Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18218978)

I don't believe that because they'll never truly understand how they were conned, or admit. If there is any societal upheaval, a clear sign will first come from minorities. Why?- The vast majority of the middle class are white and most business owners are also white or ran by white people. Second, it would be hard to miss the mass deportation of 16 million illegals.

Now - I'm not going to say this is a governmental conspiracy, but I am a certain the Gov knows and understands that educated white people are not going to stick their hands in a toilet unless it's their only option. Meaning, the government knows white people will rally with their own start-ups and try to make that work first. I'd be willing to bet this is what they're banking on to spark the economy currently.

Total failure will be much different.

Let's say it all crashes. There is not going to be riots in the streets like LA because there isn't anyone local to blame. There is not going to be mass protest because what are you going to protest about? - It happened. Besides, what most Americans can't see is homeland security has absorbed into law enforcement and apparently now the mailman. You don't actually think TSA's primary is looking for Muslim men do you? They are looking for signs of possible domestic terrorism. In short, societal upheaval starts from a spark and ends in an inferno and they'll have that spark extinguished instantly.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18219050)

He doesn't want to overhaul it, he wants to remove it all the way and have church and community educate your kids.

I was born in Texas... Texans are proud people. It was it's own Country, has had it's own wars & heroes, it's the only State that can fly its flag equal with the American flag, and in theory it could split off and become it's own Country again.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219058)

Best to stay off the radar, that's the only safe thing any more

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219070)

I visited, they had more texas flags than US flags flying

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219070)

It was a analogy, sorry you didn't get that, even BFT3K got that

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219070)

So if he says it's with the UN, that makes everything OK? Yeah that sounds right, NOT
But he's really good at that sort of thing

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18219050)

in theory it could split off and become it's own Country again.

Originally Posted by buzzard (Post 18219097)

Texas should, seriously. Wouldn't be surprised if it happened soon.

Send a message that we're tired of being lied to.
.

Originally Posted by Jesus H Christ (Post 18219119)

Safe thing? wow, I thought you'd be the last person on this forum to say that. Matter of fact, it's time to stand up like the way our founding fathers did. This does not mean to go start a militia, but prepare yourself to resist. It won't be long before they try to strip the 2nd now that the 4th is gone.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18219094)

Aye.. they give newborns a Texas flag and a gun at birth. :winkwink:





... clearly, and a bad one at that.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219594)

Why would I, I mean it sounds to me that we are just getting deeper and deeper over there when we need things done at home. I hate that the president doesn't think he should have to deal with the congress and senate. With this much war going on, he shouldn't have done that, this is just opinion. But many others feel the same way.
I understand he used a loop hole, I think there are too many of them, and I understand he's not the first president to do so, but that doesn't make it right......

Originally Posted by blackmonsters (Post 18215604)

That shit was so nasty and racist that I wouldn't blame Obama for giving a big
fuck you finger to the country.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18217568)

When Reagan took office, we had the cold war, he worked to end that by bankrupting the USSR.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 18219916)

.....and the U.S..


LINK

I am always amused how the Republican sheep cite Reagan, or Bush (as a business owner) when talking about financial health of this country. Comedy at it's finest.

Although, I do enjoy wig's posts handing out the ass whippings.
:pimp

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18219844)

Why would you read it? Really? I mean come the fuck on....

You don't read it, and then you spew stupid shit like this? How do I even respond?

Let me try... First, the president DOES know he has to deal with congress and the senate. I'm shocked you even said what you did, what a crazy fucking statement.

Second he didn't do anything, he didn't authorize anything, CONGRESS DID.

Third, Wow, do you ALL need to READ THE DAMN THING then.

Fourth, It's NOT a loop hole at all, not even a fraction or a tiny bit, it's AUTHORIZED by Congress.

Yes, it makes it 100% right, legal, and authorized.



Truly... why would you keep saying such stupid shit and not read the fucking thing? I mean really... this is beyond pathetic, truly, just so pathetic... a great example of why this country is truly so fucked.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219953)

I notice that your chart doesn't have the present administration in it

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219987)

Why do you consider it stupid? That I have the opinion that a law was put into place to restrict the power of the president and it's written in a way that he can get around it?

I'm tired of sending troops to the middle east, do you think I'm the only one?

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18219953)

I notice that your chart doesn't have the present administration in it or shows how the GOP controlled the purse strings during Clinton's years.

That's very left wing of you

Originally Posted by DateDoc (Post 18215313)

What an odd thing for the President to say, "Michelle and the kids are wonderful in that if I said, 'You know, guys, I want to do something different,' they'd be fine. They're not invested in daddy being president or my husband being president. But they do believe in what we're doing."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thetic...erm-presidency

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 18220147)

god dammit son, you cant be this ignorant..

you do realize that the huge "surplus" under clinton was not really a surplus..

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

so, since you are praising your Repub congress, you must be praising them for doing nothing to create a surplus that didnt exist..

also, military spending was down i believe during the clinton admin..

i cant wait for all you guys to get a republican in the house..

then you will flip the script and go from blaming a democrat to making excuses for a republican..

the sooner you face the fact that the whole system is fucked and actually believe it instead of saying you believe it, but then contradicting yourself with every post you make, the better off we will be.... :thumbsup





.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 18220002)

Oh I'm sorry. Did Obama complete his first term(s) yet?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Right wing loons....

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220165)

Not praising, just commenting, there is a difference

the chart was brought up to show spending habits of the GOP vs the Dem's.

I pointed out it's flawed

It's based on presidents, not the overall power of the government

Clinton was the president,but the house and senate were GOP

And it's not showing the current administration

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220183)

Actually, can't stand either side

and your chart isn't big enough to show the last 5 years and therefore flawed, you would have to add another , what 5 trilion dollars?, which would make you alost double the height of the current chart

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18220192)

The flaw has nothing to do with who is in power... it has to show bleed over from other administrations. Like Daddy Bush removed a major tax break, so tax revenue dropped while spending kept going up - while it was already going up from Reagan - so Daddy Bush's numbers look twice as bad as they really are.... sound's like something going on today.

Or like under Clinton, the GOP had 100% nothing to do with it, they spent money, a growing amount, both did. The reason it looked so good was we took in more tax revenue from the economic boom - which neither Clinton nor the GOP created.

Under the current admin, once you remove the bleed over spending from Bush that Obama had to dish out because Congress already signed trillions in bailouts... Obama's actual amount he directly created & spent is rater low, and dropping... If he actually ends the war, we'll move into a surplus numbers where tax dollars coming in are higher than money going out.

Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18220240)

The economy was circling the toilet bowl when Bush Jr. checked out.

It's not exactly fair to compare Obama's subsequent emergency spending to the spending that preceded him.

But don't let that stop you :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220183)

Actually, can't stand either side

and your chart isn't big enough to show the last 5 years and therefore flawed, you would have to add another , what 5 trilion dollars?, which would make you alost double the height of the current chart

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 18220355)

If you did not exist , you would need to be invented .... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

BTW, what are your origins ??? You look from Pollack descent ... ???

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220354)

Yeah, it's Bushes fault, that's the rally cry of the Democrats for 2012!!

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220354)

The chart wasn't about the economy people, it was about the spending of the presidents.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220354)

Yeah, it's Bushes fault, that's the rally cry of the Democrats for 2012!!

The chart wasn't about the economy people, it was about the spending of the presidents.

Originally Posted by GregE (Post 18220422)

So, you're saying that the economy was just honky-dory when the black guy took office :1orglaugh




The economy is precisely what Obama (for better or worse) has been throwing money at these past few years.

It's not exactly an irrelevant subject.

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18220443)

I didn't blame anyone for anything, I stated facts.

I guess we'll have to wait until the debates. I did hear the GOP blame Obama for every single thing going on in the economy, even if it had nothing to do with him, ever... they still blame him.

No... the chart is how much total spending was done, under a President, not how much they each actually spent.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220354)

Yeah, it's Bushes fault, that's the rally cry of the Democrats for 2012!!

The chart wasn't about the economy people, it was about the spending of the presidents.

Originally Posted by marketsmart (Post 18220495)

here's the problem.. the cold war spending during Reagan made the military complex so much money that they developed a thirst for the cash.. Since Reagan, we never really cut military spending significantly.. and when joe public complains about military spending during peacetime, we have to go find a war to fight to justify the spending. or allow a 9/11 to happen..

meanwhile, the other guys, like the banks and pharma wanted to get their piece of the pie, so congress started making sure they were fed as well..

and of course we cant forget about the uneducated and poor who if things get bad enough will be the ones to revolt, so we keep handing out their govt cheese to keep them quiet..

all this is happening and the middle class is carrying the burden of both the poor and super rich.. paying for the poor while getting robbed from the super rich..

but the middle class have house payments and car payments and college tuition, so they have no time to protest or demand change, so everything remains status quo..

you guys should look at how much money congressman make these days and maybe you will understand that govt has become about making money, not serving the people..




.

Originally Posted by Barefootsies (Post 18219916)

.....and the U.S..


LINK

I am always amused how the Republican sheep cite Reagan, or Bush (as a business owner) when talking about financial health of this country. Comedy at it's finest.

Although, I do enjoy wig's posts handing out the ass whippings.
:pimp

Originally Posted by TheDoc (Post 18220192)

The flaw has nothing to do with who is in power... it has to show bleed over from other administrations. Like Daddy Bush removed a major tax break, so tax revenue dropped while spending kept going up - while it was already going up from Reagan - so Daddy Bush's numbers look twice as bad as they really are.... sound's like something going on today.

Or like under Clinton, the GOP had 100% nothing to do with it, they spent money, a growing amount, both did. The reason it looked so good was we took in more tax revenue from the economic boom - which neither Clinton nor the GOP created.

Under the current admin, once you remove the bleed over spending from Bush that Obama had to dish out because Congress already signed trillions in bailouts... Obama's actual amount he directly created & spent is rater low, and dropping... If he actually ends the war, we'll move into a surplus numbers where tax dollars coming in are higher than money going out.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18220518)

No argument here
When the Cold war was over, which when you consider how many ICBMs we had pointed at us was a good thing to end, the government wanted another conflict, because that's where they are the most powerful. So one guy gets some other guys to fly an airbus into a building and we go on a spending spree. Our government hates peace, no profit in it.
People get pissed at the guy that went to war, so they elected the other guy that ended up expanding the war.
A war we really don't need and many don't want. Middle class is disappearing because of things like NAFTA where a country like China with major human rights violations can get a top trade status.

Originally Posted by uno (Post 18222921)

Let's play the Vendzilla game. How many factual inaccuracies can you find in the above statement? I count at least 6, but feel free to point them out and find more!

Originally Posted by mountainmiester (Post 18222944)

Seemingly I am confused as I had been under the understanding that it is Congress that is responsible for the approval of all budgets and spending.

all those years of college for nut'n.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 18222946)

I love that you are to timid to point out what you feel is wrong.

Lose your balls somewhere?