Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Finally, I understand why the negative posts

Posted 8 years ago on Feb. 5, 2012, 2:17 p.m. EST by unimportant (716)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

EDITED FOR CLARITY on FEB., 6 at roughly 1:16 PM

Here it is in a nutshell

I read a lot of posts responding to OWS supporters from people that call OWS supporters liberals, assholes and stupid.

These people hear shit on the news, read shit in the paper, hear shit from a neighbor and so on; then never take the time to actually vet the information or even take the time to consider what they have heard or read.

The fact is the Corporations have influence in our political processes.

The fact is our Founding Fathers were not the fine people we are taught they are in school.

The fact is that they railed against banks and corporations and did not want them in power.

The fact is that the Founding Fathers were slave owners almost to the man.

The fact is that the country is not great.

The fact is that George W. is responsible for 8.6 Trillion of our debt.

The fact is that unemployment went from 3.8% to 7.2% and was still rising when Bush left office.

The fact is that we had a massive deficit that was rising when Bush left office.

The fact is that this is what Obama walked into as the new president.

None of these idiots actually check their facts. These idiots simply run off at the mouth and claim the OWS supporters are liberal [yeah right], that we don't know our history [this is why we have to continue to educate you].

Why is it we have to continue to correct your misinformation? Why is it you think the Founding Fathers were great thinkers? A few like Franklin were forward thinking men but they were hampered by idiots much the same way we are right now. Idiots that cannot pull their collective heads out of their collective asses long enough to actually take a good look around to see if there is anything wrong with our country.

You that call the OWS supporters liberals, uninformed and so on, yet you have the same backwards mentalities as the slave owners when this Country was being built. You are the ones holding this country back from being the great country it can be. The first actual democracy since Greece and the City States.

Instead you claim the OWS supporters want;

Large government

Free land

Free money

A free Ride

This isn't the case. The only thing I want is for people to once again control this country and the future of this country.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 8 years ago

If the founding fathers were so bad, what other people from the same time period were better? Who would you prefer to have led America back then?

Yes, they had slaves, but we have slaves today to, that is to the extent that we use products made in China.

I don't believe the founding fathers were perfect, but that they moved us a step ahead from where we were.

[-] 3 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

We demonize our enemies and canonize our founders. All are merely human, doing the best they can.

[-] 1 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Really Now? Would you please let me know how this nation survived when the founding fathers first arrived here? Was it through human(e) acts and policies? Some of those same dehumanizing policies, particularly for women and minorities, are still on the law books in some states and have never been changed!! What human(e) individual would condone annihilation of masses of original people of a land just to make that land as his own? Where was the non-violence back then and where is it now...same old song!! I see nothing human(e) about interment camps for the Japanese. I see nothing human(e) about killing individuals because of race mixing! Get your head out of the sand ostrich!!! Without protest, and the need for change..it wouldn't be just apples hanging from the trees today!!

American history 101 forgot to include a few books!!

I am not sorry for bursting you all's bubbles either!!

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

It is the way war is fought. How much fun is it to kill people you know and like? It is pretty much the same thing with politics now. People don't seem to be able to separate their emotions from any logical thought processes. These folks are fanatics.


[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 8 years ago

Good grief!!! It is such a relief to finally have someone tell it like it tiz!!

I have found that individuals who are not aware of the truth (or at least pretend so) about the world and this country, its true history and the individuals running it today, have no problem letting those truths be the burden of and rest on the backs of those who have had to live those truths, and are still living them to this day! So in essence, I see those who refuse to look at the truth are no better than the ones who pretend these truths are myths. That way they can maintain their own status quo by their mental way of rationalization from amnesia! In other words, they aren't any better than those on wall street and those who sold out their true form of government. I am sure those same individuals would also do it in a heart beat!!! Is that simple enough for you P....?

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Facts are what they are. They don't change. The only thing that changes is our perception of the facts. The fluctuation in different perceptions are usually a direct result of our experiences.

[-] 2 points by IslandActivist (191) from Keaau, HI 8 years ago

Do you mean: "I read a lot of posts about OWS supporters from people..." I don't mean to be a grammar-nazi but I became confused about whether this post is against the negative posts of OWS supporters or the negative posts about OWS.

I ask this since I'm on the verge of agreeing with you or beginning a debate. Personally, I have seen both sides drift onto the wrong track offensively; however, I find most posts that specifically attack OWS to be completely offensive and ignorant.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I meant both sides of the issue resort to name calling instead of presenting the facts. I am guilty from time to time of name calling as well but I post facts, information and evidence that support the points I make and/or my position. I get a little irritated when somebody keeps parroting facts they should know are false. I just did a comparison of the president and unemployment and the results didn't really surprise me but will surprise others.

When I compile the data and set it up so it can easily be digested I will post it.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

I have mentioned this concept before, but I will continue to do so in hopes that it makes sense to some. When we think or emote, we are using energy. When our thoughts or feelings are scattered, we are usually not very effective. When we focus our thoughts and feelings on one or two things, we usually accomplish something. What I see happening here is a huge amount of energy being directed to assigning blame and complaining about what is. Not only is the energy scattered, it is not directed toward anything useful. But, if we start from here and focus only on ideas that can change the way we do things, and how those ideas can be implemented, and then do it, one step at a time, change can happen. Compare the power of a laser (focused light) versus the gentle effect of ambient light. Now let's focus on answers.

One set of proposals is here: http://www.thepeacefulrevolution.com/#57

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Yep. Also, people might consider this fact. Taking and/or assigning blame does not denote blame. To blame another means they did something wrong. Taking responsibility does not mean anything wrong was done.

Also, outlining what led to the problems today does not mean that I hate the founding fathers. Without the knowledge of why things are the way they are, how exactly can we fix the problems?

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

Understanding where we are and how we got here is absolutely part of it. Up until the advent of the internet, access to that information was not prevalent as it is now. I, for one, accepted what I was taught as pretty much the way it had to be, and no one was volunteering a lot of information to the contrary. Only now am I reading about different monetary systems, their flaws, their history, etc. Only now can people get their ideas out there without having to be published by another person. All we have to do is learn to reason. :) It should be an exciting, innovative time.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

And the government is trying to censor the Internet with a law they can't even enforce.

Reasoning and complex concepts are another matter entirely. Action, reaction and forward thinking are complex concepts some don't try to understand.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 8 years ago

All controllers are at risk when people begin to learn and to work together for common goals. That is why I think we must keep the internet totally free. We have been warned; now we have to stay vigilant and aware of all such measures being taken in the future. As for forward thinking and complex concepts, at least the ones who are capable are putting their ideas out there; others can learn.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

ill tell you one point our founding fathers were great thinkers on, it was this quote from the constitution of the united states, (lol united my ass) "and taxes are to be voluntary" funny i didnt get to vote on it, and I sure dont see any "voluntary" taxes. I say we starve the fat cats of the great consumer called our government and send "voluntary" taxes to the OWS movement instead.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

most of the wealth is in the hands of a small minority

[-] 0 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

This is a Republic. You through your legislator(s) and they voted for these taxes. Want change, get involved. Want the power to make change??? Change the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

im old and tired, i dont think change will happen in my lifetime, the reason why "change" occurred in our founding fathers was becasue they started out in a new land, unfortunately, i believe a revolutionary war would have faster results. this is why jesus is going to burn the wicked when he returns, he doesnt believe in change either. LOL but maybe im just a pessimist carrying some emotional baggage.

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

no worries .... change is happening right now ;)

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Yes, change is happening and there is nothing short of the President taking absolute control that will stop this.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

yeah... but even that can't stop it ... ;)

[-] -2 points by TimMcGraw (50) 8 years ago

once we get Obama out and a true American in the white house

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Tim McGraw huh,... Sounds like somebody in India or Pakistan made up the name to make callers feel as if they speaking with an American....

I'm not saying anything but you sound like a fake American kid.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 8 years ago

a made up name? like barack hussein obama? his real name is barry soetoro.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 8 years ago

John Quincy Adams was not a slave holder.


He was also not controlled by religion. He used reason.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

So did Franklin. Too bad these folks were hindered and obstructed by Madison, Washington....

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 8 years ago

Negative PR is a common tactic used against OWS. OWS is also free to use this tactic against corporations & co. I only hope that OWS might try challenging opponents with that method more often.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 8 years ago

My beer glass is half full. Think I will get another!

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I don't drink, so why don't you have one for me.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

"Just can't live that negative way...make way for the positive day!"

“Don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver or gold...”

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Knowledge is power, wisdom is strength. To make change requires both.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

just Bob Marley quotes .. ;)

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Now you will be labeled a socialist even though Mr. Marley was rasta....

I did a look up on the unemployment rates since Carter. With as much people as the two Bushes put out of work it is a wonder there is still any economy to speak of.

 39   Jimmy Carter   1-1977   7.6%   1-1981   7.5%   Democratic
 40   Ronald Reagan   1-1981   7.5%   1-1989   5.4%   Republican
 41   George H. W. Bush   1-1989   5.4%   1-1993   7.3%   Republican
 42   Bill Clinton   1-1993   7.3%   1-2001   4.2%   Democratic
 43   George W. Bush   1-2001   4.2%   1-2009   7.8%   Republican
 44   Barack Obama   1-2009   7.8%   Current   8.3%   Democratic
[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

and to be fair... Carter was coming off of nixon's 8.6% rate ... and during Carter's first yr I believe it went over 11%...

the GOP has it down to a science... rape and pillage for 7 yrs... let it crash and blame it on the DEM's...

and I do vote republican when a good guy is there... but not often

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I never vote party. The fanatics empowered these legislators to do as they wish and now they play politics instead of doing their jobs.

Our legislators need a time out very, very badly.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

I agree we need to replace 90% of as fast a we can

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

We need to amend the constitution so we don't have to fight the corporations every time we want to make a change in this country. Replacing the corrupt legislators will follow,

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 8 years ago

Slavery is alive and well across the world...where is the outcry?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Sadly true. If we can fix our country, perhaps we can help others fix their country. But why would anybody want marriage advice from a seven times divorced marriage counselor?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 8 years ago

ya not to mention the right wing extremists who support a corrupt principle = gay marriage. WOW, talk about the blind leading the blind.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I haven't a clue where stand on gay marriage from that posts, but I don't support gay marriage.

I do support gay unions where each partner gets the same exact treatment that you would if you were "married" including all the benefits and all the liabilities.

Marriage is a religious construct used to control people for thousands of years; why would gay people want to be controlled like that? A civil union that can take place in a church if the church allows it, a civil union in a field if the folks want to get married in a field.

A special license by the government to preform the ceremony and it is legally binding with all the negatives and positives.

Just my nickle and I am sure you will give me change.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

The Founders were human just like all the rest of us. And just like us they disagreed on what to do with the lower people on the totem pole and they put property before people. Which in their minds, and in the minds of the majority of Americans living today, were and is the most important thing the gov't protects. Th civilizing of humanity is a slow process and different civilizations should not be seen as all bad nor all good. You can't force people to do what you think is right. You have to argue your claim and hope you can reason with their better angels. And that is the reason why it took so long to abolish slavery, some people just can't be reasoned with, and when they make a majority of the people, civilization stagnates. But maybe the next generation will be a little more reasonable.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I don't make and/or accept for bad behavior. It was just the way it was back then.... She was naked.... How about, they are not human they are sub-human, barbarians, or how about Native Americans, Blacks, Asians....

It was wrong then, there were abolitionist fighting to end slavery so the excuse the they did know better doesn't work either.

I get where your post is coming from but I am all out of understanding for stupidity.

If we can't agree on removing corporations and other created entities from our political process nobody will get any fixes done.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 8 years ago

You want people to "once again" control this country? A lot of opinion there--Not a lot of fact. The "fact" is, the people never did control this country. It has always been controlled by the fat cats and the politicians.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Fat Cats?

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 8 years ago

The rich and powerful

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The one percent, the politicians....?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

Some of your facts are only pieces of the truth and many are not relevant to our condition today. The people can have the country back any time they choose to learn more about the issues then what they hear in a 30 second attack ad, get up away from their reality shows, and insist on candidates that deliver on a sensible platform. Instead they accept things as they are and just complain. We waste time blaming someone from the past for our failure to deal with today's problems.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

But none of what I said was false. It will take a constitutional amendment to correct what the Courts have done and nothing short of this.

The rest of your post I agree with. This does require us to be informed and stop accepting as fact what others say. I can post evidence to support my claims.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 8 years ago

The stuff about Bush is a waste of time now. Be concerned with present spending if it's the deficit you're worried about, there's nothing to do about the past but pay or default.

The stuff about the founding fathers, who are you including under that term? If it's the men that attended the constitutional convention, the usual definition, then about half of them were slave owners. That too is history and doesn't necessarily detract from the overall intent of the constitution.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Bush is a waste of time now and our effort should be concentrated on the future. The current deficit as of right now is being fixed. Pulling the troops out of Iraq. I have mixed feelings and don't find fault for the attack on Afghanistan. It is current and the past.

The Constitution was written so it pleased everybody, including the slave owners and without any consideration for women, non-property owners or many others. We don't have to consider these things and can correct these problems with the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Don't forget that the Bill of Rights are amendments. If they had known what they were doing it would have all been in the original document. Lacking those protections it couldn't be ratified. There were actually12 amendments and two of those were not ratified. It took the Shays' Rebellion to get Washington behind the amendments. Similar amendments had been passed in Massachusetts, with great difficulty, years before. The banks were foreclosing without reason, pushing the tax burden (for the war) onto the small rural property owners, preserving tax breaks for themselves. Sound familiar? It should. History is repeating itself. We are the Shays' Rebellion of today.

At a meeting convened by aggrieved commoners, a farmer, Plough Jogger, encapsulated the situation:

"I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war, 

been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Yep. It needs to be stopped once and for all.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 8 years ago

Why do you defend Obama if you want the people back in power? He has done just as much as Bush to cultivate the power of Wall Street.

Also, you'd be fine cutting federal spending, since you don't want a large government? There's about 1 trillion dollars in fraud, waste and abuse ready to be slashed, I'm glad you and I are standing together waiting for it.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

"Why do you defend Obama" when?

[-] 0 points by jeivers (278) 8 years ago

Good post KUDOS!

[-] 0 points by childseyes (85) 8 years ago

Something tells me the founders were not perfect, and, they were divided. Some were bigots and fascists, and others were the people we were taught they were in school.

One thing is sure, the beasic principles of the constitution will protect the future of our children, and ourselves. We need to perfect it, a convention to propose amendments is what is needed.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

If we try for a Constitutional Convention, it can and probably will, be hijacked and we won't get what we want. Currently there is a bill in both houses for a Constitutional Amendment. In fact there are several and not one fixes the problem.

If we work with the legislators, as a unified force, they will do what we want. Removing the influence of non-natural persons will allow us to make further changes by laws that are in line with the desires of the people and the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 8 years ago

I understand the fear of a runaway convention, but for my childrens sake, I cannot entertain them. Such fear is of one another, of our ignorance. I also cannot assume that legislators will do anything which is needed. It is their illigitmate acts that have created the dense problems we have.

I've seen here in this forum an idea for preparatory amendment to a convention proposing amendments. The preparations are simple and assure full constitutional intent.

The first is to end media control over facts and vital information for the function of democracy, ending the abridgement of free speech. The next is have full campaign finance reform, reversing the onerous supreme court decision of "citizens united".

The last is to secure voting systems and end, perhaps temporarily, the electoral college.

The same poster provided some links to fovavc.org that showed its been 100 years that congress has been violating their oaths and the constitution by intentionally misinterpreting the constitution. What they pointed out, is that since we are 1000 years overdue for a convention to propose amendments, the convention we should have is one with the maximum democratic input of the people.

I am not afraid of my fellow Americans. I am afraid of their ignorance, but this proposal addresses that. After a short time of true free speech on national, prime time TV, Americans will be able to make good decisions.

I think I found the page after following the original link here, where it is proposed, by searching with the criteria of soldiers inquiry.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The problem with a Constitutional Convention is that the people are in no more control than a legislative bill and that more than a single amendment can be submitted, voted on and passed. Once done, it is done.

With legislation, we have the state legislators that are a bit more responsive than the federal legislators.

BTW, it was the courts that created this mess when they ruled in favor of corporate rights, in direct opposition of the Constitution. If the legislators had not written and passed legislation we would not have Citizens United v. the FEC.

[-] 1 points by childseyes (85) 8 years ago

I see the issue, interpretation of Article V. There is big misinfo from high places on the web that have citizens giving up their first and last right.

Below is an excerpt from the Declaration of independence. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ "— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

This wiki page is misinformation relating to the codification of the above into the later constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Below, Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The congress shall ... "on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments" overides may in the latter part of Article V.

This is a well agreed upon interpretation by constitution scholars. wiki pedia is treasonous, in more ways than that.

See the bottom of this page, the certified return from jimmy wales of wiki. Apparently their site misrepresents the structure of the Twin towers making any explanation impossible. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html They . . . cannot be used as an authority. See foavc.org for more, consistent interpretation of Article V.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

Amendments proposed by a constitutional convention still have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The state legislators. It is risky to allow closed door negotiations with any legislator.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

Either way, through congress or constitutional convention, legislators will be involved. IMO, allowing the status quo, is the most risky proposition.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I drafted a Constitutional Amendment that removes all entities from politics except the individual. If that is passed then the citizens are once again in control and we can then decide what to do.



[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

Here's another 'Fact' (in quotes because economics and political facts are questionable) for you. Most recessions would be over by now. Obama has slowed the recovery.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Facts are never questionable, just our interpretation of them. How much momentum did our economy have going to pot, when your friend left office? Why the disconnect from reality by those that call themselves conservatives is beyond me.

Bush had a steady decline of almost 4% in unemployment in under two years leading to your friend leaving office.

Housing prices dropped [home owners lost trillions in equity] and was on a major decline prior to your friend leaving office.

Banks bailed out prior to your friend leaving office.

An increase in the national deficit and debt that we still feel today. During your friend's term in office, a 4.9 Trillion dollar debt and massive DEFICIT still felt three years after your friend left office to the tune of an additional 3.7 Trillion dollars.

If I buy a car with say 200K miles on the car, the odometer doesn't automatically get rolled back to zero because I took ownership of the car. If there is a gasket leak when I bought the car, I now have to fix it, but all the problems were there when I bought the car even though these are now my responsibility.

How is this now Obama's fault?

Personal responsibility is something conservatives demand from others while excusing themselves themselves from that same personal responsibility.

Why is that?

Conservatives blame Clinton for 9/11 a full 8 months after he left office. How can a person not in charge be responsible for the security of the Country? I know, conservatives claim how can Bush be responsible now for our economy. Big, big difference.

Bush started a second war willfully misleading and lying to the country about WMD in Iraq, never concentrated on the war in Afghanistan, bailed out the banks, gave tax cuts to the wealthy [look that cost up] and many more failed economic goals.

Did Clinton set up something that protected the terrorist, no.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

whoa libby, breathe. I didn't say anything about Bush. I'm talking about Obama, most recessions have been over by this time. Obama's policies are slowing the recovery. Can't you handle some criticism of Obama. I'm not here to apologize for Bush , he made mistakes. So has Obama.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

As I said, you're an idiot if you think I am liberal and since you say it you believe it. You seem to have problems with math and complex constructs. The very last year Bush was in office the national deficit was increased by $297,852,000,000.00


This is the last year and unemployment went from 5.0% in January 2008 to in 7.8% January 2009.

Housing dipped, our rental house in march 2007 when bought it was appraised at 220K and in May 2008 we were going to refi so I actually have an appraisal for 188K. So we lost 32K in a little over two years.

Or just $1,230.77 a month. Now, we did keep track using zillow as a baseline. Now I know that zillow is joke but it is the same joke now as then so it can be used.

Zillow topped this house out at $231K July of 2008 and by January of 2009, $178K or a loss of $53K before Obama even took office. Since Obama took office $178K to what it is now $145K or a loss of $33K.

So Under Bush we lost $53K in 6 months and $33K under Obama in 3 years.

How is it you expect him to fix this is a few months or even a few years?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

well, i don't expect Obama to fix it, just to make excuses like you. Look you are giving me the Democrat party line, maybe you aren't a democrat but you sure sound like one.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

So you are calling me an excuse. I posts actual facts that substantiate and essentially demonstrate my statements as true and accurate you claim it is an excuse. I have provided two sources for the numbers that clearly demonstrate what I say is true. You are unable to disprove any of them so you claim I am now a Democrat.

The facts are what they are whether like them or not. We own two houses and this happened to both, so I have the proof that substantiates what I say.

Here is how you debate, something you need to learn in order to have an "intelligent" discussion.

Say everything is true for the sake of discussion.

This means for this discussion only you are willing to accept what I say as true about the the deficit [official record presented] , the National Debt [4.9 Trillion while in office], housing [speculated from two actual appraisals on two of my houses] and unemployment [official record presented].

This doesn't mean you accept my interpretation of the impact. This just means that these things are agreed upon so we can move the discussion further along to discus the impact that I am proposing and the responsibility of Bush and Obama.

My position is that Bush is responsible for an additional 3.7 Trillion over the last three years as a result of his policies that continued into the next presidency.

Your position is that Bush is no longer responsible for anything after he left office.

Does this about some it up?

It is called a debate, a discussion and not an argument.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

you are a strange person. i'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me (or the majority of the U.S.) of your liberal views. So adios, good luck with your vision of the U.S.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

So you never intended to actually have a discussion. A liberal, this demonstrates your lack of intelligence, ethics and morals is self-evident.

[-] -1 points by utahdebater (-72) 8 years ago

Sorry to break it to you, but the United States was not created as a true democracy. So the only way your gonna get a true democracy is if somehow the constitution is rewritten.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

looks like you got the Democrat talking points, of course they are facts, of course.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

There is evidence to substantiate these claims.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

oh come on, the fact that the country 'is not great', how could you prove this or disprove it. You sound like a partisan hack. Use your gray cells.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Do you believe this country is what it could or should be? We have an economy in the tank, our Civil and Constitutional Rights are being eroded, we have unlawful searches by the TSA when we want to fly.

Do I really need to go on or are you going to use comparative logic to prove America is better than Iran, Iraq or some other country :-)

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

No, you said Fact:blah, blah...... you can't prove a country is great or not, so you can't say its a fact.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

You can prove a country is great or not simply by defining what is great and then asking if the country has these qualities.

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

oh really, and that's not subjective at all? You can't label it as a Fact. Go back to your Democrat controllers and ask them what you should do.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Not very bright are you? I mean if you have to make some inane claim I am a democrat to bolster your case is kind of stupid.

Was our country ever "great", what made our country "great"?

Can you answer this or are your republican, christian right, conservative values a problem?

Like labels???

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

you don't think out country is great, fine, its a free country, i'm not trying to change your mind. But its an opinion not a fact. There are a lot of you who want to change of country to something unrecognizable, unfortunately for you, you are in the minority, and will lose.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Why is it you can't actually present evidence to support your position and/or claims? Instead you resort to trying to tell me what I believe. This seems to be the norm for a lot of people.

You have no idea what it is I want. I will make it easy for you.

My only goal is to remove outside influence of created entities.

What is done afterwards is up to the people. I don't have faith in religion because there is no god. God is a construct to relieve us of our personal responsibility and is used as a mechanism of control and nothing more.

I have faith in people to do what they know to be right. There will always be greedy that negatively impact the lives of others but there will be a far greater number that know what is right and have the strength of character and the courage to do what is right. Not because doing what is right is easy or convenient, but because it is the right thing to do.

Then you will always have those that are too lazy to do their own leg work and rely on others for their information.

Which will you be?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

what are you talking about showing evidence. You seem to have a problem understanding, saying a country isn't great can't be a labeled as a FACT its an opinion not a Fact. What evidence do you want, i'm using my brain i don't need to run to some web site to discuss this. Why don't you use your brian for a change.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Everything is subjective. What has value to you might mean nothing to the person sitting next to you.

What is it that people "think" makes this country great?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

--->"... who want to change of country to something unrecognizable,..."

ok... so what is that ?

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

well tell me if you disagree with any of the below: Open borders, and amnesty for illegals, Abortion on demand, universal medical care, higher taxes, bigger government, more Union power, no more oil drilling in the U.S., 'modernize' the constitution, multicultural studies funding, government control of what we eat, more government funded news, ban conservative news (foxnews), stop war on terror, stop the patriot act, don't support Israel, increase the welfare state, weaken the military, increase taxes on corporations, more government subsidizing of 'green' energy...

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

A) "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.I lift my lamp beside the golden door." ... Statue of Liberty inscription

B) universal medical care .... ALL should have access to good Health ... how that is obtained ... I don't really care ... however it would be best if everyone could afford to pay their own way .... until that happens we as a people ... as American's should provide it ...

C) bigger government, .... hell no .... but we do need some rules ... or the organized criminals will walk all over all of us... including you ....

D) more Union power, ... it's a free country ... I could care less if someone wants to join a union ....

E) 'modernize' the constitution, ? stupid question .... how many Amendments do we have? we have always modernized the Constitution ...

F) government control of what we eat, .... I don't want to eat people unknowingly ... unless they work for Fox News ....

G) stop the patriot act, ... yes the patriot act is not American ...

more later... got to go

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

A) illegal versus legal immigration. And the Statue of Liberty is not the law its a piece of art the French gave us., we have immigration laws, lets enfoce them. B) we have so much money to pay for this. C) we have millions of rules and laws, just enforce them D) OK E) OK F) very funny. So you are against freedom of the press.
G) Sitting back like a liberal wimp and letting Islamofascist attack us isn't American

[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

FU... I ain't no wimp... pussy...

[-] -2 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 8 years ago

hit a nerve there wimp? I have no problem saying let's kill islamofacist, can you say that? Funny you have no problem saying you'd kill Foxnews employees

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Keystone XL is not dead yet. Make sure it does die.


[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

spamming for the sierra club instead of finding a way to actually be able to make change is not a solution to any problem.

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Well I guess I can understand your username.

Because your comment was - unimportant (444) 13 minutes ago

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the superbowl is on fox again this year

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The what???

Oh, you mean the Madonna Bowl............................:)

Can't wait to miss it.

FLAKESsports sux.

FLAKESnews is unamerican

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

nationalism is Fascism

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

I hope this doesn't come across as an attempt to "educate" you in some way.

This country was not formed as a Democracy. It was formed as a Republic. Should the people of this country ever decide to run it AS a Republic, it will be a great country again.

The "Democracy" of Ancient Greece wasn't all that "great" if you were one of the helos of the Greek City States. They would tell you that being subjugated and forced to labor for the Spartans was hell. Especially when the young Spartans had free reign each Fall to stalk, hunt and kill the helos as part of their military training.

Being a woman in Greece also sucked. Women had no legals rights, not to vote, or own property, or much of anything else. Only the aristocratic women had much freedom at all, yet were still under their father or husband's control.

Is that the "great country" /Democracy your education taught you about?

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I am not offended with the correct information or when you point out I am incorrect and you provide the information that substantiates your points :-)

The US was actually a Representational Democracy in that we elect people to represent us.

I never claimed the Democracy was great. It was and wasn't a true democracy. Women, slaves, those under 25 and those those that had not served in the military were not able to attend or vote at the Quorum.

But, it did allow those that it did apply to vote if they were the first to arrive :-)

That Democracy reminds you of the one the Founding Fathers built :-)

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

Here's an article detailing how I view a Democracy VS a Republic.


"AT THE CLOSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”


I was born and raised on the writings of the Founding Fathers. I grew up reading about the American Revolution and the individuals involved in it. Their personal opinions, their philosophies, and their lives. The Republic formed through blood, sweat, and tears by the FF, was NOTHING like the world had ever seen, or engaged in before, and it is one of the finest collaborations in the history of this planet.

But the American people have been unable to "keep it". They keep shoving it back towards a "Democracy" because they have been taught that a "Democracy" is the best system ever established-by people who want a Democracy instead of a Republic. They haven't been taught the nuances of both systems-WHY? They haven't been encouraged to support and sustain the most "unusual and radical type of government" in human history. WHY?

Because evil, selfish, stupid, arrogant people intervened. They always do. They always will. The FF established a government that would truly have been the most FREE, provide the most LIBERTY, and uplift the most PEOPLE. And they refuse to let it thrive. They want it to die, and they've recruited you to deal what they hope are the final blows to it's life.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

There is very little between a Republic and a Representational Democracy. I am not sure we, as humans, are intelligent or free thinking enough to have a full direct democracy. In a democracy it is the majority rules and since there are many voices seeking their own needs; clearly demonstrated on this forum, that do not consider the needs of the few.

It is the few that are the many and sadly that phrase is wasted on most.

I think removal of corporate power and the power of any except the individuals will solve or allow most of these problems to be solved. Remove the influence of money from politics and you make this fixable.

I sincerely hope that you don't mean me with this. All I want is to remove corporate power, influence from politics so that we have what the founding fathers intended us to have. If you read the writing of the FF then you know they did not want corporations and/or banks in control of our country.

"They want it to die, and they've recruited you to deal what they hope are the final blows to it's life."

[-] -1 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

That's my whole point. A Republic IS DESIGNED to control the "majority" so that the freedoms of the "few" are not trampled upon. A Republic IS very different from a Democracy of ANY kind. Read the article I posted to understand why I say that.

As far as being evolved enough as humans to thrive under either system, Madison said in Federalist Paper #55-

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

Until the nature of the majority of the people changes, you can change the nature of the government in a thousand ways and end up with the same result.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Madison knew himself well.

You didn't answer one of the questions or really any of them. I understand the difference between a standard Republic and a standard Democracy. A Representational Democracy is different than a standard Democracy.

We have both, and these are controlled by the Constitution which is another check against the majority rules, the Courts; another check against the majority rules.

There are checks and balances against mob rules. What we have now is a country controlled by created entities instead of the people. The laws made are for the benefit of the Corporations at the expense of the people.

Do you think a Constitutional Amendment clarifying who the rights outlined in the Constitution are reserved for means I am trying to destroy our Country?

Section 2 outlines who is a "Natural Person" and Section 3 reserves the rights outlined in the constitution for only "Natural Person(s)".


“SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States to be the rights of natural persons.

“SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution mean “natural persons” and do not include corporations, limited liability companies and other private entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.

“SECTION 3. Such entities not identified as a “natural persons” in SECTION 2. of this Amendment, shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to, for or against, any candidate for public office or to, for or against, publicly elected official or to, for or against, any legislation before the Congress, the Senate or the people.

“SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.”.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

The OP didn't ask or say anything about a Constitutional Amendment.

I don't take Amending the Constitution to be something done lightly, and calling a Constitutional Convention COULD backfire in having the document changed in ways that make things even WORSE. It's a can of worms we have to be extremely careful in opening, don't you agree?

I also did not say that YOU are trying to destroy the country. I said evil people are manipulating us all at the moment, or trying to. They WANT the can of worms opened-and for chaos to reign in order to "force" it to be opened-so that they can then destroy the document's credibility once and for all. We have to be extremely vigilant NOT to fall into line with their plans just because they're throwing the words "justice" and "equality" and "rights" around.

Think about it.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I am the OP. I am not calling for a Constitutional Convention because I share your concern about the Convention being hijacked.

I was clarifying that you weren't attributing to me something or a motive that wasn't me was all. I did not mean to offend you :-)

Currently there is a Constitutional Amendment wending the both houses from Congressman Ted Deutch and Senator Bernie Sanders. They are mirror copies but they realized they have a massive loophole in their bills. I presented both Representatives the text I wrote, above, for consideration. If adopted it will remove the influence of created entities from all political processes.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

"I was clarifying that you weren't attributing to me something or a motive that wasn't me was all. I did not mean to offend you :-)"

If I had a dime for every time I've posted something here and had everything from my motives to my personal life "attributed" TO ME in response, I'd BE one of the evil rich 1% by now.

If even HALF of those who post here did what you bothered to do, I wonder how many more constructive discussions would take place? Thank you for bothering to clarify. It matters to me. A lot.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

I agree that such adoption COULD help. But will for sure? Of that I am not sure. Why?

Because those people who wish to influence political processes have already created PACS which allow them to just combine the "allowed" financial contributions of individuals into huge, massively influential organizations.

The more we try to "control" people, the more ways they come up with to avoid being controlled. And in the end, the ropes we attempted to bind them with end up choking US to death.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

The PACs, Unions, Churches, Corporations, LLCs etc... are all banned from expenditures to, for or against any political candidate or legislation.

All these entities are regulated by the state, federal government or foreign state and are therefore barred. Only "natural person(s)" as defined in section 2.

This is not about trying to control anything. This is to remove the influence of those that are not a "Natural person".

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

I'm talking about how one avoids your wording. The rich just arrange to distribute the amounts they want to contribute to INDIVIDUALS-who then make the contributions as if they are coming from "natural persons" rather than entities.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I believe there are already laws on the books that prohibit this type of political corruption. This is why PAC were created; to get around these laws.

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

Exactly. What makes your wording any different?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

You can't be serious in asking why I think a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting all expenditures and contributions from all created entities is different than the current interpretations by the US Supreme Court of the Constitution that now allows unlimited direct contributions by these same created entities [Citizen United v. The Federal Communications Commission]?

Are you serious?

Currently, the US Supreme Court interprets the Constitution to mean that Created Entities are Natural Persons and have all the same rights as you and me. The US Supreme Court ruled that Corporations and/or Create Entities can spend unlimited funds advertising for/against a Candidate or piece of Legislation before the people [Citizen United v. The Federal Communications Commission].

Are your saying you have no problem with this?

If you are saying you have a problem, are you saying that legislation will correct this?

[-] 0 points by BetsyRoss (-744) 8 years ago

The Supreme Court decision does NOT allow unlimited direct contributions to Federal Candidates or National party committees. THAT remained in tact. The only expenditures and contributions that are now "unlimited" are those which are called "independent expenditures"-and these are not coordinated through or by candidates or national parties. The Supreme Court felt that limiting what corporations and unions did ON THEIR OWN -either for or against candidates-was violating their rights to free speech.

Again, Corporations and Unions are STILL NOT allowed to contribute directly TO Federal Campaigns and individual contributions TO campaigns through PACS are STILL limited. You need to re-read the actual judgement that was passed down and understand which laws it affected and which ones it did NOT.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

a Republic only works to the extent the representatives actually represent the people ... in that case the Republic is a Democracy...

[-] -2 points by TimMcGraw (50) 8 years ago

it's comments like this that we need Obama out of the white house. he has brainwashed a young generation into thinking that our country was not born of greatness.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Well kid, you should check your ignorance at the door, educate yourself, crack open a book or google if that is all you are capable of doing.

15 slave owning presidents, 8 while in office, slaves in the white house. Great people.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

How about the FACT that obama told you that if YOU elected him he would fix the economy and he has not. If he did fix the economy there would be no need for your childish FACT post.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

you are the child... not that I support everything Obama is doing....where do you think we would be if Obama had not been elected ?..... 40% unemployment... 50T in debt... and civil war... dumb ass

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

40%unemployment? 50 T in debt? civil war? anything to support your naive projections?

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

yeah... simple intelligence

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 8 years ago

you have NO facts or intelligence.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

It might not be 40% unemployment or 40 Trillion in debt but it is safe to say these things would not have done well under McCain and Palin. Palin, I mean really, you think Palin is a good candidate for VP. How about Michele Bauchmann and how well she knows American History.

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

Same could be said if McCain had been elected. Maybe we WOULD have recovered by now if McCain was elected. Your obama won saying he could fix the problem and he has not, dumb ass. I have no idea what would have happened and neither can you. All I know is he said he could fix it and he didnt.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

More of the same will change things. Do you have any other advice and/or insight you would like to offer?

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

I have a bet. I bet that if the economy gets better soon, Obama will take claim to the NEW ECONOMY and credit for fixing it and the liberal democrats will pat him on the back. Then, my bet continues,, a few months later the economy takes a down turn and somehow,,, it will be Bush's fault. He better think very hard before he takes credit for any improvements

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

That is a stupid bet. If Obama is in office, cleaning up after two G'Dubya's, who is that fixed the mess? After the wars are finished, after the tax cuts for the wealthy are removed, after the government supports the middle class is when the economy will be fixed.

Since I won't be patting any president on the back; ever. I guess I am not a liberal or a conservative; I am just informed.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

I'm not sure where you get the FACT that Bush caused the problem. Think for a moment. If you follow the news, the big issue for the democrats is "RAISE THE DEBT." We conservatives want a balanced budget and lower the taxes and lower the debt. Democrats seem to argue just the opposite. Raise the debt, no balanced budget and raise taxes. So,,, if Bush raised the debt, did just the opposite of a balanced budget and caused taxes to go up,,,, didnt he do what democrats actually wanted? Why are you not happy with Bush?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I usually get my FACTS from the facts and did so this time. How can you say that Bush is a conservative when he increased the deficit by 4.9 Trillion and the effects of his policies are still being felt to the tune of an additional 3.6 Trillion.

When Bush took office Unemployment was declining from a peak in July of 1992 of 7.7% to April of 2000 at 3.8% [3.9%] and it did rise to 4.2% in January of 2001 when Bush took office. Eight straight years of declining unemployment.

When Bush left Office unemployment rose from March of 2007 from 4.4% to 7.8% in January of 2009. In under two years unemployment rose 3.4%, when Bush left office it had not yet peaked. People out of work at the start was 6.731 Million and in the end 12.049 Million people were unemployed; a difference of 5.318 million additional people unemployed in that two year time frame.

So you have increased unemployment and increased deficit and increased national debt? What in this strikes you as conservative?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

And you should love him, correct? Let's say he did JUST THE OPPOSITE of what he did,,, for conversation. Let's say rather than INCREASE the deficit by cutting programs you still would have hated him Raise the debt, you hated him, lower the debt, you hated him. And when you think about it,,,,, he actually gave in to YOU to the tune of a $15 trillion dollar debt now. You should be very happy with him. What would have made you happy?

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I like that. When you are demonstrated to be ignorant of the facts you try and spin it. That is so loser of you.

A balanced budget, zero debt or at the very minimum; debt that our country can afford and pay just like the rest of us.

Are you stupid? Do you think that those that are actually informed about the country want our country to default on our debts, think that we want debt??? That is just plain, ignorant and since you imposed that ignorance on yourself that makes you stupid.

I have debt for two houses, I pay my debts. I pay all my debts. This country does not need to borrow to pay it's bills. If we need more money to pay our commitments then increase taxes or decrease the commitments.

What program does your tiny mind think I want? I loaded that with something you apparently have issues doing... thinking.

How do you "INCREASE the deficit by cutting programs"?

You are a tools used to educate others. Anything else you need explained?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

I typed an error. I meant DECREASE rather than INCREASE. At least you read the comment.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Look, I posted facts. The budget has to be balanced or we end up with this shit. Where we are so far in debt we will have to work for years to get out of debt.

I know who brought us to this and it was a so called fiscal conservative. The fact is that of the last six presidents, Carter, Reagan, Bush Clinton, Bush and Obama. Only one actually had a balance budget and it was not a Republican. I would have to look at Carter to see what his budgets were.

Clinton left an 800 Billion dollar surplus in the Budget when he left office. The fiscal conservatives, by actions, seem to be Democrats and not Republicans. The Republicans pander to the religious right and seek to confuse you with the word conservative.

For the religious right, they want to be spiritual conservatives, while Newt had affairs on two wives, one with Cancer, one with MS and then marrying a third. Very religious conservative on his part while getting nailed for a $300K fine for ethics violations. As for ole Mit, he bankrupts companies and then claims to have created 100K jobs; taking credit for the works of others.

These are your conservatives. How about Palin, how about Bauchmann? The latter would fail a sixth grade history test.

These are your conservatives. Are they fiscally sound? No. Are morally and ethically bankrupt, yes.

You might take note that there is not a single praise of Obama in the post.

[-] 1 points by Samcitt (136) 8 years ago

Note for future: When someone claims FACT when talking about a future event, do not take it literally, treat is as only an aim, goal or possibility. There is no guarantees in the future and its your own fault if you convinced yourself otherwise.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

What does the current debt have to due with the future? You either increased the debt or you didnt? He did.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

8.6 Trillion are from Bush. Under 1 Trillion is what Obama spent trying to stem the damage of Bush.

It seems the the damage has been slowed in spite of the opposition to everything he has tried.

Before responding, remember I am not an Obama supporter. I am only stating facts. You attributing motive to what I say is your problem, not mine and not something I will feel any need to defend myself against. I will instead just call you a moron and idiot shit.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

You are using vodoo facts. According to every liberal news reports YOU are wrong. You cant tell me you are better of today than you were even 2 years ago. You are using a wish as a fact.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Wrong. During Bush's term he raised the deficit by 4.9 Trillion the last affects over the last almost four years is an additional 3.7 percent.

Here is some news for you. I am as good off now as I was two years ago. Better in some ways.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

Better off? That is what they all say,, which asks the question of why everyone on here is so miserable they have to riot. Yep,,, better off.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Bush created massive debt, massive deficit and also created massive unemployment. Why would everybody be better off? How would young adults entering the workforce be doing good?

Deficit STATS http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html?hpid=z4

Unemployment STATS http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+united+states#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=log&ind_y=false&rdim=state&ifdim=state&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en From: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm

39 Jimmy Carter 1-1977 7.6% 1-1981 7.5% Democratic Changed - .1%

40 Ronald Reagan 1-1981 7.5% 1-1989 5.4% Republican Changed + 2.1%

41 George H. W. Bush 1-1989 5.4% 1-1993 7.3% Republican Changed + 1.9%

42 Bill Clinton 1-1993 7.3% 1-2001 4.2% Democratic Changed - 3.1%

43 George W. Bush 1-2001 4.2% 1-2009 7.8% Republican Changed + 3.6%

44 Barack Obama 1-2009 7.8% Current 8.3% Democratic Changed + .5%

[-] -2 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

Because 4 years ago obama told you that HE had the plan to fix the Bush problem. YOU voted for him because he said he would fix it. Remember the big celebration parties in Chicago and around the country the night he was elected? All you libs were jumping up and down that he was elected and better days were within days, weeks or months. YOU WERE SO HAPPY. Today, you are still miserable and rather than ask why obama has not made you happy you go back to being mad at Bush. If a guy says he can fix your car and he doesnt,,,, you find another guy to fix it. The car has been broken and now it is out of gas. He didnt fix the car and he drained the fuel.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

You are about as dumb as a couple spoonfuls of dirt, stupid as a post or a box of rocks if you like. You keep calling me a lib. Why is it you think I fight for myself? Do you attribute your selfish mentality to me?

If one mechanic forgets to lube the wrist pins, do you blame the mechanic or do you blame the guy trying to fix your car now?

Education, it is not wasted time my friend.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

All I can say back to your wonder world mind is, "4 MORE YEAR,,,, 4 MORE YEARS,,,, 4 MORE YEARS!!!!! and you would be the happiest guy in the world.

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Move along now, nothing to see, nothing here but the facts.

Why am I happy to see "4 MORE YEAR,"? Oh, you are stupid and think I am a liberal, an Obama supporter, a democrat....

As I said, dumber than dirt, stupid as a post. Bet your parent is proud.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

And I almost wish it was 8 more years. Those of us that made good decisions (business decisions) and have plenty of money in savings, IRA, 401k, equity in property, etc, can live just fine with 8 more years. Maybe you people that get poorer and poorer,,, as you loudly claim,,,, will be so miserable that you will finally see the light. You are miserable today,, tomorrow and forever. "EIGHT MORE YEARS OF THE SAME" VOTE DEMOCRAT. VOTE OBAMA. OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA,,, Eight more YEARS. ( I may even vote for him to continue until he kills off all the democrats )

[-] 2 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Thank you for your concern, but we are doing fine. We fight for those with less than we have. It might be a novel concept in the circles you travel in, but that is why our government was structured the way it was before Corporations took it over.

These folks keep people like you fighting for a party instead of fighting for the Country. The lowest form of flattery I might say. It is unpatriotic for you to fight for a party, and ideal instead of this Country.

It is stupid as well.

Do facts bore you? Bush, Bush, Bush, He's our man, if we need multiple wars in multiple countries he can get it done, yes he can, he's our man.

So which person do you like to screw the country up for the next four years?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

I'm voting for Obama with his THIRD war. "If I'm elected, I will not do what Bush did. I will sit down,,, across the table,, with those that dont like us. I will apologize to them and explain that I have a better way of doing things,, in partnership with them. They will then love and respect AMERICA as never before. I will end all the wars on day one if I'm elected. I will close GITMO. I will do away with the Patriot Act,,,, all on day one. CHANGE,,, CHANGE ,,,,, CHANGE. And you will love what I will do in 3 years." So there you go and I didnt have to use ONE of my own words.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

FreeDiscussion2, I have been an Independant for 30+ yrs... and I supported Obama.... as far as I see it... none of us who supported him thought that he could immediately fix everything.... in fact he campaigned that it would take a long time... we were against the war... we were against the inevitable economic crash... the rising healthcare costs ... and many other things that he also opposed... he did promise change... but we saw that as at best hopeful....

It is not ..imo ... Obama's fault that the Country is where we are no-more than it would be McCains fault if he had been elected

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

BradB, if you continue to abuse these fellas with facts and reality you will be responsible for their head exploding. You know, it makes sense now.

These folks have never pulled their heads out of their asses because they are scared their heads will explode. It must be that load pop when their head exits their ass for the first that terrifies them. Fellas, it isn't your heads exploding it is your ears popping because of the air pressure.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

yep I guess ;)

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

I just outed @moshehthezion2 as a Ron Paul Republican from 2009. My day job until a few months ago was tracking people down for litigation. Hard to find people. I think I have identified the owner of this site :-) Good thing I am a good guy.

If the owner ever wants to know how, he can check my email and send me an email. I would be happy to help the person hide their identity better.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

hehe ;)

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

He seems to be imploding.


What pisses me off and gets under my skin is he was trying to act and speak like an Arabic Muslim to garner a sympathetic ear. Trying to manipulate people and then abusing people when he didn't get his way.

He tries to bully and browbeat people to get them to do and/or think his way. Just like every other idiot politician or con [confidence] man.

I don't bully well.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Actually, the (R)epelican'ts ran the car into a wall, and now blame Obama, for parts that are still falling off.

Couple that with the (R)epelican't records on stonewalling, and they are effectively moving the repair shop further away.

Meanwhile, the teabaggers are siphoning the gas out of the tank.

Yup, the car analogy works for me.

Does it still work for you?

[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

First, it is called the Tea Party. I know that all you libs can think about is some fat guy sitting on YOUR face,, but that is your life style because that is all you guys think about. Second, I thought democrats were in charge the first two years,,,, I thought. Dont know how republicans could have stonewalled. All I know is that the night obama was elected and they parties,,, the music,,, the flashing lights on the stage,,,, all you libs with tears running down your face because,,, FINALLY,, OBAMA was the mechanic that was going to fix the broken car. Two years the car sat in the garage. Oh,, but we got ObamaCare,,,, praise the Lord. Praise the Lord,,,, however,, it wont kick in until 2014 after he thinks he will get re-elected and the world comes to an end. We will all be lucky if we can afford to buy the car in the garage for the last 3 years. Yep the car in the garage waiting for the community organizer to fix,, works for me. Now you can go back to daydreaming about some fat guy sitting on your face with his balls in your mouth because that is all you think about,.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I maintain the teabagger moniker for two reasons.

1.) It was their "chosen" nik in the first place. It reminds me of how well they do their homework.

2.) Teabaggers raised my taxes.

The rest of your comment completely ignored what I said in my comment and was kind of rambling, so I'll ignore it.

Just for good measure, I'll add that Bush kicked an undeserving Post Office, in the balls, as he left office.

So yeah, "conservatives" did this to us..

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

We chose teabaggers? Why do we call it Tea Party and YOU call it teabagging? Because you guys sit around and dream about a fat guy sitting on your face. Not once have I heard or read comments where a Tea Party person says "teabagger",,,, not once. But you,,,, do. Hope you can breath as your sucking on it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Ignore the facts I stated, and blame it on Clinton.

I'm sure you could blame it anyone but Bush.

It's like the whole 8 years fell down your memory hole.

The only thing you've got is, coulda woulda shoulda.

You never should have voted for the asshole in the first place.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Still ranting, still dreaming, still rambling..

Still can't face the simple fact the the economy crashed on Bush's watch.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 8 years ago

Yes,,,, I give up,,, the economy did crash under Bush. You got me there. WOW,,, that was hard for me to admit. See,,, all I could think about was within 7 months after Bush took office 2 planes crashed into the World Trade Center. Every stock market collapesed around the world as can be seen on all the charts. I had forgot that the terrorists that flew those planes were being trained way back in July in am FAA approved flight school in Florida while Clinton was president. I forgot all about that,,,,, shame on me. Had those terrorist been stopped by Clinton,,, who knows how great Bush could have been.

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

First, I am not an Obama supporter.

The facts are that he was hosed by Congress, both democrat and republican alike. The Democrats fought to screw up the Healthcare bill and did a fine job of it.

How can you justify holding the public ransom to raise the national debt ceiling after this is just the way it has been done for the last thirty years? You can't but that doesn't stop you from making these statements.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

To believe this, you have to completely ignore the records broken by (R)epelican't stonewalling.

Now isn't that childish?