Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dtcracer
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 40 next>>
Aug 20, 2012 15:53:52   #
Hunter Lou 1947 wrote:
Screamin Scott wrote:
Never claimed he didn't, but what does that have to do with the discussion? They all flip flop & go back on their words. Fact remains, all politicians are liars & to blindly follow any one of them is an act of stupidity...


CanonJC wrote:
Screamin Scott wrote:
Like Obama hasn't flipped?...Gay Marriage, borrowing from the Chinese...The list goes on. They all do it. Not worthy of a debate about it

Kit Lens wrote:
Sarge,
That's just one of the things that Ryan has flipped on. I think as all these things come out, some of his supporters will be quite surprised.


Junior Bush did borrow $trillion from China.
Never claimed he didn't, but what does that have t... (show quote)


I think the label for Romney is: We don't need a "Tax DODGING Liar Romney as President of these United States"
quote=Screamin Scott Never claimed he didn't, but... (show quote)



That could be almost as bad as a draft dodging liar, or a birth certificate/school records dodging liar!
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 15:50:58   #
dtcracer wrote:
CanonJC wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
tschmath wrote:
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012:

WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics." But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."
Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.

"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.

Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."

"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.

Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002. "We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."

While Obama has been in office, Ryan has voted against extending unemployment benefits and against helping laid-off workers pay for health insurance by subsidizing COBRA payments. Such actions are difficult to square with 2002's Paul Ryan. "It's more than just giving someone an unemployment check," he said then. "It's also helping those people with their health insurance while they've lost their jobs and more important than just that unemployment check, it's to do what we can to give people a paycheck."
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012: br br ... (show quote)


The Huffington Post is a left wing propaganda agency. It is equivalent to Fox News.
quote=tschmath From the Huffington Post August 19... (show quote)


Dead wrong! It is frankly true.
quote=dtcracer quote=tschmath From the Huffingto... (show quote)


...and so is Fox News.
quote=CanonJC quote=dtcracer quote=tschmath Fro... (show quote)



There are no news agencies that are not either left wing or right wing politically aligned. Huffington Post is left wing propaganda, all you have to do is read it to know that. Of course, we all know that liberals are blind to any lies from the left. As far as they are concerned it is the Gods honest truth.
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 15:45:41   #
CanonJC wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
tschmath wrote:
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012:

WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics." But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."
Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.

"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.

Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."

"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.

Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002. "We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."

While Obama has been in office, Ryan has voted against extending unemployment benefits and against helping laid-off workers pay for health insurance by subsidizing COBRA payments. Such actions are difficult to square with 2002's Paul Ryan. "It's more than just giving someone an unemployment check," he said then. "It's also helping those people with their health insurance while they've lost their jobs and more important than just that unemployment check, it's to do what we can to give people a paycheck."
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012: br br ... (show quote)


The Huffington Post is a left wing propaganda agency. It is equivalent to Fox News.
quote=tschmath From the Huffington Post August 19... (show quote)


Dead wrong! It is frankly true.
quote=dtcracer quote=tschmath From the Huffingto... (show quote)


...and so is Fox News.
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 14:28:35   #
PhotoGator wrote:
"But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term".

The stimulus have not improved the economy. It is an excuse to fleece our national treasure.
How come the same financial institutions who brought us here, those same institutions we rescued, made huge profits?
If there is going to be any stimulus, it most be to rescue us upside down mortgage holders, not financial institutions.


I agree. Following the bail out of the auto industry GM recorded record profits, yet sales had not increased enough to justify said profits. Another question: The oil industry raises the price of gas and oil crying that there isn't enough oil available, or that they are afraid the oil supply will dwindle due to strife in the middle east, yet they too are recording record profits. How is that acceptable? If they are making enough money to increase their profits to record numbers, why can't they lower the prices of oil and gas so the consumer can afford to live and still purchase gas? Its not like they would lose any money if their profits are at a record high! It's time that our government stepped in and took care of the American people like they are supposed to, not take care of the corporations. And we all know that Obama is all for the corporations, not the little guy. That is why he is paying big money to the corporations in bailouts.
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:51:33   #
PhotoGator wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
amyinsparta wrote:
tschmath wrote:
What do any of these replies except by KitLens have to do with the fact that Ryan is a lying hypocrite? As usual, when a rightie can't answer a charge, they just change the subject.

In today's LA Times there was yet another article about what a lying hypocrite he is. Seems he was very active in a bipartisan effort trying to get bailout money when his hometown GM factory was in trouble, even flying to meet with company reps when they were being offered tax incentives and other goodies, before Obama's election. He voted for $14 billion dollars in emergency federal loans in the "waning" days of the Bush administration. Then, magically on the day after the election, Ryan, along with every other Republican, changed his stance on every single Republican idea that Obama agreed with.

Amazing. A black Democrat takes office and now every one of your prior positions sucks. An entire party full of verifiable lying hypocrites. An entire party with no spine and no integrity, taken over by zealots hell-bent on destroying this country. God help us.
What do any of these replies except by KitLens hav... (show quote)


Whoa! Somebody tells it like it is! whoo hoo! This whole anti-Obama thing is nothing more that bigotry at its finest, no matter how much it is denied. Even the "anti-Christ" Clinton was not vilified as much as Obama is by the right wing.
quote=tschmath What do any of these replies excep... (show quote)


It has nothing to do with bigotry. That is the good ole fall back all of you liberals run to when you can't defend your stand. Just because someone is Republican or Conservative and does not agree with the poor job that the President is doing does not make them bigoted. The ones who are truly bigoted are the ones who continuosly scream racism in response to any disagreement that is presented to them, there must be some reason that it is always on the tip of their tongue. The days of discrimination and seeinng everything in black and white are long gone for the most part, with the exception of a few remaining racist. It would die out completely if all of you people screaming racism would let it go!

Ryan is no more of a hypocrite than any other politician. Remember Obama waffling on the gay marriage issue? Conveniently in time for election wasn't it? Maybe all of you liberals are racist against white politicians?
quote=amyinsparta quote=tschmath What do any of ... (show quote)


Bigotry, well for your information, I am black hispanic. I am against Obama and the likes regardless of skin tone. I am against them on principles and values.
quote=dtcracer quote=amyinsparta quote=tschmath... (show quote)


:thumbup:
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:41:16   #
Darn it! That is why Peter Pan needs a mother, to tell him to look both ways before crossing the airways!
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:37:32   #
Thanks for sharing. I love castles, the architecture is just amazing. And you have to be in awe of the fact it was all done by hand, without the aid of our modern machinery. Even with all of our machinery we fail to build anything of such beauty and quality. I doubt any modern building will still be standing in 800 years.
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:33:41   #
Love the pics. They sure don't make aircraft like this anymore, beauty in motion!
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:29:41   #
amyinsparta wrote:
tschmath wrote:
What do any of these replies except by KitLens have to do with the fact that Ryan is a lying hypocrite? As usual, when a rightie can't answer a charge, they just change the subject.

In today's LA Times there was yet another article about what a lying hypocrite he is. Seems he was very active in a bipartisan effort trying to get bailout money when his hometown GM factory was in trouble, even flying to meet with company reps when they were being offered tax incentives and other goodies, before Obama's election. He voted for $14 billion dollars in emergency federal loans in the "waning" days of the Bush administration. Then, magically on the day after the election, Ryan, along with every other Republican, changed his stance on every single Republican idea that Obama agreed with.

Amazing. A black Democrat takes office and now every one of your prior positions sucks. An entire party full of verifiable lying hypocrites. An entire party with no spine and no integrity, taken over by zealots hell-bent on destroying this country. God help us.
What do any of these replies except by KitLens hav... (show quote)


Whoa! Somebody tells it like it is! whoo hoo! This whole anti-Obama thing is nothing more that bigotry at its finest, no matter how much it is denied. Even the "anti-Christ" Clinton was not vilified as much as Obama is by the right wing.
quote=tschmath What do any of these replies excep... (show quote)


It has nothing to do with bigotry. That is the good ole fall back all of you liberals run to when you can't defend your stand. Just because someone is Republican or Conservative and does not agree with the poor job that the President is doing does not make them bigoted. The ones who are truly bigoted are the ones who continuosly scream racism in response to any disagreement that is presented to them, there must be some reason that it is always on the tip of their tongue. The days of discrimination and seeinng everything in black and white are long gone for the most part, with the exception of a few remaining racist. It would die out completely if all of you people screaming racism would let it go!

Ryan is no more of a hypocrite than any other politician. Remember Obama waffling on the gay marriage issue? Conveniently in time for election wasn't it? Maybe all of you liberals are racist against white politicians?
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:18:46   #
tschmath wrote:
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012:

WASHINGTON - When Congressman Paul Ryan has been asked the past few years about the value of stimulus to the sagging economy and the nation's jobless, the Wisconsin Republican has dismissed it as meaningless, and dubbed it "sugar-high economics." But that's when President Obama is pushing for the spending. When it was President George W. Bush arguing for more stimulus to boost a slow economy in the early 2000s, Ryan's economic analysis was entirely different.

"What we're trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed," Ryan said, in comments unearthed by MSNBC's "Up with Chris Hayes" and provided to HuffPost. "What we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work."
Video of the comments will be aired at 8:00 a.m. Sunday on MSNBC.

"In recessions unemployment lags on well after a recovery has taken place," Ryan accurately noted in 2002.

Conservatives have routinely mocked Vice President Joe Biden for arguing that in order to reduce the deficit in the long run, the government needs to spend more now; that sentiment is lampooned in a recent pro-Republican campaign ad. But Biden's analysis -- that the government needs to juice the economy to promote growth, or else revenue will fall long term -- is one that Ryan himself articulated cogently back when the GOP was urging stimulus. Ryan called such stimulus a "constructive answer" worked out on "a bipartisan basis." Opponents of stimulus, Ryan said, ought to "drop the demagoguery."

"We've got to get the engine of economic growth growing again because we now know, because of recession, we don't have the revenues that we wanted to, we don't have the revenues we need, to fix Medicare, to fix Social Security, to fix these issues. We've got to get Americans back to work. Then the surpluses come back, then the jobs come back. That is the constructive answer we're trying to accomplish here on, yes, a bipartisan basis. I urge members to drop the demagoguery and to pass this bill to help us work together to get the American people back to work and help those people who've lost their jobs," Ryan said.

Bush's stimulus, which included an extension of jobless benefits and resulted in checks being mailed to millions of Americans, was signed in March 2002. "We have a lot of laid off workers, and more layoffs are occurring," the congressman continued. "And we know, as a historical fact, that even if our economy begins to slowly recover, unemployment is going to linger on and on well after that recovery takes place. What we have been trying to do starting in October and into December and now is to try and get people back to work. The things we're trying to pass in this bill are the time-tested, proven, bipartisan solutions to get businesses to stop laying off people, to hire people back, and to help those people who have lost their jobs."

While Obama has been in office, Ryan has voted against extending unemployment benefits and against helping laid-off workers pay for health insurance by subsidizing COBRA payments. Such actions are difficult to square with 2002's Paul Ryan. "It's more than just giving someone an unemployment check," he said then. "It's also helping those people with their health insurance while they've lost their jobs and more important than just that unemployment check, it's to do what we can to give people a paycheck."
From the Huffington Post August 19th 2012: br br ... (show quote)


The Huffington Post is a left wing propaganda agency. It is equivalent to Fox News.
Go to
Aug 20, 2012 10:09:27   #
RixPix wrote:
VHD-Tex wrote:
ON JANUARY 1, 2013, The US Government will be requiring everyone to have direct deposit for for SS checks. Wonder Why? Check out HR 4646. It calls for a 1%tax on ALL BANK TRANSACTIONS. This bill was put forth by Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) It seems that Chaka has a lotta Fattah between the earsa. Do we need this?


The above is an eRumor.

Here are the facts:
The Truth:
There was a bill in the 111th Congress, House Bill, HR-4646, the Debt Free America Act, that was introduced on February 23, 2010, but it died in committee and was never voted on or passed into law. Some versions of this eRumor allege that the bill was being sneaked into law by members of Congress but that is also fiction.

The bill was sponsored by Democratic Congressional Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania and says that it is to "establish a fee on transactions which would eliminate the national debt and replace the income tax on individuals." Fattah has a description of the bill along with a press release posted on his Congressional web site. Fattah is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, not President Obama's finance team, as some eRumors alleged.



quote=VHD-Tex ON JANUARY 1, 2013, The US Governme... (show quote)


Go figure, a Democrat sponsoring a bill to take more money from the pockets of the American people. Whoda thunk it!
Go to
Aug 19, 2012 21:32:59   #
ole sarg wrote:
Hal

It is President OBama to you and to all others in this country. He is your president as well as mine. President Bush was President Bush when he was in office.

As Truman said to McArthur, you may not like me, but you will respect the office of the President!

For an old coot I thought you knew better.


That is President Truman to you, sir.
Go to
Aug 18, 2012 01:28:06   #
Bunko.T wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
Bunko.T wrote:
Well I put it to y'all. Let's get back to the Cinemas Schools & Temples massacres. What's the answer to that problem. It happens with monotonous regularity.


Catch 'em all, pack 'em up and send them to a penal colony!


Before or after the event??? Hello, That's the crux of the problem.


You missed the humor there, I was picking on you in reference to the history of Australia. You know, how it was settled as a British penal colony at Botany Bay? :lol:
I was suggesting (in jest) that we pack them up and send them to you.
Go to
Aug 17, 2012 18:20:25   #
derekmadge wrote:
dtcracer wrote:
rocar7 wrote:
Bunko.T wrote:
Well I put it to y'all. Let's get back to the Cinemas Schools & Temples massacres. What's the answer to that problem. It happens with monotonous regularity.


Since Hungerford, after which rifles were banned, and Dunblane, after which handguns were banned, we haven't had anything like that. It only happens in America, where guns are legal. Draw your own conclusions.


What about Norway last year? A gunman killed almost 100 people, considered the worse mass killing in modern history, and far worse than anything here in the US. And they have gun laws very similar to the UK. He was able to kill so many because no one was able to defend themselves.
quote=rocar7 quote=Bunko.T Well I put it to y'al... (show quote)


It was 77 people, only 8 of them in the bombing. Still horrible yes- and that's one point. In Norway is stunned the entire world. If it had happened in the US, people would have shrugged and said- "Oh. Another one. It was really bad this time."

Another point about that- would you really have expected teenagers at a camp- or their counsellors - to be carrying guns?

Incidentally, you may be interested in the report that just came out about the police response- and the bumbling in it, which could bolster your argument- assuming the kids had guns. Long guns. With scopes. And were not panicking under fire. And were good marksmen like Breivik was.

But these dramatic mass killing are usually perpetrated by super ideologues (World Trade Centre) or madmen (Norway). And such people will always find a weapon. It becomes their raison d'etre. What about the (stated) 30,000 people killed by guns in the US, that his link claims? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_get_shot_by_guns_each_day_in_the_US

Unfortunately I don't have time to research the veracity and I swore I wasn't going to hurl URLs around so, having broken my worrd, I'll bow out.
quote=dtcracer quote=rocar7 quote=Bunko.T Well ... (show quote)


The only thing in your statement I can really disagree with is that in the US we would have just shrugged, and said "Oh. Another one. It was really bad this time."
Every time one of these incidents happen it is appalling, even to US citizens. It is not something we get numb to, or used to.
Go to
Aug 17, 2012 16:07:46   #
rocar7 wrote:
Bunko.T wrote:
Well I put it to y'all. Let's get back to the Cinemas Schools & Temples massacres. What's the answer to that problem. It happens with monotonous regularity.


Since Hungerford, after which rifles were banned, and Dunblane, after which handguns were banned, we haven't had anything like that. It only happens in America, where guns are legal. Draw your own conclusions.


What about Norway last year? A gunman killed almost 100 people, considered the worse mass killing in modern history, and far worse than anything here in the US. And they have gun laws very similar to the UK. He was able to kill so many because no one was able to defend themselves.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 40 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.