What Is Wrong With America ?

[Dr Grump]

So ? WHAT was he addressing?

I'd say he was defending LIBERTY...you?

You've got enough nukes to blow up the world several times over. How much more do you want?

Depends on your idea of liberty. I'm sure there are those in Iraq and Afghanistan who are asking themselves those very questions...

I'm sure you're idea of "liberty" is allowing jihadist assholes who cut people's fingers off for smoking cigarettes to defeat US efforts to defeat them.

I suppose the Talib assholes in Afghanistan that banned TV's and forced women to wear Burgas promote liberty in your "mind".

No..



and....




No.

 

[The T]

You've got enough nukes to blow up the world several times over. How much more do you want?

Depends on your idea of liberty. I'm sure there are those in Iraq and Afghanistan who are asking themselves those very questions...

I'm sure you're idea of "liberty" is allowing jihadist assholes who cut people's fingers off for smoking cigarettes to defeat US efforts to defeat them.

I suppose the Talib assholes in Afghanistan that banned TV's and forced women to wear Burgas promote liberty in your "mind".

No..



and....




No.

Then WHY do you seem to defend it?

 

[Bumberclyde]

The US spends more on the military than THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's your problem.

Military?industrial complex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question: What IS the price of your own Liberty?

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Strawman argument. No one would be bothering the US if it wasn't attacking everybody and their uncle. The US should stop acting like the world's policeman, nobody asked the US to do that. No other country openly supports Israel to the extent the US does, there's no sane reason to do so anyways. It would have avoided 9/11...

 

[Mac1958]

Here are illustrations of more things Wrong With America >>>

1. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ylum-seekers-with-loose-terror-ties-ties.html

2. http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ma-administration-the-muslim-brotherhood.html

3. http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ust-gave-amnesty-to-illegal-aliens-again.html

4. http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...ns-using-the-irs-to-scam-the-us-taxpayer.html

5. http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html

Why do you hate Mexicans and Muslims so much? From all the hate you keep spewing they must be real trouble makers. Do they smell funny or something?

I am 50% Hispanic (as I've posted many times). My grandparents immigrated here from British Honduras in the 1890s. British Honduras (now called Belize) is immediately adjacent to Mexico, where my grandmother immigrated from. Both my grandparents spoke fluent Spanish, as do I, and from my grandmother's original nationality, I'm actually 25% Mexican. I don't hate myself, didn't hate my grandmother, and I don't hate anybody for what their nationality is.

What I hate is a small group of plutocrats in Mexico who maintain a monopoly economy in Mexico (Ex. Pemex,Telex, etc) that doesn't allow Mexican small businessmen to compete, which would open up millions of jobs and cure Mexico's poverty. Instead these vile plutocrats keep their monopolies intact and use the US as a garbage can to dump their unwanted poor, and conveniently allow us to pay their poverty bill for them (which they needlessly create).

Worse yet, Mexico is carrying on a 21st century type of imperialist war, in which they invade the US, not with military, but with poor people whom they use to relieve themselves of their poverty bill AND reap Billions$$ in remittances, that their economic "troops" extract out of the US economy by swiping jobs from American workers, and then wire to Mexico, which are then reinserted into the Mexican economy.

In short, they take it out of our house, and put it in theirs, but in large amounts. $25 Billion/year. Imperialists of past eras would be dumbfounded at the amounts. The Vikings would be envious.

I'm wondering why you're asking me this, when it was all explained in better detail on my OP >> "Brief Expose' Of The Mexican Invasion Of The United States (1950-2012)" http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-...nvasion-of-the-united-states-1950-2012-a.html, which I've already provided links for you numerous times in this thread.

As for Muslims, if you don't know why I, and millions of other Americans, are working diligently to stop terrorism and Islamization in America, and alll that has occured with these over the past 23 years, then you're not even qualified to be talking about this subject. Rather than just berate you though, it's more productive to and positive to suggest reading for you, such that you could come back here in a month or so, and speak knowledgably. Maybe even get a passing grade on my Islamization Quiz.

1. They Must Be Stopped by Brigitte Gabriel

2. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

3. Stealth Jihad by Robert Spencer

4. Infiltration by Paul Sperry

5. The Day of Islam by Dr. Paul Williams

6. Sharia: the Threat to America by the Center for Security Policy

I hope you'll take this advice and get up to speed on Islamization. I'd love to see the transformation take place (from ignorance to knowledge). Do it. I'll root for you on it. Really.

7. The Third Jihad (DVD) by Dr. Zuddhi Jasser

8. Muslim Mafia by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

Thank you for this post.

The glaringly obvious issue that is regularly ignored regarding the illegal immigration issue is the fact that so many Mexicans are trying to flee a lousy, corrupt country. I have to wonder what could be done about that, i.e., what kind of support could we provide to Mexico (and it would have to be significant) to improve the environment there.

Alas, the Democrats welcome the voters and the Republicans welcome the cheap labor, so yet another opportunity is being wasted, and our decay continues.

.

 

[Spiderman]

The US spends more on the military than THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There's your problem.

Question: What IS the price of your own Liberty?

The military is not protecting our liberty. At least not any more.

The last legitimate threat to our liberty was in WWII

Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other undeclared wars sin the last 60 years were not fought because of a threat to the US or our liberty.

 

[Redfish]

Restoring America normal tax rates (that existed for most of the past 95 years) is not robbing anybody of anything. When you talk ridiculous, you lose credibility.

And one could just as easily say underpaying employees = robbing them of their labor pay. In fact, that's a lot more plausible.

The point is that raising the upper income tax rates WILL NOT FIX THE FISCAL MESS. We could take 100% of the income of the top 10% and it would not eliminate the deficit for one year.

Tax revenue is not the problem------spending is the problem.

Until the govt balances spending to revenue the fiscal mess will only get worse.

There are a number of ways that increasing tax revenues can reduce spending.

One example: Hire MANY more ICE agents, CBP officers, build the Mexican border double fence, and create more immigration courts/jails. Enact a mass deportation similar to Operation ******* in 1954. This would reduce the welfare drain immensely, as well as the remittance drain from the economy ($45 Billion/year just to Mexico alone) It would also cut crime costs$$ as well as compensation to hospitals for unpaid ER bills, racked up under the EMTALA law.

Works for me. The border fence was authorized and funded several years ago. Obama has not built it-------why?

Your idea is in complete contradiction with the policies of obama, the dems, and many republicans in congress.

 

[zeke]

Hey seeing as how increasing tax rates on the ultra wealth won't even HELP, lets just cut the tax rate to zero for everybody and file bankruptcy.

I mean if the people with most of the money don't give a **** to help out. Who cares if we go bankrupt?

At least the ultra rich won't be inconvenienced paying more in income taxes.

 

[Redfish]

Hey seeing as how increasing tax rates on the ultra wealth won't even HELP, lets just cut the tax rate to zero for everybody and file bankruptcy.

I mean if the people with most of the money don't give a **** to help out. Who cares if we go bankrupt?

At least the ultra rich won't be inconvenienced paying more in income taxes.

The so-called ultra rich are already paying most of the taxes. I think the top 5% is paying 50% of the tax bill. Raising taxes is not the answer.

As to "helping out" who do you think supports charities? poor people?

As to bankruptcy, we are already very close. 17 trillion in debt, 21 trillion by the time obama leaves office. Increasing by a trillion a year.

Spending must be cut. I support a 30% across the board cut--all agencies, all bureaus, all govt salaries, all programs.

 

[JoeB131]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

 

[Redfish]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

That statement is why Mondale lost 49 states. If he had said "we must cut government spending" he might have at least made it a closer election.

 

[JoeB131]

Hey seeing as how increasing tax rates on the ultra wealth won't even HELP, lets just cut the tax rate to zero for everybody and file bankruptcy.

I mean if the people with most of the money don't give a **** to help out. Who cares if we go bankrupt?

At least the ultra rich won't be inconvenienced paying more in income taxes.

The so-called ultra rich are already paying most of the taxes. I think the top 5% is paying 50% of the tax bill. Raising taxes is not the answer.

As to "helping out" who do you think supports charities? poor people?

As to bankruptcy, we are already very close. 17 trillion in debt, 21 trillion by the time obama leaves office. Increasing by a trillion a year.

Spending must be cut. I support a 30% across the board cut--all agencies, all bureaus, all govt salaries, all programs.

Actually, you'd be wrong. Most of the tax debt is spread amongst the population pretty evenly. The problem you guys who get your news from Rush Limpballs is that you think the Income Tax is the only one paid.

Most charities are ripoffs... if they worked, we wouldn't need government agencies to keep poor people from rioting like they did in the 1960's. You're probably too young to remember that.

Now, here's the thing, I probably agree, we need to cut government spending. We can start with that 900 Billion of Corporate Welfare called the Defense Department.

But at some point, we got to man up and tell the rich who control 87% of the wealth in this country to pay their fair share.

 

[JoeB131]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

That statement is why Mondale lost 49 states. If he had said "we must cut government spending" he might have at least made it a closer election.

So it was okay that Reagan lied about not raising taxes, because he totally turned around and did that.

Oh, Reagan never cut government spending. In fact, he increased it.

 

[Spiderman]

Allow me to offer one solution. How about having the Presidency, Congress, Court judges, and Agency officials not be paid (Anything). Have all the jobs done on a volunteer basis, and stop all money input in elections. And all one term only (eliminating the drive to be re-elected)

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

You know what's really funny?

The best way to become a multi millionaire is to be elected to Congress.

Tell me how do people who enter office and make 170K a year retire with millions?

The answer is that insider trading is perfectly legal if you are a member of congress.

You piss and moan about the rich and yet you put your trust in politicians who have gotten richer than anyone by means that are illegal for the rest of us.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You know what's really funny?

The best way to become a multi millionaire is to be elected to Congress.

Tell me how do people who enter office and make 170K a year retire with millions?

The answer is that insider trading is perfectly legal if you are a member of congress.

You piss and moan about the rich and yet you put your trust in politicians who have gotten richer than anyone by means that are illegal for the rest of us.

Actually, most of these guys are rich when they get into Congress.

I mean, you get the occassional loser like Joe Walsh who can't even make his child support payments and screams about "Family Values" before the voters get wise and throw him out on his can.

Oh, and you do get that if you make 170K a year, retiring with millions is pretty easy, right? Especially when m ost of your expenses are comped.

No, guy, here's the real problem. Why would anyone spend millions of dollars to get a job that only pays 170K a year?

Get back to me when you answer that one.

 

[P@triot]

1. Completely taken out of context

Yeah - that's the excuse every asshat uses when they've been *****-smacked with facts.

2. As for the ACA, when you get your ass racked in a car accident, and you're needing medical/personal care for what's left of you, and your illustrious private insurer drops you like a hot potato, what will you have to turn to ? Why the ACA, that's what. Well lucky you (even if you're too stupid to know it).

Thank you for proving (yet again) that you are not a conservative. You're a typical Dumbocrat - which means you lie all the time, including lying about being a conservative on a forum because you libtards think that claiming you are "conservatives" will give you credibility. But you're too ****'n stupid to realize that your words not only give you away, but are also what makes you lose credibility. If you were an actual conservative, you wouldn't want government unconstitutionally forcing you to purchase a good or service.

Furthermore, unlike your ignorant uneducated ass, I don't need to "turn" to the government or the ACA. Unlike you, I'm an adult. I've read my insurance agreement in full, I understand it, and it is a binding contract with them. Just because you're an immature asshole who doesn't read his contract doesn't mean the rest of us are. People like you need the ACA and government because you can't figure out how to act like an adult and handle you're business.

3. I didn't forget anything. And the dude didn't show any quote or Post # about this "40grand a year" alleged statement . And neither have you, I notice.

And I've noticed that you've either been inaccurate or outright lied about every post you've made. For instance, you said "I support invading Mexico". I asked what conservative is running on that platform that you "support" and I noticed you ran from that question like a little *****. Then you said "I support shutting down all muslim mosques and turning them into animal shelters". I asked what conservative is running on that platform that you "support" and I noticed you ran from that question like a little ***** as well.

4. What constitutes "most" you ask ? And then you suggest 90%, 80%. What's the matter ? In your hot to trot expensive, bourgeois school, didn't they ever teach you what "most" means ? It means MORE THAN HALF, you dumbbell. Maybe you should have went to the socialistic, public school that I went to.

Oh man - your poor little dumb ass. You don't even know what the definition of "most" is. No wonder you need the government to take care of you. I'm going to post the definition for you (since you need everything done for you - just pretend I'm the government for a moment):

adjective superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.
noun
4. the greatest quantity, amount, or degree; the utmost: The most I can hope for is a passing grade.
5. the greatest number or the majority of a class specified: Most of his writing is rubbish.
6. the greatest number: The most this room will seat is 150.
7. the majority of persons: to be more sensitive than most.
8. the most, Slang. the ultimate in something: He's the most. That movie was the most.

Now - please tell me where it says "more than half". As you can see from the definition, it says "greatest size/quantity/amount" and "majority". Now, is 90% not "the greatest size/quantity/amount" of any measurement (because that only leaves 10% left in that measurement junior)? Is 80% not the majority of any measurement (because that only leaves 20% left in that measurement junior)? And by the way, how does it feel to be owned this badly in a debate?

One last thing - conservatives don't use the term "bourgeois" moron. That's a term used by the parasite class to show their envy towards those that have more than them.

5. NO, it's NOT a big difference. $330 for an hour's work is $330 for an hour's work whether it's a commission or anything else.

Again dumb ass, $330 per hour working full time (which is 2,080 hours per year junior) is $686,400. While a one time 15% commission of $1,000 is $150. And you paid those guys $150 (then you tried to lie and claim you paid them $330). So you don't see a difference between $686,400 and $150? Really? No wonder you need government to take of you.

You ought to try reading some of the previous posts before you jump into a discussion and start throwing tantrum toys around, little boy. If you had done that you would have seen that the over $330 was a transposition from 1985 dollars (of $150) to 2013 dollars, based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' inflation calculator. Got it now ? You dolt!

But you didn't pay them in 2013 little man. You paid them in 1985. And at that time, you paid them a measly $150. The fact that you feel the need to provide false "2013" figures instead of what you actually paid them in 1985 just illustrates further what a inferior little man you are - desperate to puff your chest out and look like a big man on campus. Sad.

6. Like many other ignorant Reaganists, too young to remember the pre-Reagan years when REAL Conservatism flourished, you are clueless about conservatism. For your young edification, "Conservative" means CONSERVING the values, principles, and culture of America, as well as a strong emphasis on NATIONAL SECURITY,which your dumber than hell Reaganist philosophy goes right in the opposite direction away from. Your senseless idea of small, weak govt, with low taxes (on the rich) and low spending is just perfect for the enemies of America, who wish to weaken America, if not destroy it entirely (like the Muslim Brotherhood).

Um, hey stupid, Reagan's entire philosophy was "peace through strength". He built the U.S. military larger and stronger than it had ever been in U.S. history. It's astounding how you display your ignorance for the world without a shred of hesitancy.

REAL Conservatives, like the guy in my avatar, know that high taxes on the rich, to support a BIG, STRONG govt is what's needed to maintain a secure national security. That's why Ike had a 91-92% tax on the rich (don't even think of telling me about "effective" tax rates - I know all about it).

You're ignorance knows no bounds. The defense budget is roughly $560 billion per year. We spend over $1 trillion per year on unconstitutional entitlements.

In other words junior, all we need to do is return to Constitutional government and we can have low taxes and the world's strongest, most powerful military. But hey, don't let your ignorant, unhinged liberal ideology get in the way of the facts. After all, how would an inept buffoon such as yourself survive if the federal government didn't keep expanding that $1 trillion unconstitutional monstrosity of entitlements?

And when Ike chased the Mexican invaders back to Mexico in Operation ******* in 1954, THAT was REAL Conservatism (only to have your boy, Reagan, give them amnesty 32 years later). And when the REAL conservative (Eisenhower), was grinding his way across Germany, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, on his way to Berlin, and victory, your small govt low taxer, Reagan (not thinking about national security), was in Hollywood making movies about it.

No argument here. Reagan fucked up huge on that one. But show me a president who was perfect? Incompetent liberal Ike?

By the way, thanks for publicly illustrating once again that you are a typical racist Dumbocrat. I want illegal aliens rounded up and deported because they are criminals who broke the law and insulted us by breaking into our house. You want them deported simply because they are Mexicans/"wetbacks".

7. And now you label me as a Democrat, huh? Well, maybe my position to ban Islam, go to war with Mexico, deport all illegal aliens, and ban affirmative action, inspired that? You think?

Lets see:

• Demand high taxes - but only on the "rich" - check!
  
  
• Use the term "bourgeois" (because of envy) - check!
  
  
• Rave about the ACA (which even Dumbocrats now acknowledge to be a complete and total disaster) - check!
  
  
• Claim that the U.S. needs "fair" salaries - check!
  
  
• Lie about everything (like claiming you paid someone $686,400 per year when you actually paid them $150 ONE time) - check!
  
  
• Fiercely (and disgustingly) racist - check!

Yep - you are the poster child for the entire Dumbocrat platform!

I could go on, but you've already hung yourself here. I've got better things to do than dignify your posts with a response, which, of course, they don't even come close to qualifying for. Good night, imbecile.

You can't "go on" (or you would). And as far as "better things to do" well, that is the battle cry of the loser. The person who has been smashed in the face with facts and reality!

 

[JoeB131]

Poodle trying to convice people he's rich again?

 

[Redfish]

That's actually kind of stupid if you think that the problem is we have "rich people" running the country being the problem. Then you would only get rich people running for congress.

People who just want the title as a resume enhancer.

We already have term limits. They are called "elections".


Our real problem is not that the politicians are evil. It's that they are what we want them to be.

The last politician who was honest was Walter Mondale, who told us that taxes would have to go up to meet our obligations.

He lost 49 states.

Then Ronald Reagan, who won those 49 states turned around and raised taxes anyway.

That statement is why Mondale lost 49 states. If he had said "we must cut government spending" he might have at least made it a closer election.

So it was okay that Reagan lied about not raising taxes, because he totally turned around and did that.

Oh, Reagan never cut government spending. In fact, he increased it.

its never OK when any politician lies, whats your point?

"if you like your healthcare policy, you can keep it, period"

 

[JoeB131]

That statement is why Mondale lost 49 states. If he had said "we must cut government spending" he might have at least made it a closer election.

So it was okay that Reagan lied about not raising taxes, because he totally turned around and did that.

Oh, Reagan never cut government spending. In fact, he increased it.

its never OK when any politician lies, whats your point?

"if you like your healthcare policy, you can keep it, period"

Nice dodge, guy. Guess my point was too scary for you.

Mondale told the truth. He lost 49 states.
Reagan LIED. He won 49 states.

Please tell me why we should expect any politician to level with us again.


Incidently, 95% of people who have their health care policies DID keep them...

5% had insurance companies who were ripping them off and they were too stupid to realize it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It has two extreme parties that don't want to fix things...No real ideas...One wants to gut and **** and the other wants to put everyone on the shitter.

 

[P@triot]

Hey seeing as how increasing tax rates on the ultra wealth won't even HELP, lets just cut the tax rate to zero for everybody and file bankruptcy.

I mean if the people with most of the money don't give a **** to help out. Who cares if we go bankrupt?

At least the ultra rich won't be inconvenienced paying more in income taxes.

So please explain to me why the parasite class gets the ultimate free ride (they don't have to work, they don't have to produce anything for society, they don't have to pay any taxes, and they get endless perks from government) while the wealthy get the ultimate screw-job (labor for 18 hours per day, endless pressure and stress, over 60% of their labor stolen from them, and nearly no perks or benefits from government).

Does the wealthy person who has over 60% of what they earned stolen from them get food stamps? No. Does the wealthy person who has over 60% of what they earned stolen from them their home subsidized by government? No.

So [MENTION=35352]zeke[/MENTION], can you articulate why the parasite class deserves the most while proving the least to society (as in nothing) while the wealthy deserves the least while proving the most to society? It's an honest question. One I fully expect you to either run from or be a complete dick in responding to (because liberals realize they can't explain and/or defend their irrational position).