http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-capitol-christmas-tree-pays-homage-obama-not-jesus

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-simplistic-view-of-income-inequality/2011/12/19/gIQAeVmR5O_story.html?hpid=z4

QuakerOats;1021612 wrote:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-capitol-christmas-tree-pays-homage-obama-not-jesus

Come on, I want Obama out as much as you but this is ridiculous. I have two christmas trees without any jesus/religous ornaments and I am a christian. I do have ornaments with mine and my families name on them.

Lets just stick to horrible policy and ineffective leadership. These religous attacks mean nothing

IWP Merry Christmas

Belly35;1021656 wrote:IWP Merry Christmas

Haha. That's awesome. I assume you've put a few nice bullet holes in it for me?

I Wear Pants;1021900 wrote:Haha. That's awesome. I assume you've put a few nice bullet holes in it for me?

The instruction states that you'll need two TV... It only grows if it's between two TV with the sound off :laugh:

I assume you've included the two required TVs in the gift?

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/12/26/obama-golfs-90th-time-president/


Change we can believe in ....

Wow.. Almost 3 years and most of us ate still alive.


Whoda thunk it?

Devils Advocate;1028134 wrote:Wow.. Almost 3 years and most of us ate still alive.

Whoda thunk it?

Tell that to the 20 million people who can't find work while your boy passes the buck out on the golf course. Undoubtedly among the worst leaders in world history.

QuakerOats;1028301 wrote:Tell that to the 20 million people who can't find work while your boy passes the buck out on the golf course. Undoubtedly among the worst leaders in world history.

Why would you bitch about him being on the golf course? That's less time he has to fuck up the country....

Belly35;1021656 wrote:IWP Merry Christmas

This was the gift I gave at my works Christmas party. It was a huge hit.

Thread Bomber;1029468 wrote:Why would you bitch about him being on the golf course? That's less time he has to **** up the country....

This. As far as I'm concerned, the dude can take as much time off as he wants.

fish82;1029921 wrote:This. As far as I'm concerned, the dude can take as much time off as he wants.

No question about it.

Here are the numbers (again):

In Bush's first 4 years the average receipts were $1.88 trillion, and the average outlays were $2.08 trillion -- very nearly in balance.

In Obama's first 4 years the average receipts will be $2.27 trillion, and the average outlays will be a staggering $3.63 trillion.

Thus revenues will have increased by 21% over 8 years - not bad at all, especially given low inflation.

However, SPENDING will have increased by an absolutely astounding 74%, and with no end in sight (which is equally as incredible).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...s/hist01z1.xls

In the face of these FACTS, there simply cannot be any reasonable argument whatsoever that we have a tax revenue problem; that is simply a lie. What the numbers clearly demonstrate is an absolute explosion in federal spending of unparalleled proportion! There is no debating the numbers or the obvious conclusion.

Furthermore, the oft heard argument made by you and others always relates to revenues as a percent of GDP instead of focusing on the absolute numbers. This is a false argument; it presupposes that government is somehow entitled to grow in proportion to the GDP --- poppycock! Government should be more of a fixed cost (drain) and it should not grow and expect to be funded by some predisposed percentage of GDP. Frankly, the economy can grow on its own (if we reduce government interference) and as a result the size of government will shrink in relation thereto, and thus the revenues necessary to fund government, as a percent of GDP, will shrink by default. Hell, that should be our goal -- get government and tax revenues to 10% of GDP; you would see an explosion in growth, which in turn would throw off enough revenues to not only balance budgets but pay down the debt.

Instead, many would rather continue to grow government at a staggering pace which will only result in the stifling of growth and innovation, at which point there will be no way out.


Happy New Year.

Like a kid with a new toy, Oats is trying to see how many threads he can put this particular post on.

At least he included a link. Obviously learning from his beatdown on the Kasich thread.

Obama's vision of America - Illegals have rights (and get armed for free with automatic weapons by the Dept of Justice) while regular Joes, Janes, and children are subject to sexual groping from his TSA agents.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-administration-launches-free-hotline-for-suspected-illegal-immigrants/

stlouiedipalma;1030916 wrote:Like a kid with a new toy, Oats is trying to see how many threads he can put this particular post on.

Hard to argue when the numbers speak for themselves.

BGFalcons82;1031086 wrote:Obama's vision of America - Illegals have rights (and get armed for free with automatic weapons by the Dept of Justice) while regular Joes, Janes, and children are subject to sexual groping from his TSA agents.

Simple math. Regular Joes and Janes are more likely to vote against the Appointed One. Illegals are more likely to vote for him.

Happy New Year! Hope you don't do anything to get on the wrong side of whomever is in charge of the government.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/

In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.

With reservations, yeah right. I bet he had a hard on when he signed this bill. Fucking unbelievable, and done during a holiday so no talk about it at all. Bet not even 5% of the public realizes that it was signed. Change all right.

I am perfectly aware that Democrats AND Republicans voted for this crap, I have no faith for anyone currently in Congress, except a very select handful.

Ndaa aka enabling act of 2011. Anyone who voted for this needs removed from office

Ha! And people called me paranoid when I talked about the slippery slope.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3166

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States. Perhaps like speaking out against the government, activism against the government? No, of course our government would never seek to suppress those speaking out against them, that would never ever happen, right? Slippery slope, stop being so paranoid.

tk421;1034580 wrote:Engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States. Perhaps like speaking out against the government, activism against the government? No, of course our government would never seek to suppress those speaking out against them, that would never ever happen, right? Slippery slope, stop being so paranoid.

Shhhhhhhhhh.......someone will report you to Napolitano's Gestapo for being a domestic terrorist.

QuakerOats;1030840 wrote: Furthermore, the oft heard argument made by you and others always relates to revenues as a percent of GDP instead of focusing on the absolute numbers. This is a false argument; it presupposes that government is somehow entitled to grow in proportion to the GDP --- poppycock! Government should be more of a fixed cost (drain) and it should not grow and expect to be funded by some predisposed percentage of GDP. Frankly, the economy can grow on its own (if we reduce government interference) and as a result the size of government will shrink in relation thereto, and thus the revenues necessary to fund government, as a percent of GDP, will shrink by default. Hell, that should be our goal -- get government and tax revenues to 10% of GDP; you would see an explosion in growth, which in turn would throw off enough revenues to not only balance budgets but pay down the debt.

Instead, many would rather continue to grow government at a staggering pace which will only result in the stifling of growth and innovation, at which point there will be no way out.


Happy New Year.

We already thoroughly covered this in the past. Not sure why I even bother but what they hey. Even if you accept that government should not grow in the future as a percentage of gdp, bringing in only 14% of GDP in revenue...well below the historical average...will ensure large deficits with out very large spending cuts that will decrease the size of government to levels not seen since before WWII. And, with a refusal to cut defense spending, social security and medicare right now drastically...that is not achievable. And of course, such cuts would raise unemployment drastically and ensure slow economic growth for several years because austerity in a slump only makes problems worse and ultimately be self-defeating. This is not in dispute at this point. This is why you have to have balanced deficit reduction over time. Do you even care that what you think would work is being tried in Europe and proving disastrous? Does it even matter to you?

Even if you want to get government to only be 10% of GDP you're going to have to grow your way there and not cut your way there and if you want to cut things you have to get to full employment first. Getting government to 10% of GDP may be a wise goal but even if it were it has to be achieved over time and could be achieved faster with an increase in revenue in the near term.

believer;1034609 wrote:Shhhhhhhhhh.......someone will report you to Napolitano's Gestapo for being a domestic terrorist.

we better get rid of our guns and ammo and make sure we don't have more than 7 days worth of food in our houses. After all, being prepared is the sign of a terrorist.