eat dog again and we'll see who comes out on top. I know that might sound crazy, but if it hits bottom sooner than later it will be for the best. Direct contrast to that, Europe who will be a Muslim occupied territory before they even are able to see the trends and again have discussions all day about what happened. Action sooner than later.

People have been fat and spoiled for so damned long they forgot what brought them here. They forgot that you have to fight for what is yours. We are soo open to "discussion" and doubt on everything we ever stood for or established and now the time needs to come that you either act or you die. Its on its way folks, and that's to all of us regardless of where you stand politically.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 28, 2009, 17:44:

What really matters, rocco?

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 28, 2009, 22:09:

What really matters is that the USA is in a tough situation right now. What really matters is the backbone of this country is bieng sucked dry, while the super rich stay rich and greedy and the poor here still have yet to see real poverty.

Like I said, for people to see the light and to appreciate what we have here, they need to experience dark first. How soon people forget our past.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Oct 29, 2009, 08:08:

Rocco, Europe is already muslim occupied territory. There are areas in France and UK that are "no-go" areas even for the police.

But you are right. All Europe does right now is have discussions on how to be "inclusive".

We even have a moderator in this forum who pretends that the problem doesn't even exist.

It's called willful blindness. They seem to have forgotten that the Ottomans were only stopped at the gates of Vienna. They seem to have forgotten that muslims occupied Spain for centuries and that Spaniards fought for many decades to kick them out.

And as recently as a century ago, muslim Turks murdered 1.5 million Christian Armenians. And there is even talk about admitting Turkey into the European Union? The Turks will not even admit responsibility.

Of course even fewer people know (or care) about the depredations committed by muslims in the land of my birth (India). Tens of millions of Hindus were slaughtered by muslim invaders. But we Hindus are not white. Maybe that's why some people don't care.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

esanch36 says on Oct 29, 2009, 11:39:

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: "God damn America!" Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted. Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Allen Parker says on Oct 29, 2009, 16:39:

Yea,,,,he' changing the United States alright....the Obama way
Good Luck my fellow Americans!

Without change we all die!

0 funny, 1 helpful.

bam m says on Oct 29, 2009, 16:46:

MICO

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 29, 2009, 23:25:

Vinod: It's less about your people not bieng white and more about the media not having a use for non white folks who might possibly see eye to eye with the white conservatives in particular.

You see, the media likes to paint the picture that anyone who is remotely conservate, pro American or Anti Jihad, must by defualt be a fat, wife beating, bible thumping, hate filled redneck. Now of course those those things don't belong together, but again keep in mind it's all a media construct anyways, so follow me.

It would completely baffle most folks to see the number of Asian (Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese) as well as Indian, Christian Middle Easterners and Eastern Europeans who are anti Socialist and Anti Islamic extremists. It would Ruin the media's portayal of the the stereotype of the grouchy old English and American white guy that is simply resistant to change. To show support for the US in any way from a large number of folks throughout Africa, India and the rest of Asia would ruin the fiction that the media and other leftist outlets have taken so long to create.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 30, 2009, 11:54:

And as recently as a century ago, muslim Turks murdered 1.5 million Christian Armenians. And there is even talk about admitting Turkey into the European Union? The Turks will not even admit responsibility. - Vinod

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Vinod that is another interesting point. When we allow Christians to be slaughtered nobody says a word. In fact that is Genocide and we did nothing at all! You never hear about that.

What about when we chose to bomb white Christian Serb's in support of the Msulims in the Bosnian conflicts? Again, nobody ever see's the other side of the story. Its always big bad USA vs. the poor oppressed Muslims. The only one oppressing most muslim nations are their own leaders and cultural norms.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Oct 30, 2009, 14:52:

Rocco.......what Clinton did to the Serbs was every bit as criminal as what Bush has done in Iraq. But Clinton didn't take much political heat over it because no American lives were lost.

I think Clinton was being a lackey for the Saudis, just as Bush was.

And many people assume that because I don't like Obama that I must like Bush. Right after 9/11, Bush stood in front of Congress and referred to Islam as a "peaceful and tolerant religion". As a person of Hindu ancestry, I wanted to horsewhip him.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Oct 30, 2009, 15:21:

Rocco.....re:, your points about non-white "conservatives"

That reminds me of the point I made in another thread about how the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) set up Griffin of the BNP in an effort to make all those appear all those who dislike Islam to be racist.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think much of Griffin. I don't think he would be very nice to a brown guy like me. Griffin should be smart enough to realize that lots of us brown folks hate islam with a passion too. If some Hindu or Sikh got on the BBC and said about Islam what Griffin said, the BBC propaganda apparatus would probably be beside itself in a state of utter confusion.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 30, 2009, 16:15:

Yeah Vinod, I agree with you again.

When a person of color states an opinion about really anything bordering racial or religious descrimination, people settle in and listen..agree or not they get a word or two in. Nowadays the moment a white man even questions anything, much less criticizes it, he is demonized. The label of "racist" carries such a negative connotation that people fear it being slapped on them and bite their tongue in fear of being labeled. The moment anyone wants to discredit an opinion no matter how valid it may be, they have the one trump card "racist" and the conversation stops abbruptly.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Oct 30, 2009, 16:20:

I've followed Griffin a bit. It's funny how the one politician on the BBC debates, called Griffin a "Nazi" but ironically enough, Griffin's father fought against the Nazi's while his accusor's (forgot his name) father was imprisoned for dodging draft in the UK. When the time came to fight the Nazi's, this guy's father ran, Griffin's father did not.

Just funny how these guys throw around terms with such wrecklessness.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bam m says on Oct 30, 2009, 20:10:

Roccco....right on point !!.....i've had it being criticized as a racist..... every black person i know is a racist against white people.... and i'm paying their way... i don't give a fuk if they think i;m a racist....basically i'm paying their way...

add my taxes...and what i take out of the system...and add their taxes and what they take out of the system...simple math...

find the cancer...cut it the fuk out.... (what approx. 16% of the population responsible for over 80% of the violent crime and all the babby mamma checks....)....

the tide is changing.... we...high earning, high tax paying white people have had enough of paying for the life support...

pull the plug

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Oct 30, 2009, 23:26:

Huge oversimplification - in my opinion - about the media being blind to crimes committed by Muslims against Christians. You see what you want to see.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 31, 2009, 02:20:

chief, ... you'll enjoy this video by alfonzo rachel: THE LIBERAL SLAVE SHIP

http://www.pjtv.com/video/AlfonZo_Rachel_Presents:_ZoNation/_The_Liber...

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Oct 31, 2009, 07:18:

Washington Post: More than 1,000 American troops have been wounded in battle over the past three months in Afghanistan, accounting for one-fourth of all those injured in combat since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Oct 31, 2009, 08:44:

Rocco..I am not out to sing praises for the BNP or Griffin. I think the BNP would like to deport Hindus and Sikhs too. The BNP should realize that except for skin color and religion, we Hindus (and Sikhs too) have more in common with your average Englishman (i.e., respect for our fellow humans) than we have in common with your typical piece of human garbage from Pukeistan.

Remember, it wasn't the BNP that was terrorizing Mumbai last year and indiscriminately killing Hindus. Those guys were pakis.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

christobeldawg says on Oct 31, 2009, 20:31:

"You see what you want to see." Lc

In all things, that is so true. We always look for anything that supports what we already believe, consciously or not, and whatever it may be, we will find more and more support for our previous belief.

traveling hopefully is always better than arriving

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Oct 31, 2009, 23:18:

"'We always look for anything that supports what we already believe,""

Dawg, are you already developing 'stereo-typical' ideas about colombianitas???

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 1, 2009, 10:57:

Yes, c-dawg. In addition, we often dismiss anything that contradicts our previously held belief as unimportant, uncommon, or unbelievable.

I rarely hear pro-Muslim accounts in the media, but I hear a lot of negative stories - some deserved, some generalized exaggerations.

vinod: I know that you recognize that your country is imperfect, but I was wondering if you have any insight as to why Hindu extremist groups are so unknown in the states. Ask the typical American if he/she has heard of Hindu extremists like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Abhinav Bharat, the Rashtriya Jagran Manch, the Sri Ram Sene, the Hindu Dharam Sena, or the Sanatan Sanstha and I would bet that the answer would be "no." Yet, there is a growing militancy amongst these groups which are bent on Hindu supremacy.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 1, 2009, 11:41:

Lcacique, my country is Canada. I grew up here.

As for the groups you mentioned:

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh: Its origins are based on their desire to rid India of British rule and they were one of several groups who wanted to rid parts of India from Portuguese occupation. They were also particlarly opposed to the "All India Muslim League". I agree with them there. Why should they not be opposed to them? Muslim invaders murdered tens of millions of Hindus who refused to convert. One of the Sangh members assassinated Ghandi. That was politically motivated because they blamed Ghandi for the partition of India, which was a de-facto surrender to muslims.

Would you have blamed a French maquis if he assassinated Laval for agreeing to partition off part of France to appease the Nazi invaders?

Would you blame somebody who bumped off an American political figure who was instrumental in partitioning off part of the United States into a sharia state?

Abhinav Bharat: Also a group opposed to British rule.

Rashtriya Jagran Manch: Have they marched into somebody's country and murdered millions? They are a recent group, and I had not heard of them before. Their goals, according to Wikipedia, are defined as follows:

- Ensuring national security, unity and integrity.
- Building a self-reliant nation - Nourishment of Bharatiya cultural values.
- Preservation of natural wealth.
- Balanced development of all regions and the society as a whole.

If that is what they are about, I would not call them a terrorist group.

Sri Ram Sene: Have they marched into somebody's country and murdered millions? I read about them getting agitated about young Hindus drinking booze, but as far as I could see they didn't kill anybody.

Hindu Dharma Sena: Not a very nice group, but as far as I can see their activities are confined to India. They have picked on Christians, whose behavior has not always been perfect, but Christians have never (as far as I know) committed mass genocide in India. I wish that group would just focus on muslims, if they are going to pick on anybody at all.

Sanatan Sanstha: More focused on Hindu spirituality. I am not aware of any cases of them terrorizing people.

I don't know if you were trying to compare these groups to muslim extremist groups. If you were, you were really grasping at straws. It's about as valid a comparison as comparing the BNP to the sharia law states of Iran and and Saudi Arabia. The latter two want to see their sharia law spread everywhere. The BNP is only interested in what goes on in the UK.

Likewise, these Hindu groups you mentioned are internally focused to India. They are not trying to export Hindu rule. On the other hand, muslim pakis are immigrating to to the UK from Pukeistan and are trying to bring their sharia law with them.

It was also muslim pakis from Pukeistan who terrorized Mumbai a year ago and murdered Hindus. It was not the KKK or the BNP. Nor was it the CIA, MI6, or the Vatican. And it was not the Mossad.

Has any member of the groups you mentioned flown planes into buildings outside of India (or inside India for that matter) or beheaded anybody who refused to covert to Hinduism? Did Hindu hordes invade neighbors and slaughter tens of millions who refused to convert to Hindusim? I don't know why you would feel inclined to criticize them as extremists. They didn't invade anybody's land. They have been just defending their own.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 1, 2009, 13:38:

You do not have to invade another country in order to be labeled an extremist. Neo-nazi's are extremists in the US and they have no desire -as far as I know - to invade foreign countries. The fact that they are not expansionist does not change the fact that they are an extremist organization.

I was not comparing Hindu extremists to Muslim extremists. I was just noting that Hindu extremism was under-reported in the States. Also, while India is for the most part very tolerant of a variety of religions, I was also noting that it isn't a bowl of cherries. I certainly would not want to be a Christian in certain areas of the country where the groups listed above were active.

"The news comes after an upsurge in violence that has seen Hindu mobs rampage through Christian villages in the eastern Indian state of Orissa, leaving more than 40 people dead. More than 20,000 Christians in the district of Kandhamal fled their homes for state-run camps. Christians who have lost their homes have been told they can return only if they convert to Hinduism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/25/india-hindu-ramadan-bharat...

"When violence boils up in Orissa, it can be horrific. In 1999, an Australian missionary who ran a medical clinic was burned alive -- along with his two children -- by a Hindu mob. The latest troubles began after the Aug. 24 slaying of a hard-line Hindu leader, Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati, who had become known for advocating the reconversion of Hindu villagers who convert to Christianity. Police blamed atheistic Maoist extremists for the killing, but right-wing Hindu groups blamed Christians and set fire to a Christian orphanage. That has been followed by mob attacks on churches as well as shops and homes owned by Christian. At least 28 people have been killed."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-01-504329397_x.htm

There haven't been tens of thousands of Christians slaughtered for not converting to Hinduism, yet many have been forced to convert or flee:

"...Christian families like the Digals say they are being forced to abandon their faith in exchange for their safety. The forced conversions come amid widening attacks on Christians here and in at least five other states across the country, as India prepares for national elections next spring. The clash of faiths has cut a wide swath of panic and destruction through these once quiet hamlets fed by paddy fields and jackfruit trees. Here in Kandhamal, the district that has seen the greatest violence, more than 30 people have been killed, 3,000 homes burned and over 130 churches destroyed, including the tin-roofed Baptist prayer hall where the Digals worshiped."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/world/asia/13india.html

“'This has been a religious genocide according to the U-N definition of genocide, where persistently and systematically it is planned and not stopped,' maintains Ramesh Landge, founder and director of Cooperative Outreach of India (COI), according to Mission Network News."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081104/persecution-in-india-is-...

If I was a Christian, should I come to the conclusion that Hindu's were evil? Should I make generalized comments damming India since Hinduism is so prevalent there? And haven't the Sikh's also been targeted? I seem to remember a false flag operation in the 80's where India's military attacked Sikh's and tried to blame it on Muslims.

Why are you bringing up the KKK, the CIA, and the Vatican with respect to Mumbai? They weren't involved there; therefore, all of their crimes are forgiven and forgotten?

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 1, 2009, 18:18:

yes...you are right. It is not a bowl of cherries.

If what you say about those incidents of Hindus treatment of Christians is true, then I am ashamed. They are picking on the wrong people.

And you are right, there has been friction between Sikhs and Hindus. Our relationship has been far from perfect. But in the big issue (i.e., defending against muslim extremists), we have stood together.

I only brought up the KKK, etc. because a common muslim tactic is to compare anti-islamists to the KKK (racists) etc. I don't suppose the KKK would be very nice to a brown guy like me. But they haven't slaughtered tens of millions of people either. They are not, as you say, expansionist, so I will just stay out of their way.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

bam m says on Nov 1, 2009, 18:53:

25% of the new websites are anti-negro....what do you think is going ot happen to them in the next 10 years...

B.obaba...is the best thing tha thas ever happenend to this country.......

ethnic clensing..... i just hope its more efficient than serbia....

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 1, 2009, 20:05:

I didn't mean to make you feel ashamed about the actions of extremists from India. Still, I know how you feel. The actions of the US government have made me feel embarrassed more than once and hateful crackers like bam m increase that embarrassment exponentially. Yet, I would never blame you for the actions of a few extremists that happen to have the same ethnic heritage as you and I would hope that you would not judge me for the actions of my government or the behavior of certain individuals who happen to have the same skin tone as me.

Haven't the Christians slaughtered millions of people? Aren't they expansionist?

I also find it interesting that you have no problem with extremist groups killing within their own borders. The KKK is fine as long as they do not move to India. If this is the case, why do you care if Hindus are killing Christians within India?

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 1, 2009, 22:06:

Lcaciqiue, you've basically pointed out that there are other groups in other cultures that have some sort of extremist activity. Not sure if that is an attempt to soften the blow to Jihadists or REAL terrorist groups, but it doesn't really work for me. Calling out the wrongs of other's doesn't somehow make someone else's wrong any easier to swallow.

We are talking about terror in the modern age. To even compare guys like the Klan is not really valid. Taking a group in the USA whose primary activity was over 100 years ago and even then their numbers and actions were largely exagerated and comparing them to a Jihadist culture, is not very sound. Look at the Klan today and what they have been reduced to. Now look at some Extremist muslims and tell me you can compare, again its 2009 not 1899.

As far as religion, again comparing what Christians might have done hundreds of years ago and what some cave dwellers support and are doing to this day is not really valid. Most societies have skeletons in thier closet I can agree with you there, however it doesn't excuse societies that still support archaic and backward ways of thinking.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 1, 2009, 22:28:

I did not bring up the Klan, that was vinod. Did I claim that Muslim terrorism was acceptable because terrorism exists in other cultures? It wasn't my intention.

Bush supposedly is a Christian. He promoted the Iraq war as a crusade. Did he believe this or was it simply a means of whipping up support for an unnecessary war? Christianity, in one way or another, is still behind violent acts regardless of whether or not the perpetrator is in a cave or a White House. According to investigations, the leader of Blackwater is also a huge supporter of the idea that his organization is taking part in a Christian Crusade. The Pope tells individuals with Aids that they will go to Hell if they attempt to protect the life of their partner by wearing a condom and I would argue that the Catholic church is responsible for the consequences - in many cases it is death. Wouldn't that be considered backwards and archaic?

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Nov 2, 2009, 03:54:

Rocco81, it amazes me that you even read comments by Lcacique much less responds to them. Place him on ignore and you will enjoy the repartee on PBH.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 2, 2009, 06:17:

Lcacique: I know you and some other's on this forum like to talk about Black Water and I just want to remind you to not forget they are a For Profit organization. Blackwater provide's a service and ask a very high price for it. It doesn't matter what the president of blackwater thinks, he's paying people to do a miraid of services for a whole slew of clients (the most controversial for some folks is the Middle East) I'm sure most of his employees wouldn't care if he was a Muslim, a Jew or a Hari krishna, as long as he cuts that check. In other words at the end of the day for him and his guys its about dinero. If he were so supportive of the Christian Crusade and figthing for the cause, he would donate contractors for free paying them out of his own pocket.

Also, there are several other organizations that do exactly the same thing that Blackwater does that have no political or social ties to any religious backgroud. Does it change why they are there? They are providing guards, security, training and merc's for a very nice price and well I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of the guys doing those missions in the Middle East probably have some sort of background with the area for or against. Guys like Blackwater and Triple Canopy certainly have other regions on this globe where they can send their people, Iraq is not the only place to be for contractor, so sure it is a given that the guys there aren't idelogically opposed to fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Yeah the Catholic church has some old rules they still try to preach over. You can choose to listen to what the church says if you want and you can believe that stuff if you want. Again we have the freedom to choose religious affiliation here.You won't be hunted down for not attending the Catholic church. They certainly aren't assigning members of their church to the Condom police. Again I don't think comparing something the pope says about sex and the active stoning to death, or public smothering of a woman because of social fopaux in Afghanistan, are comparible at all.

Do you have a goat to swap for my daughter? ;)

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Nov 2, 2009, 07:35:

"Christianity, in one way or another, is still behind violent acts ".... Lcacique

I think, perhaps, some people who '''claim to be christians''' are, but... Christianity is not.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 2, 2009, 07:56:

Being a for profit organization does not mean that there are no other motivations to doing the work and those motives may change job to job. I am sure that you are familiar with the sect of Christians who are actively trying to bring about the End Times. Well, some of them are in positions of power. Overall, however, as I noted, I am not sure how sincere some of them are in terms of their beliefs. Many may be simply using religious language in order to deceive Christians in to supporting a money-making scheme.

I am very aware that there are 100s of contractors all over the world who do similar jobs. I have not heard of any cases where the management has claimed that they want to go to war with the Muslim world. Still, if they operate with immunity, I completely disagree with them operating anywhere.

With the Catholic condom issue, I agree. It is on the individual. If they are silly enough to believe in such things then it is their own fault; still, I see no contradiction in the blaming the Church sharing the blame for threatening ignorant people with Hell while encouraging their followers to commit one of the greatest sins: murder. And, in my mind, the Church is an accomplice to the crime.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 2, 2009, 08:39:

Well Lcacique: I think saying the Catholic church is encouraging murder is a huge stretch. I mean in their version of the perfect world, a man and a woman would be married before sex and then only have sex with one another.If we followed that model it would remove men having sex with men and husbands and wives having sex with other people outside their marriage thus removing the chance of spreading any sorts of STD's up to and including those that kill you.

In that paradigm you would only need to use protection to prevent pregnancy and in the church's view, sex is made fun so people do it with the result of more children. Even IF the Catholic church were to accept gay men, they would still probably push for monagomy..which again no matter what religion you are makes logical sense as far as protecting one another from dangerous diseases.

Now I know that humans will stray sometimes and I'm not pretending to be the morality police, however I think if you see the way the church views sex, monogamy and self control, you can understand a little better their view of sex and protection from a logically Christian perspective. Again this is a far cry from thowing stones at another human bieng for not covering their face in public or for questioning the word of their religious leaders.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 2, 2009, 08:46:

Being a for profit organization does not mean that there are no other motivations to doing the work and those motives may change job to job. I am sure that you are familiar with the sect of Christians who are actively trying to bring about the End Times. Well, some of them are in positions of power. Overall, however, as I noted, I am not sure how sincere some of them are in terms of their beliefs. Many may be simply using religious language in order to deceive Christians in to supporting a money-making scheme.

______________________________________________________________________________


Well I agree 100% that to be doing something like they do in Blackwater cannot be just about money. You have to love that kind of stuff. There is no argument from me on that. This is what these guys do..they wage war. It's thier business and they are good at it. I don't think its as far as Blackwater leading a Christian soldier brigade though, I am only saying its not as if every member of Blackwater staff buys into the same notion of it's President.

Also I don't think they opperate with certain immunity. I seem to recall Triple Canopy got in real hot water not so long ago. It is true that some of these contractors do get more free reign with thier munitions and thier opperating activities, but they are also held accountable for criminal activities. Also when they are captured and tortured they're often hung out to dry, Its not like the Marines are coming in for them at the drop of a hat like they would enlisted troops.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 2, 2009, 17:09:

I don't disagree with you that the Church has an unrealistic concept of human behavior in terms of sexuality; however, I do think that they encourage behavior that results in one person causing the death of another based on this faulty vision of human existence. It is fine for them to say that they would prefer that people practice monogamy and only engage in sex with their spouse - that is great; nevertheless, their positive intentions (assuming they are positive) are no excuse for the consequences of their demands. We can also discuss their preference to protect the perpetrators of molestation as oppose to the victims.

And as vinod notes, Christians haven't behaved well in India. There are extremist groups that have been known to forcibly convert people to Christianity. There are several Russian paramilitary organizations that include Russian Orthodoxy as part of their credo. I believe Africa also has terrorist Christian groups.

In highlighting these things, I have never argued that it lessens the evils committed by other groups with different beliefs.

I do not know the current status for contractors in Iraq, but they should be treated the same way we would treat a foreigner guilty of criminal activity on our soil. Here is an article from a year ago that discusses how the status may change soon:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1712938,00.html

I know that contractors also operated with immunity in Colombia as well, but that also may have changed recently.

I am not a fan of anyone being tortured or killed, but I must admit that I have little sympathy for military contractors.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 3, 2009, 08:22:

-The Catholic church is responsible for a lot of fucked up things throughout history. You won't find me disagreeing with anyone there.

-The cover up for the molester priests was horrible but, I don't think it was ever shown to be a cover up throughout the entire church. There were some members of prestige in the church that were covering up for some of the others, and yet more that simply were in denial. Any way you look at it, every one of those priests that touched children innaproprietly should be dragged into the street and terminated execution style.

- I think the term "Extremist" has been thrown around quite a bit in this thread and we need to really ask what is meant by an extremist? I mean the gov't loves to call 3 teenage Mexicans hanging out a "gang" or 3 teenage white kids who listen to hate rock "Exremists" ....but in reality they are typically far less dangerous than your average jocks on a local HS football team. As such its very easy to point out extremism, no matter the cause. It is also very easy to try and combine extremism with terrorism, but it is usually not the case.

-What people like Vinod and I are getting at, is that when you have a large group that is carrying out archaic practices on thier own people, oppressing them, raping them, murdering them,that is a different set of problems than just bieng labeled extremist. The Jihadists attack thier oen people, thier neighbors, far off countries as well..then attempt to carry over some of these completely backwards beliefs in the nations that have gone to the trouble to aid and support them in times of great trouble.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 3, 2009, 08:28:

African Terrorist groups? It could be argued that every single group in Africa has terrorist groups. I don't tihnk you can compare any terrorist activity in Africa backed by a Christian group to any other of the numerous tribal groups that are brutalizing each other on a daily basis in various places throughout that entire continent. Its tribal period, end of story. The people just happen to be Christian, Muslim or some other religion in the meantime, while they are not busy killing each other.

Northern Africa is of course a different story as it is primarily Muslim and mixed in ethnicity. But, Sub Saharan Africa is about 50/50 religion wise and I think and the Muslim expansion is a rapid and violent one, so of course there will be some backlash from the Christian population as a means of self defense or moreover retaliation. Again though, I wont touch this one as I kind of get the feeling, this is less about Religion than it is about land, tribes, money, diamonds etc. But then again isn't it always?

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 3, 2009, 10:27:

Lcacique, you are right. Christians have done lots of shitty things. But from what I know of the teachings of Jesus (not being Christian you understand), I think it would be easy to demonstrate that what they have done contravenes the teachings of Jesus.

Probably somebody like Mother Teresa would be a better example of somebody who did her best to follow those teachings. She did some marvellous things for the poor (untouchables...which, as I have said....is about the most shameful aspect of Hinduism) in India. I am not aware of a similar example from islamics.

On the other hand, from what I know about Islamic teachings (and I am learning more and more), it would be easy to demonstrate that atrocities committed by muslims are consistent with the example set by their prophet and the words in their koran.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 3, 2009, 10:38:

Rocco, a close friend of mine is an Egyptian Coptic Christian. He claims that in North Africa especially, people are leaving Islam by the thousands every day.

He says that he got his information from Al Jazeera itself

He even gave me an Al Jazeera link on that. I will have to search my email to find it. I suppose one could google that too.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 3, 2009, 12:34:

It is my understanding, rocco, that the Vatican requires that the priests have secret files and this - at least in part - protects the perps of molestation. In addition, orders for covering up such crimes came directly from the Vatican. The Vatican's position was to deceive the public in order to protect pedophiles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

I simply think that both you and vinod (though I understand vinod's hostility toward the group in question) are quick to generalize and demonize an entire group of people based on the actions of a minority. I think some people are too quick to blast all Muslims. You argue that religion probably does not play a role in non-Muslim extremist groups despite the fact that they include it as part of their manifesto - you may be right. But one could also argue that other things (land, access to vital resources, lack of opportunities, etc) are the driving force behind the acts of Muslim groups - to varying degrees. To assume that all Muslims agree with the actions of the various extremist groups and talk as if they all fit nicely into one category is wrong in my opinion.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rocco81 says on Nov 3, 2009, 13:43:

I don't think all Muslims are bad people. I do think that an alarming high number of Jihadists have been able to infiltrate the political world in some of these countries, that are under developed (in part because of the religion that has held them back) and in part due to greed and corruption.

I do know that the open and liberal policies of more peaceful Christian nations such as Denmark and Sweden are now being questioned because the insanely high increases of violent attacks, rapes and thefts that have started to awaken the people to this "peaceful" Muslim religion. Hell, maybe its nothing to do with the religion, maybe its the people. Either way, peaceful people around the world are now seeing the direct negative impact of the immigration of either Muslim or Semitic people.

As far non Muslim extremists groups, like the ones in certain African nations, these are typically disputes over borderes, peoples and cultural norms that have been in dispute for a long time. Much like Northern Ireland it has nothing to do with the religion really, but more to do with the people and other politics and its sometimes masked as religion. With many of the Muslim fundementalists, its directly about religion. Killing an artist over cartoon figures for instance. Blowing themselves and thier own people up over some slight of religous practice. Again this is all very recent. Study up on the Quran and you'll see its way more war like than the bible. Of course you can see that someone who might interpret its contents literally could stir up a war.

I don't think that all Muslims agree with the actions of the extremists, however where is the public outrcy from the Muslim community? Now is their chance to make a good name and turn things around. Where is it? The Muslims that are against the extremists, are either too smart or too cowardly (Depending on how you look at it) to stand up to what is going on. They know the consequences.

Sic semper tyrannis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 3, 2009, 17:20:

I agree about the types of leaders that many of these countries have had; however, the same can be said of many underdeveloped countries in terms of having oppressive regimes regardless of the dominant religion found there.

Most Muslim scholars disagree with the radical interpretations of the Koran. I seem to recall leaders stepping up and criticizing 9/11, but you are right: it would be nice if Muslim voices of opposition to such crimes were louder and more frequent (but are Christian voices of opposition very loud or frequent with respect to Bush using Christian terms over and over in our war against Iraq?). Sure, Jesus was a nice little hippy but the Bible also includes a God that murders the first-born children in Egypt, a God that orders Abraham to murder his son, a God that murders his own son, a God that orders Joshua to slaughter all of the Amalekites, and of course you have Leviticus with its eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth teachings, etc etc etc...

I am too tired to keep going with all of this, but know that I agree with many of your points to one degree or another.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Nov 4, 2009, 06:35:

"...where is the public outcry from the Muslim community?" Indeed!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 4, 2009, 09:39:

I don't think most muslim scholars disagree with radical interpretations of the koran at all.

(1) Has there ever been an historical acknowledgement by the Turks of the Armenian genocide? Has any muslim scholar of note stood up and proclaimed that this genocide was unislamic? I have never seen any such thing. At least the Germans acknowledge what happened to the Jews.

(2) Has there ever been any acknowledgment from islamic scholars of the Hindu slaughter? I have never seen any. "The Persian term "Hindu Kush", the mountain range that roughly forms the boundary between Afghanistan and Pukeistan, translates literally as "Hindu Slaughter" or "Hindu Killer". Many believe the name was given by muslim conquerers of the Indian subcontinent as a warning to Hindus. Others believe it was given as a reminder of the Hindu slaves who died en route to Muslim courts in central Asia."

Check this out.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b49_1178839005

The above-noted link gives sources.

Following is a quote from that link.

"The magnitude of Muslim attrocities in India is so great that I grossly understimate their scope simply by attempting to describe them, especially within the scope of this short essay. By the sword of Islam, an entire civilization was destroyed and the number of dead easily number in the many tens of millions over several hundred years. The value of the booty - jewels and unbored pearls and rubies, shining like sparks or like wine congealed with ice, and emeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates - can never be measured. According to Durant, As a result of this fanaticism, thousands of temples which had represented the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. India before Islam was one of the most advanced civilizations of all time."

Compare Malmo Sweden before Islam (say 25 years ago) to Malmo Sweden today.

"The Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history ... a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within. "............................Will Durant


(3) When Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy (he became Christian) in Afghanistan several years ago, did any muslim scholar of note stand up and proclaim that his sentence was unislamic? I have never seen any.

I am no expert on the koran, but at the behest of my Egyptian Coptic Christian friend (an Arabic speaker), I am studying it. One important thing I have picked up so far is that the koran is not in chronological order, and that the violent Medina verses abrogate the more peaceful and universal Mecca verses.

According to muslims, we Hindus are polytheistic idolators. The koran tells muslims to slay idolators. According to historians who have written about the muslim conquest of India, that is exactly what they did, and in huge numbers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 4, 2009, 17:09:

I do not have time to counter all of your points. I will leave it up to you, because there are sources of information out there in the www where you can find Muslim scholars criticizing Muslim terrorists. Here is one from the Times of India website:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Muslim-scholars-declare-jihad...

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Nov 4, 2009, 21:12:

si, senor

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 5, 2009, 08:44:

Lcacique...I showed that article to my Egyptian Coptic friend (an Arabic speaker).

He pointed out that the koran actually says the opposite of what that guy in India claims.

He showed me the verse. Verse 8:39 says that muslims must make violence upon non believers until there is no more fitna (disbelief).

But in any case, the article you pointed out was in INDIA.....the site of the GREATEST CRIME islam has perpetrated upon mankind!! What else would you expect some apologist to say? To expect honesty from a muslim in India (on this issue) would be to expect honesty from a Nazi witness at Adolf Eichmann's trial in Israel.

Your argument would have some validity if:

(1) Turks actually acknowledge what they did to Armenians. They have not done so, and that is the main reason that countries like France have always vetoed their admission to the European Union.
(2) A scholar from Saudi Arabia actually acknowledges what muslims did to Hindus. There is actually a movement among some Hindus to erect a Hindu Holocaust museum, similar to what the Jews have.
(3) Some scholar of note in a muslim majority country actually stands up and says that Abdul Rahman's death sentence for apostasy was unislamic.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Nov 5, 2009, 17:07:

What guy in India? The second paragraph clearly states that the seminar contained people from the international community, including individuals from Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Syria and Jordan. These individuals traveled from their homeland in order to criticize the terrorist attack in India. I am not sure how you missed that nor do I understand how you came to the conclusion that it was the voice of a single Indian.

I do not follow the logic of your statement about how one should not expect honesty from a Muslim in India due to the fact that Muslims are guilty of a heinous crime there. In other words, an American should not be taken seriously if he/she disagrees with the crimes that were committed against the Native Americans. You seem to be arguing that it would be necessary to find some anglos abroad to apologize for the crime in order for it to be genuine.

I would not base my opinion about a religious text on the word of one individual. The fact that there are all kinds of interpretations should tell you that there is disagreement. If you want to accept the word of your friend as the only correct interpretation of the Koran, have at it.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vinod says on Nov 5, 2009, 19:19:

You are grasping at straws again.

(1) When the koran says "slay the idolators", I don't really think there is much left for interpretation. Buddhists and Hindus are, in the eyes of muslims, idolators.

(2) Americans, for the most part, acknowledge the crime of slavery and the injustices committed against natives, just as Germans today acknowledge what happened to the Jews. We cannot undo the past, but if something bad happened, the best we can do is acknowledge it.

Have the Turks acknowledged anything? The answer is no. That is the main reason that their entry to the European Union is consistently vetoed.

Has there been anything from the muslim world that has acknowledged what happened to Hindus? I have seen nothing. Why would they? Their koran tells them to slay the idolators.

And I don't care where those apologists mentioned in that article came from. I don't see any valid reason to take them seriously. I am more inclined to take seriously a piece of human garbage like that paki Anjem Chaudery who said that the 7/7 subway killings were OK because the victims were not really innocents because thay are not muslims. I suppose in his eyes they were idolators too.

0 funny, 0 helpful.