Obama, Republicans reach deal to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits

[thereisnospoon]

So much for "adult" conversation. I think the only thing someone like you "gets" as it relates to the bigger picture is when one of us tells you to go fuck yourself. Do it now.

You threaten the food on my table. You get blasted.
"Go fuck yourself" ...
Does your mother know you use that kind of language?
You're no lady.
You're a trailer trash mouthed hussie.
Us? Speak for yourself, wench.
Now, go wipe the green drippy shit from your nose. Test tube baby.

I treated my response to your filthy mouth in kind. So sorry my rant about gimme gimme gimme struck such a nerve with you that you had to prove you have the brain of an adolescent spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.

No you got upset because you got your ass kicked with a size 11 reality shoe.
The gimme crap comes from the takers. The ones who live off the taxpayer tit and those who vote for candidates that like to hand out the goodies.
Your post about cutting government would result in sacrifices made no sense. It made no sense in that people like me who bust their asses to get the things they need and want would not be affected by government cutbacks. Only those on the public dole would have to sacrifice. Gee wouldn't that be a fuckin shame.
If think sacrifice is needed, be my guest.
I earned my stuff.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you think Republican elites really wanted the White House in 2008?

It's always seemed to me they conceded the WH to the Democrats that year.

No. That is awhy I stated Mc Cain was a sacrificial lamb.
Onama was "made" President. he was packaged and presented very well.
One thing suburban white liberals love is packaging and brand named stuff.
The GOP could have put up a stronger candidate but for what purpose. Obama was a "made" guy. About 15 minutes after he announced his candidacy, he won the election.

That is so not true. He did a lousy job in the debates with Clinton, and many of us thought Hillary should have won. It was the tightest primary race in history, right up until the last one. Obama was no shoo-in, even among the black community because of Hillary's own popularity among them. The primaries became only about Clinton and Obama. Against all the others until they dropped out, yes, you are correct.

All the more reason why I think Obama was a "made" guy. I think Mrs Clinton was more than a worthy debate opponent.
However, I also think her relationship with the federal government as a the First Lady, her sudden "move " to NY just to run for a US Senate seat, the fact that the deal with billing the Secret Service for the living quarters on the grounds of the Clinton's Chappaqua, NY home and a host of other issues, including whitewater and Vince Foster made Mrs. Clinton unelectable for the office of POTUS.
Just about any democrat could have run vs Obama and they would not have gotten the nomination.
Obama was "selected"....

 

[Neotrotsky]

I came to the Board because a friend of mine noted that so much inaccurate OPs and arguments were made here that I could stay busy with just the refutation. How true dat!

Most of the time, if the topic is something currently newsworthy, it's not necessary to start a new thread. In fact, if you do, it will simply get merged or some yahoo will start hollering that THERE'S ALREADY A THREAD ON THAT, like you've committed some violation of a sacred rule.

I'm sure Jake is so happy he has you to fight his battles

 

[Neotrotsky]

I came to the Board because a friend of mine noted that so much inaccurate OPs and arguments were made here that I could stay busy with just the refutation. How true dat!

Hey , it is your story and you can tell it any way you want........


Many would believe it was/is for different reasons

Many? That's odd, since of the thousands of threads I've participated in, you're the only one who seemed to care.

Trend setters are that way - thanks!

 

[Neotrotsky]

keep proving what an idiot you are jokey

DiveCon

Thank you for starting this tread and not being afraid to state your position.

Did you know we have some posters that have posted over 14,000 comments but had never started a tread?

One does have to wonder way that would be ?

I wonder why anyone would take the time to figure that out. You must have gone on a search binge one day.

Day?

Oh yes, I forgot with some liberals any effort is considered work


Click on someone's name and look at their profile- less than 1 minute


You know if you tried a little more effort your posts/interesting would be better too

 

[Neotrotsky]

I understand that you, conspiracist, are sick about this issue and project on others your insecurities and fears. You have to stop your fear, son.

I hear you Jake!

It is almost like he has never posted any original topic in over 14,000 posts...
oh .... never mind

That's sick, man. Did you figure out how many threads I've started? Even I don't care. Imagine that...

Sorry, you are not interesting enough to look at...

Truth is the hard for the of the left; in fact it is there worst enemy


Sick- no

sick is your rather poor attempt to "come to" Jake's defense against the indefensible.


I will be sure to tell him what a "good job" you are doing

 

[Neotrotsky]

You asked no reasonable question. You twist facts to your perverted philosophy. You put words in my mouth that I did not say or imply. You are not only risible but also pathetic, a simply ineffective hack. Risible.

Why have you not once, in over 14,000 posts, ever start a thread?

Yes, you are correct that is not a reasonable question.
Yes! Now I see it. This question is so "right-wing".



Hmm, speaking of hack.....

Yawn.... Maybe he likes to eat too but has never once cooked for himself. What stupidity that you choose to pursue such a lame subject.

Lame? you mean like you have tried (poorly) to defend this more than Jake himself

Your "need" to defend this and the amount of your postings on it - tells us all we need to know....

Yeah, you are right pretty lame

 

[georgephillip]

Politics as the shadow business casts over society?

It's one thing for elites to manipulate public opinion during a single crisis like 911 or the Crash of '08. I'm wondering what would happen if WikiLeaks takes down Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase (or both) about the same time Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination for President?

Alexander Cockburn has some thoughts about Sarah in his latest CounterPunch column.

Briefly, if Republican elites don't think she has a snowballs chance in Hawaii of beating Obama, they'll try to convince Blomberg to challenge Sarah for independents.

Especially if on the other side of the aisle, Russ Feingold launchs an independent assault on Obama which could lead to a repeat of the 1948 presidential campaign.

"The 2012 battlefield could turn out to offer the voters a choice not of three but of four serious candidates.

"The last time this happened was in 1948, which saw a fierce contest between the Democrat Harry Truman and the Republican Thomas Dewey, and also, on the left, the Progressive Party's Henry Wallace (formerly FDR's vice president) and on the right the pro-segregation Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond."

If the US is experiencing a currency crisis shortly after B of A or JP Morgan Chase go the way of Enron all in the middle of a four way contest for the White House, even Goldman Sachs might get a tad confused.

I know I will.

Wink, wink.

Assange never should have hinted he was going after "a" big bank. I immediately envisioned all the overly paid CEOs busting balls to shred documents, delete emails and hard drives, and call in private auditors to do a complete purge and recommend where to move assets so they can't be found.

Julian may already have enough evidence on that 5GB drive (600,000 pages) to send B of A or JP Morgan Chase into an Enron style death spiral.

Possibly he has to telegraph his intentions in advance in order to maintain credibility for with our free (corporate) press.

When you have a chance, could you provide additional info on how US citizens are using UBS?

Thanks, MaggieMae, for all your information.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I came to the Board because a friend of mine noted that so much inaccurate OPs and arguments were made here that I could stay busy with just the refutation. How true dat!

Most of the time, if the topic is something currently newsworthy, it's not necessary to start a new thread. In fact, if you do, it will simply get merged or some yahoo will start hollering that THERE'S ALREADY A THREAD ON THAT, like you've committed some violation of a sacred rule.

I'm sure Jake is so happy he has you to fight his battles

Watching a noob like you making statements to somebody who has dismantled your arguments is amusing.

 

[editec]

I remember when getting caught in a lie or a scandal really meant something.

Leaders in every field caught with their pants down retired in disgrace.

Now they get book deals.

We are a nation of the whores, by the whores and for the whores.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I remember when getting caught in a lie or a scandal really meant something.

Leaders in every field caught with their pants down retired in disgrace.

Now they get book deals.

We are a nation of the whores, by the whores and for the whores.

Depends upon one's perspective of "whore".
Some people on the far left think anyone who pursues achievement and success are "whores to the dollar"...Some consider those who seek to use the courts as their own personal lottery terminal as "whores".
Take your pick.
I happen to believe that any time one sells themselves out or sells their own principles and core beliefs for personal gain is a money slut. This describes the actions of many politicians....On both sides of the aisle.
On the other hand there is nothing wrong with becoming fabulously rich through hard or smart work.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why have you not once, in over 14,000 posts, ever start a thread?

Yes, you are correct that is not a reasonable question.
Yes! Now I see it. This question is so "right-wing".



Hmm, speaking of hack.....

Yawn.... Maybe he likes to eat too but has never once cooked for himself. What stupidity that you choose to pursue such a lame subject.

Lame? you mean like you have tried (poorly) to defend this more than Jake himself

Your "need" to defend this and the amount of your postings on it - tells us all we need to know....

Yeah, you are right pretty lame

Your comment about whether I post OPs has no meaning, other than I post no threads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It was the republican elites that with Ron Steele's blessing put up Mc Cain as a sacrificial lamb for Obama.

McCain had a terrific chance of beating Obama until he dragged in Palin, thus proving to Republicans what a terrible decision maker he would be as president.

Huh?

Substantiate that. McCain was a surefire loser according to a consensus of the polls. Which poll had him up just before the announcement of Palin?

Obama was ahead by about the same margin he won by prior to Palin's being put on the ticket. McCain got about a 10 day bounce after Palin was announced but that was also the GOP convention week and convention bounces are not uncommon.

 

[MaggieMae]

Revenue to the government will increase when the economy recovers just like it did last time. The idiots in Washington just need to not increase government spending by even more.

I'd like to see an across the board 10% cut in every agency's budget except Medicare and the Veterans Administration and cut those by 5%. They could do it, trust me. Imagine how much duplication they would miraculously find. In fact, not knowing exactly how deficit reduction will actually affect each of them, I'll bet they're already scrambling to get their respective houses in order. (Social Security is a whole 'nuther issue that needs to be addressed separately from "budget" cuts, and I think we'll see major changes to that also but they won't affect those already receiving it.)

I agree, it would be a great start. However, that reduction cannot be done from inside the bureaucracy or else they will cut essential services to protest. City government managers do that all the time with firefighters and police officers.

I don't see why it couldn't be done the same way it's done within a business that has to go on a diet by across-the-board cuts. Each manager submits those areas that can be cut as nonessentia to the operation of that department. Of course it would be a monumental job for the US government and wouldn't be accomplished in any brief timeframe, but it COULD be done, even incrementally if necessary.

 

[MaggieMae]

It was the republican elites that with Ron Steele's blessing put up Mc Cain as a sacrificial lamb for Obama.

McCain had a terrific chance of beating Obama until he dragged in Palin, thus proving to Republicans what a terrible decision maker he would be as president.

Huh?

Substantiate that. McCain was a surefire loser according to a consensus of the polls. Which poll had him up just before the announcement of Palin?

Scroll down to September in this tracking link and you'll see where McCain was doing much better faring against Obama. I can't recall exactly when he picked Palin, but I remember he got a quick bump but then started slipping and was never able to get back momentum.

WH2008: General

 

[MaggieMae]

Politics as the shadow business casts over society?

It's one thing for elites to manipulate public opinion during a single crisis like 911 or the Crash of '08. I'm wondering what would happen if WikiLeaks takes down Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase (or both) about the same time Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination for President?

Alexander Cockburn has some thoughts about Sarah in his latest CounterPunch column.

Briefly, if Republican elites don't think she has a snowballs chance in Hawaii of beating Obama, they'll try to convince Blomberg to challenge Sarah for independents.

Especially if on the other side of the aisle, Russ Feingold launchs an independent assault on Obama which could lead to a repeat of the 1948 presidential campaign.

"The 2012 battlefield could turn out to offer the voters a choice not of three but of four serious candidates.

"The last time this happened was in 1948, which saw a fierce contest between the Democrat Harry Truman and the Republican Thomas Dewey, and also, on the left, the Progressive Party's Henry Wallace (formerly FDR's vice president) and on the right the pro-segregation Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond."

If the US is experiencing a currency crisis shortly after B of A or JP Morgan Chase go the way of Enron all in the middle of a four way contest for the White House, even Goldman Sachs might get a tad confused.

I know I will.

Wink, wink.

Assange never should have hinted he was going after "a" big bank. I immediately envisioned all the overly paid CEOs busting balls to shred documents, delete emails and hard drives, and call in private auditors to do a complete purge and recommend where to move assets so they can't be found.

Julian may already have enough evidence on that 5GB drive (600,000 pages) to send B of A or JP Morgan Chase into an Enron style death spiral.

Possibly he has to telegraph his intentions in advance in order to maintain credibility for with our free (corporate) press.

When you have a chance, could you provide additional info on how US citizens are using UBS?

Thanks, MaggieMae, for all your information.

Using dummy corporations via electronic transfers likely. I really don't know. You can read a variety of reports on the matter here:

UBS to reveal 4,450 accounts, escapes fine in US tax deal - Free Online Library

 

[MaggieMae]

Most of the time, if the topic is something currently newsworthy, it's not necessary to start a new thread. In fact, if you do, it will simply get merged or some yahoo will start hollering that THERE'S ALREADY A THREAD ON THAT, like you've committed some violation of a sacred rule.

I'm sure Jake is so happy he has you to fight his battles

Watching a noob like you making statements to somebody who has dismantled your arguments is amusing.

The two puppets came after me with guns blazing. A surefired sign.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Most of the time, if the topic is something currently newsworthy, it's not necessary to start a new thread. In fact, if you do, it will simply get merged or some yahoo will start hollering that THERE'S ALREADY A THREAD ON THAT, like you've committed some violation of a sacred rule.

I'm sure Jake is so happy he has you to fight his battles

Watching a noob like you making statements to somebody who has dismantled your arguments is amusing.

Dismantled- thanks for the laugh. If you mean by not able to actually address the points and call people names- yeah she is good

Remind us what your answer was....
So why have you not started a post in over 14,000 posts?

 

[Neotrotsky]

I'm sure Jake is so happy he has you to fight his battles

Watching a noob like you making statements to somebody who has dismantled your arguments is amusing.

The two puppets came after me with guns blazing. A surefired sign.

Speaking of guns
they are banned in DC and so

Are poor black children from going to school with Papa Obama's kids at Sidwell
Banned by Obama

Why was that again?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yawn.... Maybe he likes to eat too but has never once cooked for himself. What stupidity that you choose to pursue such a lame subject.

Lame? you mean like you have tried (poorly) to defend this more than Jake himself

Your "need" to defend this and the amount of your postings on it - tells us all we need to know....

Yeah, you are right pretty lame

Your comment about whether I post OPs has no meaning, other than I post no threads.

So you say

Here is an idea start your "virginal" post by asking why people think you don't have any original posts?

I'll be waiting with much anticipation