Obama’s plan for a second term? “Investing.” A lot.

[Warrior102]

Eisenhower had a congress that was cooperative...

Obama had a Dem controlled congress his first two years.

How'd that work?

I seem to recall - Lowest approval rating in history?

Take your mouth off Harry's Reid's dick and check it out

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Poor Obama.

sniff sniff...

 

[JoeB131]

[]Atom Bombs.

Wow! That's right up there with Starbucks and Microsoft!

Considering that nuclear energy has changed the world, um, yeah, it kind of was.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama had a Dem controlled congress his first two years.

How'd that work?

I seem to recall - Lowest approval rating in history?

Take your mouth off Harry's Reid's dick and check it out

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Poor Obama.

sniff sniff...

NO, Poor America that we have a political party which is willing to let the country twist in the wind rather than do it's job.

 

[Warrior102]

[]Atom Bombs.

Wow! That's right up there with Starbucks and Microsoft!

Considering that nuclear energy has changed the world, um, yeah, it kind of was.

A Liberal in favor of nuclear energy?

Wow!

What a surprise.

You in favor of the Department of Defense too?

If so - log off and enlist, asswipe.

 

[P@triot]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

More liberal hypocrisy! You guys scream about "progress", but when it suits your argument, you suddenly point to a president from 60 years ago.

So which is it you liberal Communist - do you want "progress" or do you "want to return to the failed policies of the past"....?

Just let the idiot liberal talk and they will hang themselves with their own words because they contradict themselves in the same breath!

 

[P@triot]

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Poor Obama.

sniff sniff...

NO, Poor America that we have a political party which is willing to let the country twist in the wind rather than do it's job.

If you weren't a die-hard Communist, you would have read the US Constitution. And then you would know that the "political party" you are referring to is the ONLY party trying to get the government to do it's job, while the Democrats are allowing us to twist in the wind and teter on collapse with their unconstitutional actions, laws, and spending....

 

[JoeB131]

Wow! That's right up there with Starbucks and Microsoft!

Considering that nuclear energy has changed the world, um, yeah, it kind of was.

A Liberal in favor of nuclear energy?

Wow!

What a surprise.

You in favor of the Department of Defense too?

If so - log off and enlist, asswipe.

Sorry, man, I enlisted in 1981 and stayed in until 1992. So I did my time.

Just because the GOP has been dominated by coporate vampires and religous crazies doesn't make me a liberal when I stop going along with the whole thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor Obama.

sniff sniff...

NO, Poor America that we have a political party which is willing to let the country twist in the wind rather than do it's job.

If you weren't a die-hard Communist, you would have read the US Constitution. And then you would know that the "political party" you are referring to is the ONLY party trying to get the government to do it's job, while the Democrats are allowing us to twist in the wind and teter on collapse with their unconstitutional actions, laws, and spending....

Actually, Political Parties are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and neither is the Filibuster.

So argument fail...

 

[JoeB131]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

More liberal hypocrisy! You guys scream about "progress", but when it suits your argument, you suddenly point to a president from 60 years ago.

So which is it you liberal Communist - do you want "progress" or do you "want to return to the failed policies of the past"....?

Just let the idiot liberal talk and they will hang themselves with their own words because they contradict themselves in the same breath!

I think you need to stop setting up "Strawmen" of what I support and just argue what I argued, if your limited intellect is capable of that.

The ironic thing was, this issue was settled. Eisenhower and Nixon and even Reagan agreed that investment in infrastructure was a key component in our economic development. It wasn't until the Grover Norquist crazy wing dominated the GOP that we got this stuff about drowning government in a bathtub.

 

[P@triot]

Eisenhower had a congress that was cooperative...

Obama had a Dem controlled congress his first two years.

How'd that work?

I seem to recall - Lowest approval rating in history?

Take your mouth off Harry's Reid's dick and check it out

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Except the GOP couldn't even fillibuster because the Democrats had a super-majority. Obama got 100% of EVERY bill he wanted and that is a FACT (something you lying liberals hate).

He wanted Obamacare, he got it
He wanted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he got it
He wanted the Omnibus "stimulus bill", he go it
He wanted the Frank & Dodd finance reform bill, he got it

There are literally HUNDREDS more. He got 100% of EVERYTHING he wanted, and all of it has resulted in more and more FAILURE. Unemployment has gone UP. The national debt has gone UP. Gas prices have gone UP.

You can lie all you want Commie, but the American people see reality and could care less about your propaganda.

 

[P@triot]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

More liberal hypocrisy! You guys scream about "progress", but when it suits your argument, you suddenly point to a president from 60 years ago.

So which is it you liberal Communist - do you want "progress" or do you "want to return to the failed policies of the past"....?

Just let the idiot liberal talk and they will hang themselves with their own words because they contradict themselves in the same breath!

I think you need to stop setting up "Strawmen" of what I support and just argue what I argued, if your limited intellect is capable of that.

The ironic thing was, this issue was settled. Eisenhower and Nixon and even Reagan agreed that investment in infrastructure was a key component in our economic development. It wasn't until the Grover Norquist crazy wing dominated the GOP that we got this stuff about drowning government in a bathtub.

Aww, is the Communist upset that I exposed his hypocrisy again?

Again, pointing to presidents of the past is a "return to the failed policies of the past" according to you ignorant Marxists. So do you want "progress" or do you want to point at dead presidents?

You guys contradict yourself every other sentence because your on the wrong side of the FACTS, which means you have to lie and twist everything, and you can't keep track of your own lies...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

If Obama wants to invest he should start a hedge fund

 

[P@triot]

NO, Poor America that we have a political party which is willing to let the country twist in the wind rather than do it's job.

If you weren't a die-hard Communist, you would have read the US Constitution. And then you would know that the "political party" you are referring to is the ONLY party trying to get the government to do it's job, while the Democrats are allowing us to twist in the wind and teter on collapse with their unconstitutional actions, laws, and spending....

Actually, Political Parties are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and neither is the Filibuster.

So argument fail...

Where did I say party's or filibuster are mentioned?!?!?! There are 18 enumerated powers that are delegated to the federal government by the states, and NOT one of them is "infrastructure spending" stupid.

If you weren't a high school drop out, maybe you would be able to read that highways are a state issue, NOT a federal issue, stupid.

But you idiot liberals have never read the Constitution. You have an immature philosophical ideology about "progress" (ie Communism/Marxism/Socialism) and as such, you want to federalize everything. Fucking ignorant tools...

 

[JoeB131]

Obama had a Dem controlled congress his first two years.

How'd that work?

I seem to recall - Lowest approval rating in history?

Take your mouth off Harry's Reid's dick and check it out

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Except the GOP couldn't even fillibuster because the Democrats had a super-majority. Obama got 100% of EVERY bill he wanted and that is a FACT (something you lying liberals hate).

He wanted Obamacare, he got it
He wanted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he got it
He wanted the Omnibus "stimulus bill", he go it
He wanted the Frank & Dodd finance reform bill, he got it

There are literally HUNDREDS more. He got 100% of EVERYTHING he wanted, and all of it has resulted in more and more FAILURE. Unemployment has gone UP. The national debt has gone UP. Gas prices have gone UP.

You can lie all you want Commie, but the American people see reality and could care less about your propaganda.

Except they didn't have a "super-majority" for any more than a few months. And really, not even then. The greatest number of Democrats they ever had was 58. If you "Super-majority" involves Joe Lieverman and his ego, that's not much to go on.

Incidently, you just listed four things that were actually pretty good, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about, exactly.

 

[P@triot]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

Funny how you cite "rich people" (cause, well, you're an envious little asshole who can't deal with your own failures so you hate people better than you).

This nation is filled with tens of millions of "poor people". How about THEY build the highway? If you took just ONE single little dollar from each of them, you'd have tens of millions of dollars. If you took just 10 little dollars from each of them, you'd have HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. How about THEY pay for the highway?

If we can ALL use it, we should ALL pay for it, right asshole? Yeah, that's what I thought. This is just about punishing the successful because you can't deal with your own failures. Go see a psychiatrist you unstable, self-loathing, envious little Marxist.

 

[tjvh]

Biodiesel... Making fuels out of food, and wondering why people cannot afford groceries... Fucking geniuses.

 

[JoeB131]

If you weren't a die-hard Communist, you would have read the US Constitution. And then you would know that the "political party" you are referring to is the ONLY party trying to get the government to do it's job, while the Democrats are allowing us to twist in the wind and teter on collapse with their unconstitutional actions, laws, and spending....

Actually, Political Parties are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and neither is the Filibuster.

So argument fail...

Where did I say party's or filibuster are mentioned?!?!?! There are 18 enumerated powers that are delegated to the federal government by the states, and NOT one of them is "infrastructure spending" stupid.

If you weren't a high school drop out, maybe you would be able to read that highways are a state issue, NOT a federal issue, stupid.

But you idiot liberals have never read the Constitution. You have an immature philosophical ideology about "progress" (ie Communism/Marxism/Socialism) and as such, you want to federalize everything. Fucking ignorant tools...

Sorry, man, College graduate with degrees in Political Science and History, and Republicans have been all for federal spending in these areas as much as Republicans, at least until the Teabaggers came along.

Yes, I want progress. I want my water flouridated and I want a well-repaired interstate highway when I travel and I want national standards on my water, food and medicine. All stuff the Founding Slaverapers never thought of, but some of us "progressed".

 

[P@triot]

Well, no, he really didn't. As long as you have Republicans who can filibuster everything, you don't have "control" of Congress.

Except the GOP couldn't even fillibuster because the Democrats had a super-majority. Obama got 100% of EVERY bill he wanted and that is a FACT (something you lying liberals hate).

He wanted Obamacare, he got it
He wanted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he got it
He wanted the Omnibus "stimulus bill", he go it
He wanted the Frank & Dodd finance reform bill, he got it

There are literally HUNDREDS more. He got 100% of EVERYTHING he wanted, and all of it has resulted in more and more FAILURE. Unemployment has gone UP. The national debt has gone UP. Gas prices have gone UP.

You can lie all you want Commie, but the American people see reality and could care less about your propaganda.

Except they didn't have a "super-majority" for any more than a few months. And really, not even then. The greatest number of Democrats they ever had was 58. If you "Super-majority" involves Joe Lieverman and his ego, that's not much to go on.

Incidently, you just listed four things that were actually pretty good, so I'm not sure what you are complaining about, exactly.

In other words, you can't dispute anything I just said, so you'll just avoid the facts and discuss something else - like Joe Lieberman

And if higher unemployment, higher gas prices, and higher national debt is "actually pretty good", then you're a bigger moron than I realized...

He had a super-majority and he got 100% of the bills he wanted - period. End of story. And, as usual with liberal policy, it's only resulted in failure and misery.

 

[P@triot]

Actually, Political Parties are mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and neither is the Filibuster.

So argument fail...

Where did I say party's or filibuster are mentioned?!?!?! There are 18 enumerated powers that are delegated to the federal government by the states, and NOT one of them is "infrastructure spending" stupid.

If you weren't a high school drop out, maybe you would be able to read that highways are a state issue, NOT a federal issue, stupid.

But you idiot liberals have never read the Constitution. You have an immature philosophical ideology about "progress" (ie Communism/Marxism/Socialism) and as such, you want to federalize everything. Fucking ignorant tools...

Sorry, man, College graduate with degrees in Political Science and History, and Republicans have been all for federal spending in these areas as much as Republicans, at least until the Teabaggers came along.

Yes, I want progress. I want my water flouridated and I want a well-repaired interstate highway when I travel and I want national standards on my water, food and medicine. All stuff the Founding Slaverapers never thought of, but some of us "progressed".

Highways are STATE issue, stupid.

But that aside, if you want "progress", then amend the Constitution asshole! You don't get to just decide for yourself which laws you will follow and which you won't.

Except that, you can't amend it, because America rejects your Communist/Marxist/Socialist "progress"...

(Well, that, and the fact that you liberal high school drop outs can't read and thus are not exactly sure how to legally amend the Constitution )

 

[JoeB131]

And this is why the GOP has gotten so out of whack.

Hey, remember you had a Republican Presdient named Eisenhower, who invested hundreds of billions into an interstate highway program? He saw how the Autobahn's in Germany worked very well and decided we needed one of those to help our economic and military strength.

Today, they'd call him a RINO and a Socialist for proposing that. What, take away from Rich people to build highways ANYONE can use? For Free?

Funny how you cite "rich people" (cause, well, you're an envious little asshole who can't deal with your own failures so you hate people better than you).

This nation is filled with tens of millions of "poor people". How about THEY build the highway? If you took just ONE single little dollar from each of them, you'd have tens of millions of dollars. If you took just 10 little dollars from each of them, you'd have HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. How about THEY pay for the highway?

If we can ALL use it, we should ALL pay for it, right asshole? Yeah, that's what I thought. This is just about punishing the successful because you can't deal with your own failures. Go see a psychiatrist you unstable, self-loathing, envious little Marxist.

It isn't about me, guy. It's about what makes the country work.

If I thought letting the rich run amok was good, I'd be for that.

If I thought confiscating everything they had was a good thing, I'd be for that.

I don't think either would be good.

Making them pay their fair share, for things that benefit the country as a whole, absolutely.

We had our greatest prosperity when they paid a high marginal tax rate and working folks had a high level of unionization. And countries that STILL do that are doing better than we are.