The 9/12 Project "March on Washington"

[OutlawzPrez]

Originally Posted by Proven

Please save me!!! (messing with you of course).

On a serious note like mentioned before we both feel strongly about what we are saying. Any fact you give me I'm just going to break down and vise versa when I give my facts. One of us could be completely wrong, OR we both can be right but maybe not to the full extent we are feeling. What we have in my eyes is a president that is trying to get health care to millions of Americans along with putting an end to cooperate greed. I hope he succeeds, and when he does, if it puts everyone in the poor house I'll personally say to you "you were right... good call". Till then, we just have opinions.

Its all in good fun LULZ

May the power of Obama compel you!

[OutlawzPrez]

Originally Posted by bastid

I agree with you that the bill will provide an outlet toward healthcare availability to those who are currently uninsured. To what extent it will effect the availability for those of us who have insurance already, we can only speculate that it will be delayed due to the demand in healthcare increasing.

Outside of that, I believe you are wrong. I would strongly urge you to take a basic economics course. You don't eliminate cost without eliminating the source of the cost. You can't just magically make fixed costs disappear without eliminating them directly. If, as you suggest, there are items in the bill that specifically detail how costs will be cut and quality will be increased (and I have read the bill), please point me to a specific line (or lines) that support it. I asked way earlier in this thread, and you chose to ignore the reply entirely.

One can only hope the new plan (whenever it is finalized and presented) opens up competition across state lines rather than public vs. private. Digital Records aren't addressed in the healthcare bill, they were addressed in the ARRA Stimulus Package (of which the cost savings are factored into the ARRA and not the Healthcare Bill).



Rrrright. First, it's not just about Obama. He's just the figurehead of a government that has gotten way out of control. He's made his fair share of poor decisions in my opinion, but he is not the quarterback calling the plays.

Please explain to me how ANY the following items are conspiracy theories:

1. Congress signs a $787 stimulus bill, forcing it through in less than 2 weeks without bothering to read it, with Obama in the foreground threatening that the economy would entirely collapse and meltdown if they didn't sign it. Then the vote is passed, and Obama waits nearly a week to execute the bill. Even now, less than 10% of the stimulus money has been spent.

2. Government pumps billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars and takes a substantial stake in GM under the premise that they are too big to fail. Obama notes that a GM bankruptcy would be utterly catastrophic. Within months, they go bankrupt anyway under the governments guidance after pissing away tens of billions of dollars.

3. Certain banks get ridiculous sums of money under the premise that they are also too big to fail. Wall Street gets a bump, yet little is done to correct the risky behavior banks partake in which largely got us into this whole mess.

4. CEOs are scorned for wasteful spending of private planes while the President takes his wife on dates which cost north of $1,000,000 a piece. Nancy Pelosi uses a whole ****load of taxpayer money to travel lavishly all the damned time.

5. Obama runs on a platform of transparency, yet gives unprecedented monetary control to the Fed, where billions upon billions of dollars can be given out without ANY obligation to disclose where or to whom this money is going.

6. Obama appoints people of questionable background. Obama's Special Adviser on Green Jobs was Van Jones until he resigned last week. Van Jones is a "Truther," meaning that he believes that the government staged 9/11 and/or covered it up. How anyone would give this guy direct access to the President let alone set him up as an adviser is way beyond me.

Need I continue? Yeah, there's a lot of bull**** being propagated by both sides. But to state that there aren't clear cut reasons why many of these people are pissed is dead wrong.



I think those who are easily scared by twisted truths probably voted against Obama in the first place under the same premises they believed before (he's a communist, a terrorist, etc.). If they were really smart, "they" would be relentlessly going for those who are in the middle. Those who voted for Obama, yet are put off for the reasons (or "conspiracy theories" in your eyes) I listed above. What other news is a "BS" source as you describe? Last I checked, nearly every other channel outside of Fox has been propping up Obama as the second coming of Christ. Fox outed Van Jones on July 23rd, yet no one else picked it up for 6 weeks following. Fox also outed ACORN over their "prostitution" incidences over the past couple days, yet no other main stream media outlet covered it. Strange....

News flash, GE is one of the most capitalistic, evil-by-your-standards, corporations in the world. They own NBC, a fairly left news outlet. Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, is a known supporter of Obama. He also runs large capital and green energy divisions that are crucial to GE's growing even larger moving forward. To state that "big business" is only attempting to pull the strings of Republicans to protect their own interests is silly. And this doesn't even scratch the surface of billions of dollars going to the UAW who is a VERY strong democratic voter-base.



Again, you are painting broad brushstrokes across the entire demographic of those who oppose decisions made by the current administration and congress as being "right-wing nutjobs" based on a majority left-wing media's (NBC, ABC, CNN, etc) depiction of these events. On one hand, you are accusing the right of getting brainwashed from Fox, yet on the other hand you are also getting your news from the left, who have done a nice job in their own regard with spinning facts *cough* the guy with the AR-15 in Arizona was a democrat *cough*. Again, hypocrisy at it's finest.



What information and/or money/gifts have I received from the super rich, news media, insurance companies, Lockheed, etc. etc.?



Out of charity? Voluntarily? Under my own free will? Yes. I donate a few grand a year to a few charitable causes I believe in.

Involuntarily? No. That removes free will from the equation.

Right on!!!!

Here is the kind of people we're dealing with. Its scary stuff... I suggest that everyone clicks on the link below.
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=26965

[Proven]

Originally Posted by OutlawzPrez

Its all in good fun LULZ

May the power of Obama compel you!

[bastid]

Originally Posted by importpower99

I was going to write a rebutle to the BS you posted, but it's much easier to jump on your side. So I will continue with the stuff you forgot.

- Don't forget, about his fake birth certificate.
- Obama hates old people
- Obama has a deep seeded hate for white people (And that is from your Nazi leader Glenn "Bi-polar" Beck.
- HE wants to purposely destory the United States, and after he does, he will move to his house in Kenya
- Obama is coming to your house to take all your guns
- Obama is a terrorist

So you are arguing that none of the points I made above happened? There was no stimulus? They did not take a stake in GM? They did not pump billions into banks?

Really?

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by bastid

So you are arguing that none of the points I made above happened? There was no stimulus? They did not take a stake in GM? They did not pump billions into banks?

Really?

GM was too big to fail at the time! There debts were too huge to be included with the other Bailouts that were approved by Bushy.

And yes the there was a stimulus, that you say was not looked over. Remember cash for clunkers? The republicans said that it needs to be trimmed down, and then when cash for clunkers needed more cash, it was Obama's fault for the program running out of money. Does that really make sense to you?

Remember he didn't pass his stimulus bill, what passed was a watered down piece of poo. Me personally I would have just scrapped the whole thing at that point. But if you do that, you would be backing down to the opposition. Because anything that doesn't involve big business's exploiting americans, then the republicans won't go for it.

And as far as the president traveling, he is no longer a normal person. Once you become a president you are a walking "bulls eye". I would not get on a plane with any current president, nor do I want to be in the same building. And with the record amount of death threats that he is getting from these rasict turds, I wouldn't want to be within a 10 foot radius of him.

As far as giving money to the banks with risky behavior, that is your free market that you know and love. Why are you complaining when you want small gov't? So what if there behavior causes the country to crash, and companies to crumble. Then they jusk file for BK (which is run through the gov't, just incase you forgot)
However, I do agree with you after Obama's speech yesterday on wall street. He said that we will be implmenting policies. And I was just wondering, why the hell those policies don't exist right now. Two times of a country crashing is enough!

And what president doesn't appoint individuals with shady backgrounds. Cheney...need I say more. (The shadest appointment in history)

. Obama runs on a platform of transparency, yet gives unprecedented monetary control to the Fed, where billions upon billions of dollars can be given out without ANY obligation to disclose where or to whom this money is going
Simplify please!

Everyone is covering the Acorn sistuation. Fox was first, because the video had no crediabilty.

Cnn is not really "Left".
And it's the stuff that fox news says, that makes themselves look dumb.
"Obama is a terrorist" " Michael Vick, fondles dogs" need I say more?

I had the same stuff written yesterday but my computer crashed and I didn't feel like typing all over again at that time.

[bastid]

Originally Posted by importpower99

GM was too big to fail at the time! There debts were too huge to be included with the other Bailouts that were approved by Bushy.

Last I checked, they did fail and went bankrupt. They could have done this 10s of millions of dollars beforehand. Again, you make the flawed assumption that I liked things that Bush did also.

Originally Posted by importpower99

And yes the there was a stimulus, that you say was not looked over. Remember cash for clunkers? The republicans said that it needs to be trimmed down, and then when cash for clunkers needed more cash, it was Obama's fault for the program running out of money. Does that really make sense to you?

The Stimulus was a $787B piece of legislation that was not read or understood by most politicians prior to it being voted upon. I don't think Cash for Clunkers was thought out well enough either.

Originally Posted by importpower99

Remember he didn't pass his stimulus bill, what passed was a watered down piece of poo. Me personally I would have just scrapped the whole thing at that point. But if you do that, you would be backing down to the opposition. Because anything that doesn't involve big business's exploiting americans, then the republicans won't go for it.

So, you are implying that the reason Obama didn't want to veto the Bill to save face against opposition? I would question the character of someone who's pride is worth more to him than diligently creating, reading, and understanding the largest spending bill ever signed.

Originally Posted by importpower99

And as far as the president traveling, he is no longer a normal person. Once you become a president you are a walking "bulls eye". I would not get on a plane with any current president, nor do I want to be in the same building. And with the record amount of death threats that he is getting from these rasict turds, I wouldn't want to be within a 10 foot radius of him.

So, after publicly denouncing the spending habits of a broke company, he spends millions on an unnecessary date with his wife using money from a broke government? And that is ok?

Originally Posted by importpower99

As far as giving money to the banks with risky behavior, that is your free market that you know and love.

The "free market" is intended to operate within the lines that the government creates (anti-trust, fraud, etc). The behavior the banks displayed was textbook fraud. One division of the bank was telling people that their money was safe while another division was taking the money in their reserve and gambling it in INCREDIBLY risky ways. I do believe in sensible laws which protect consumers. I don't agree with government giving away heaps of money to banks who committed fraud yet have not been held accountable for their actions.

Originally Posted by importpower99

Why are you complaining when you want small gov't? So what if there behavior causes the country to crash, and companies to crumble. Then they jusk file for BK (which is run through the gov't, just incase you forgot)

I think "wanting a small government" is a pretty vague idea. I want a government that enacts sensible laws which protect people from infringements of their life, liberty, and property. This should be protection from individuals, companies, as well as government. The constitution does a great job of outlaying the peoples' protection from the government.

Originally Posted by importpower99

However, I do agree with you after Obama's speech yesterday on wall street. He said that we will be implmenting policies. And I was just wondering, why the hell those policies don't exist right now. Two times of a country crashing is enough!

Just like many other sectors, I think Wall Street needs some enforcement. There are already laws on the books that are being brushed aside from the SEC. Let's start enforcing the laws on the books before drafting new ones.

Originally Posted by importpower99

And what president doesn't appoint individuals with shady backgrounds. Cheney...need I say more. (The shadest appointment in history)

This is the core issue. We need an overhaul of government. We constantly get upset over fraudulent and criminal activity in the private sector, yet we turn a blind eye to bull**** in DC. Just because Bush made some bad decisions doesn't mean we can use that as an excuse to allow for more bad decisions to be made.

Originally Posted by importpower99

Simplify please!

The Fed is a private entity. Obama, the "transparent" candidate, has continued to allow them (without challenge) to set monetary policy (printing and spending of money) without forcing them to disclose what they are doing - IE where the money is going, and how much of it?

Originally Posted by importpower99

Everyone is covering the Acorn sistuation. Fox was first, because the video had no crediabilty.

Separate videos surfaced from 3, count them, 3, separate ACORN offices who all handled the situations similarly. Fox News called out other main stream media companies for not covering it on Sept 14th, and then they all covered it.

Originally Posted by importpower99

Cnn is not really "Left".

It is closer to the left than it is to the center.

Originally Posted by importpower99

And it's the stuff that fox news says, that makes themselves look dumb. "Obama is a terrorist" " Michael Vick, fondles dogs" need I say more?

I think all main steam media is biased one way or another. I don't get all of my information from one source. I try to learn about the same issues from multiple sources and determine for myself what I believe to be fact vs. what I believe to be sensationalism or opinion.

Originally Posted by importpower99

I had the same stuff written yesterday but my computer crashed and I didn't feel like typing all over again at that time.

That's what you get with a commie computer

[importpower99]

Originally Posted by bastid

Last I checked, they did fail and went bankrupt. They could have done this 10s of millions of dollars beforehand. Again, you make the flawed assumption that I liked things that Bush did also.
Never said that, just making a notation of it



The Stimulus was a $787B piece of legislation that was not read or understood by most politicians prior to it being voted upon. I don't think Cash for Clunkers was thought out well enough either.
It was copied from the europeans


So, you are implying that the reason Obama didn't want to veto the Bill to save face against opposition? I would question the character of someone who's pride is worth more to him than diligently creating, reading, and understanding the largest spending bill ever signed.
So you are blaming Obama for everyone not reading it over correctly?


So, after publicly denouncing the spending habits of a broke company, he spends millions on an unnecessary date with his wife using money from a broke government? And that is ok?
Wasn't my example good enough? Should he stay locked up in the whitehous all day?



The "free market" is intended to operate within the lines that the government creates (anti-trust, fraud, etc). The behavior the banks displayed was textbook fraud. One division of the bank was telling people that their money was safe while another division was taking the money in their reserve and gambling it in INCREDIBLY risky ways. I do believe in sensible laws which protect consumers. I don't agree with government giving away heaps of money to banks who committed fraud yet have not been held accountable for their actions.
No arguement there



I think "wanting a small government" is a pretty vague idea. I want a government that enacts sensible laws which protect people from infringements of their life, liberty, and property. This should be protection from individuals, companies, as well as government. The constitution does a great job of outlaying the peoples' protection from the government.
Very good, but what protects us from the corporations that run the politicans? You do know that corporations are trying to be considered people, right? What that means is that the Consitution now applys to them. So they can donate all the money they want to politicians. And advertise for them.


Just like many other sectors, I think Wall Street needs some enforcement. There are already laws on the books that are being brushed aside from the SEC. Let's start enforcing the laws on the books before drafting new ones.
The correct answer is "Why did we stop?"


This is the core issue. We need an overhaul of government. We constantly get upset over fraudulent and criminal activity in the private sector, yet we turn a blind eye to bull**** in DC. Just because Bush made some bad decisions doesn't mean we can use that as an excuse to allow for more bad decisions to be made.
Agreed!



The Fed is a private entity. Obama, the "transparent" candidate, has continued to allow them (without challenge) to set monetary policy (printing and spending of money) without forcing them to disclose what they are doing - IE where the money is going, and how much of it?
I;m going to have to get back to you on that



Separate videos surfaced from 3, count them, 3, separate ACORN offices who all handled the situations similarly. Fox News called out other main stream media companies for not covering it on Sept 14th, and then they all covered it.
Fox was only showing one. And that was when it had no cred. Then the others one surfaced, and then the media jumped on it. I know! I watch fox



It is closer to the left than it is to the center.
Only by 1/8



I think all main steam media is biased one way or another. I don't get all of my information from one source. I try to learn about the same issues from multiple sources and determine for myself what I believe to be fact vs. what I believe to be sensationalism or opinion.
Thats what I do



That's what you get with a commie computer
(INSERT MIDDLE FINGER)

........