Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Here is another poll
Page <<first <prev 8 of 11 next> last>>
Jul 24, 2014 00:49:43   #
bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN
 
The data may have been but the categories and there descriptions are not. I can almost guarantee that.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 01:25:00   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
bodacious wrote:
Their oath is the same for all law enforcement, to protect (as best they can) and serve is the ones most people think of, maybe because it's written on the majority of their vehicles. Anyway the duties of a Border agent is to protect Americas interests with the enforcement of our border and immigration laws, under direct control and dictatorship of the potus they are not following directives put forth by the peoples of the US. Allowing thousands to enter illegally and becoming baby sitters is not a job description put forth for this agency. The humanitarian duties assigned to them is limited. They are doing the exact opposite of their assigned duty and therefor violating their oath and our constitution, which by law they do not have the obligation to follow or allow any unconstitutional or illegal order from anyone including a dictator in chief.
Their oath is the same for all law enforcement, to... (show quote)


They are complying with federal law signed by Bush and acting under Judicial rule dictating that immigrant children be treated with kid gloves. We are not talking about criminals. We are talking about children stepping up to Border Guards with arms raised in surrender. They are guaranteed under law to be housed and cared for appropriately until they they can be represented and seen by a judge.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 01:32:32   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
bkellyusa wrote:
In all fairness I think it's only right to have at least one channel that is not totally in the tank with the Democrats. You'd think having the Republicans outnumbered in the media 20 to 1 might be enough for you guys.

However, what you need to do is watch it. Watch it often and you will see what is going on. You will quit being to blind to what is happening I this world. You won't have to have the powers that be tell you what to think. You can decide that for yourself. That's the reason why FOX News is the most trusted name in news. By actual survey they beat all of the networks combined when it comes to being trusted.
In all fairness I think it's only right to have at... (show quote)


How many channels were designed by a Democratic Administration to bring you one side of the news? And a Democratic staffer in charge of it's design becoming the founding president. Would you call that fair and balanced? What if that so called "fair and balanced" channel had as its poster boy a self admitted schizophrenic? Not so balanced at all!

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 04:07:15   #
Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world
 
wlgoode wrote:
How many channels were designed by a Democratic Administration to bring you one side of the news? And a Democratic staffer in charge of it's design becoming the founding president. Would you call that fair and balanced? What if that so called "fair and balanced" channel had as its poster boy a self admitted schizophrenic? Not so balanced at all!


Do you call cnn and all the lib channels fair and balanced? No, I think not.

Are you fair and balanced. Don't answer that you idiot.

No question mark.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 08:54:03   #
FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga
 
wlgoode wrote:
Did you read my post? Boehner has everything to do with it. There is no jobs dial on the Oval Office desk! The president cannot wave a wand and create jobs. Congress could pass a jobs and or infrastructure bill and put people back to work. Obama has said countless times that he would sign the bill the same day.

It has been customary for a long time to say for a year into the new administration the previous President is responsible for the economy. No one is magical enough to fix the economy in 6 mos. Economic situations are cyclical. There is ample evidence that Trickle Down is a failure and has wrecked our long term economy. Trickle down is silly, we have a Trickle up economy. The idea that Supply Side works is ludicrous.
Did you read my post? Boehner has everything to d... (show quote)


I remember Reagan and Bush, soon after inauguration the economy start to roll. so, a president as the abilities to start something by cutting taxes and such . In any cases Liberals will not see the facts. Right now the economy is in the gutter with over 60 millions out of work +++++

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 09:19:40   #
JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ
 
FRENCHY wrote:
I remember Reagan and Bush, soon after inauguration the economy start to roll. so, a president as the abilities to start something by cutting taxes and such . In any cases Liberals will not see the facts. Right now the economy is in the gutter with over 60 millions out of work


You don't remember very well. For both Bushes, The economy got generally worse throughout their terms.

Reagan had a new recession start a year after he took office. Whatever effect happened right after his inaugural, it was very short lived.

The president has no power to cut taxes without Congress.

And the hype about the participation rate ("60 million out of work" ) is just nonsense. -- A low participation rate shows that the economy is GOOD -- but I don't have time to explain that again right now...

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 09:49:50   #
Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world
 
wlgoode wrote:
Did you read my post? Boehner has everything to do with it. There is no jobs dial on the Oval Office desk! The president cannot wave a wand and create jobs. Congress could pass a jobs and or infrastructure bill and put people back to work. Obama has said countless times that he would sign the bill the same day.

It has been customary for a long time to say for a year into the new administration the previous President is responsible for the economy. No one is magical enough to fix the economy in 6 mos. Economic situations are cyclical. There is ample evidence that Trickle Down is a failure and has wrecked our long term economy. Trickle down is silly, we have a Trickle up economy. The idea that Supply Side works is ludicrous.


FRENCHY wrote:
I remember Reagan and Bush, soon after inauguration the economy start to roll. so, a president as the abilities to start something by cutting taxes and such . In any cases Liberals will not see the facts. Right now the economy is in the gutter with over 60 millions out of work +++++


No jobs dial on the oval office desk but a gigantic waste basket sucking up trillions to give to his friends in the (ahum GReen industry) and their bank accounts.

Nixon said "I am not a crook"
obummer is a crook.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 10:34:27   #
FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga
 
JamesCurran wrote:
You don't remember very well. For both Bushes, The economy got generally worse throughout their terms.

Reagan had a new recession start a year after he took office. Whatever effect happened right after his inaugural, it was very short lived.

The president has no power to cut taxes without Congress.

And the hype about the participation rate ("60 million out of work" ) is just nonsense. -- A low participation rate shows that the economy is GOOD -- but I don't have time to explain that again right now...
You don't remember very well. For both Bushes, Th... (show quote)


OK , you win no sense to talk to you with facts I know .......

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 10:38:42   #
bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN
 
JamesCurran wrote:
You don't remember very well. For both Bushes, The economy got generally worse throughout their terms.

Reagan had a new recession start a year after he took office. Whatever effect happened right after his inaugural, it was very short lived.

The president has no power to cut taxes without Congress.

And the hype about the participation rate ("60 million out of work" ) is just nonsense. -- A low participation rate shows that the economy is GOOD -- but I don't have time to explain that again right now...
You don't remember very well. For both Bushes, Th... (show quote)


This is not true. GW, despite having to conduct an expensive war presided over a rather successful economy for all but the last three months of his two term presidency. That's about 96.5% of his presidency. Unemployment was less than it had been during the Clinton years. Obama on the other hand has had almost seven years to do anything positive with our economy and he's done nothing but make it worse. I've said over and over and over the biggest difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush actually liked America while Obama wants to see it fundamentally destroyed. He's currently smuggling in illegal aliens to accomplish just that. Obama is the idiot who referred to the Marine Corps as the Marine "Corpse" and said there were 57 states. He's humiliated us more than any other politician who ever lived. If you voted for him you should be ashamed at how gullible you were to believe that the most inexperienced and questionable president ever would do anything to help Americans.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 11:02:34   #
JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ
 
bkellyusa wrote:
This is not true. GW, despite having to conduct an expensive war presided over a rather successful economy for all but the last three months of his two term presidency. That's about 96.5% of his presidency. Unemployment was less than it had been during the Clinton years.


Wow... Tremendous spin there. When Clinton took over, the employment rate was quite high -- the result of Bush-41's mismanagement. It trended down throughout his term, going from 7.3% in Jan-93 to 4.2% in Jan-2001, hence Clinton is responsible for it declining 3.1%

On the other hand, Bush-43's term was just the reverse: starting low, and ending high -- As cited above, 4.2% at the start and 8.2% by Feb-2009 when Obama took over. So, Bush is responsible for a 4% rise.

Quote:
Obama on the other hand has had almost seven years

Well, that's your problem there -- you can't do simple math. (Obama has been in office barely 5 1/2 years)

Quote:
to do anything positive with our economy and he's done nothing but make it worse.


When he took office, the unemployment rate was 8.2% and losing 200K jobs a month; it's now 6.1% and gaining 200K a month. During his term, the DJIA has nearly doubled. The economy is UNQUESTIONABLY far better now than it was when Bush-43 left.


Quote:
I've said over and over and over the biggest difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush actually liked America while Obama wants to see it fundamentally destroyed.


The biggest difference is the Reagan/Bush/Bush wanted to turn the country over to corporate interests, while Clinton/Obama are trying nto give it back to the people.

Quote:
He's humiliated us more than any other politician who ever lived.


Don't be a fool. The US is a laughing stock around the world because
a) we refuse to acknowledge climate change.
b) We have mass killing is schools and movie theater but refuse to do anything about them.
c) we want to teach creationalism instead of evolution in schools.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 12:03:16   #
Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world
 
JamesCurran wrote:
Don't be a fool. The US is a laughing stock around the world because
a) we refuse to acknowledge climate change.
b) We have mass killing is schools and movie theater but refuse to do anything about them.
c) we want to teach creationalism instead of evolution in schools.


James Curran you are a communist.

Reply
 
 
Jul 24, 2014 12:07:46   #
JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ
 
Jackinthebox wrote:
James Curran you are a communist.


That's irrelevant (It's also wrong, but that's irrelevant too)

I'm just stating the facts. Ask non-Americans what they find silliest about America -- I think you'll find they rate those three far higher than anything Obama has done.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 12:10:22   #
bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN
 
For James Curran and all of the other Kool-Aid drinkers and makers of more and more Kool-Aid.

I know you think the way you added that up is clever but it is bullshit. These days everyone can see through this liberal mind warping jive you guys pull. You used the very last number you could come up with that was after the economic crash and tried to say it was in the dumps during his entire term. If you asked the public today if they would rather have Bush back or keep Obama and Bush would win by a landslide. Even people who didn't like Bush as a president believe he's a decent person and that has been true all along. Not so for Obama. Romney is now favored over Obama. People are sorry they voted for Obama now. Worst president ever in my opinion but according to the polls he's at least the worst since WWII. No way to defend him. The good news is I think Obama has been so bad the public is waking up to the con game that has been pulled on them by the loony left America haters. After Obama no one in their right mind will elect another anti-American socialist for a long time into the future. Obama is a dangerous anti-American idiot and there is no way you can get around that.

I also love how you guys pretend to have a humanitarian interest in the children killed through gun violence but nothing for the 60 million children you've killed through abortion. That is so bizarre that you guys have now carried hypocrisy all the way up to needing to classify it as a mental illness. Pretty soon you won't know whether or not the next person you see is a real person or a Martian. That's how crazy you guys are.

I don't know about climate change myself. I'm neither for it or against it. As it is nuclear proliferation is more of an imminent threat than climate change but we never hear any objections from the loony left about that. They only object to Republicans bringing it up as a real threat. For the left the facts always get in the way.

My brother is an engineer and scientist and the smartest guy I know and he doesn't believe it and I see where NASA is now saying that the science model that the believers use to support their claims is not true either so what can I tell you.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 12:30:59   #
bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN
 
wlgoode wrote:
How many channels were designed by a Democratic Administration to bring you one side of the news? And a Democratic staffer in charge of it's design becoming the founding president. Would you call that fair and balanced? What if that so called "fair and balanced" channel had as its poster boy a self admitted schizophrenic? Not so balanced at all!


It's clear that you don't watch Fox News and don't rally know anything about it. It's not the most trusted and most popular news channel on television for no reason.

Reply
Jul 24, 2014 12:43:24   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
Jackinthebox wrote:
Do you call cnn and all the lib channels fair and balanced? No, I think not.

Are you fair and balanced. Don't answer that you idiot.

No question mark.


You continue to substantiate my claim. Nothing in that dead bear brain but slurs. Grow up Boo-Boo.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.