KittenKoder
Senior Member
I thought life long dem left the board.
People come ... people go ... the only reason they announce when they leave is because they crave the attention. When I leave for periods of time no one notices ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I thought life long dem left the board.
President and First Lady Obama gave Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II a video iPod with inscription, songs uploaded and accessories, plus a rare musical songbook signed by Richard Rodgers.
Uploaded onto the iPod:
* Photos from the Queen's 2007 White House State Visit
* Photos from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown, Va., Visit
* Photos from the Queen's 2007 Richmond, Va., Visit
* Video from the Queen's 1957 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen's 2007 Jamestown Visit
* Video from the Queen's 2007 Richmond Visit
* Photos from President Obama's Inauguration
* Audio of then-state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and
* Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address
Britain's Press Association reports that the Royal couple gave the Obamas "a silver-framed, signed photograph of themselves."
What Does One Get a Queen? - Political Punch
I can see the Richard Rodgers songbook. I can see the photos from the Queen's previous visits.
But photos and audios of BO speeches?
uh, you dont?With the far-left, it's not about choice, it's about control.
You shouldn't speak before you know what the results of his actions are, unless you have a cristall ball of course
so far I did not see anything that he did that was as bad as the mistakes of the previous president, if you see a bigger mistake then let us know (but have the proof of it as well: the proof that his policy didn't work).
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION
uh, you dont?You shouldn't speak before you know what the results of his actions are, unless you have a cristall ball of course
so far I did not see anything that he did that was as bad as the mistakes of the previous president, if you see a bigger mistake then let us know (but have the proof of it as well: the proof that his policy didn't work).
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION
No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.
the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).
uh, you dont?
making the deficit 4 times larger than Bush?
and he just said today he wants ANOTHER TRILLION
No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.
the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).
Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.
No: that deficit is not permanent yet, because it doesn't count in the income that he might receive from the recovery (and when the recovery is sooner than expected). Also this deficit is largely a result of the Bush administration: because of the bad economy he inherited he has a bigger deficit. To fix the economy he needs to increase the deficit for a short amount of time.
the deficit is calculated on the basis of the income and the income is a result of the economic situation. And the economic situation is a result of the worst american presidency in US history (the Bush presidency), because Bush didn't contain the situation: he only acted when it was too late (after lehman brothers collapsed).
Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.
deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.
good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.
i hope he can, cause i sure cantSeriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.
deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.
good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.
Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
Seriously? (damn I am using that a lot today) ... spending money on projects that produce no income is wasting it, so it can be considered a serious deficit increase no matter how you spin it.
deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.
good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.
Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
deficit is about going below zero, not about spending. If Obama spends less than his income then he has no deficit. that is not a spin, that is a fact.
good investments produce income, even if the government doesn't earn it directly.
Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
and advertisingPoint to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.
Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.
and advertisingThe new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.
Point to ONE good investment in the bills he has pushed?
The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.
The new internet network: U.S. Net access not all that speedy - USATODAY.com
it will allow you have an even better internet connection and better download speed (especially handy for files, ...) and it will allow internetcompanies like google (which owns youtube) to be even more successful.
Really? LOL ... is that all you have? It's really funny because ... well ... it's neither accurate nor a good investment. Online businesses don't make much money based on the speed of access for their users, most are store fronts which are rarely effected by speed (unless some moron with a degree wrote the site using some lame coder like Front-Page). On Qwest I am getting the second slowest speed, just don't need more than that ... it's 5 Mbps. They offer I think 50 Mbps for their highest are are improving that soon to 70 within the next year. Internet access is a privilege, not a requirement, and anyone who thinks or tries to make it a requirement is ignorant. People don't like technology if they are forced to use it so this is a moot point, and will not make more money for any companies. Even if they offered free high speed access to more people it wouldn't boost sales at all. The money for the net isn't in the site, the Dot Com bubble proved that, it's in store fronts and service sales. Try again.
Well you asked for 1 investment, I gave you 1 example that can improve the whole US economy.
The internetspeedimprovement will increase profitablitity if not only because companies will lose less time downloading and sending stuff through the internet. I m not only talking about online businesses, ever wondered why youtube is profitable? There are many other applications for the internet network, ever heard a "High Definition TV"? Internet gaming (the gaming industry is even bigger then the movie industry today)? Companies are using the internet of all sorts of other purposes, using programs to operate machines from a distance (you could even operate the machines of a factory from abroad by using the internet). Downloading movies, games, music, ... by paying for it, the downside is that illegal downloads will also have this speed advantage.
Also no, I asked for one investment from Obama ... that was the whole debate. He is wasting money on programs that will NOT improve our economy ... you haven't given one investment he has made with our money.