|
|
Post by denounced on Sept 23, 2010 11:01:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Sept 23, 2010 11:14:33 GMT -5
Im just wondering how is it that people expect a man (not God), a man to clean up the inherited mess AND the its consequences in LESS THAN FOUR YEARS!!!!!
We, the American people remind me sometimes of the Israelites and when they were set out of Egypt. The minute something was not going right they bitched and bitched and bitched...they gave Moses a hard time but he finally got them to the promise land...We are the most Bipolar group of people in history. No wonder our kids are so fcked up!
STOP THE BLOOD CLOT COMPLAINING AND HELP THIS MAN ACCOMPLISH THE AGENDA PROMISED BY VOTING IN NOVEMBER! A REPUBLICAN OVERHAUL DESTROYS THE AGENDA AND NULLIFIES YOUR ORIGINAL VOTE!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Sept 24, 2010 10:40:16 GMT -5
Our kids are messed up for a myriad of other reasons. I knew the old Obamessiah rhetoric would be used as an excuse, yet are you trying to equate him to Moses? LOL! Moses came to know His God, hopefully Obama will come to know that same God. I can easily say that he may have inherited a mess, he needs to stop the WHOA IS ME Complex he's been using for the past 2.5 years, which includes his campaign.
This has nothing to do with the Israelites, they were slaves. So to use your analogy, wow, it should make you think.
By the way, there's a vast difference between PROMISES and AGENDAS. You won't get that in a government mandated school.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Sept 24, 2010 11:36:20 GMT -5
Darlin D...why oh why do you INTENTIONALLY twist facts? Tricks are for FOOLS dude...
Listen, I never compared Obama to Moses. I compared our SITUATION to that of a SIMILAR SITUATION in HISTORY. This was not a person to person analogy....Reading is Fundamental...
What excuse did I make for Obama. I am just stating facts. He came into a messy house and is cleaning up the best way he can and with the help that he has. So while Ms. Velma has legitimate concerns, she and others need to remember that Rome wasn't built in a day and a messy government can not be cleaned up in a 2 years!! That is fact NOT an excuse.
When the israelites LEFT EGYPT they were no longer slaves...so um...huh?
Promises and Agenda? Where did I state they were the same? sigh....Denounce it seems that you NEED school because your Reading comprehension is on a pre-k level. Step up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Sept 27, 2010 11:10:02 GMT -5
I'm sure Velma is doing a lot better than a vast majority of those who are out of work. Not to mention, when she goes back to work, she will probably be in that upper 5% of Americans. Does she have a legitimate grips? Of course. Does she realistic expectations that she will find "adequate" work soon? Of course not! She's obviously an educated woman with a financial background so i'm sure she understands the economy and the limited power the public sector has over the job market without inplementing a large public jobs program. (which many are against because it's expensive)
So I was actually glad she spoke out. It showed that all kinds of people are hurting. I don't think Obama is "woe is me-ing". He just continues to point it out because it's true. American's have short memories. Our instant gratificaiton, hedonistic society just wants a lot of everything at low prices and they want it now.
We want a balanced budget and we want the government to cut spending but no one will be willing to cut benefits that affect them.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Sept 27, 2010 11:25:00 GMT -5
I'm sure Velma is doing a lot better than a vast majority of those who are out of work. Not to mention, when she goes back to work, she will probably be in that upper 5% of Americans. Does she have a legitimate grips? Of course. Does she realistic expectations that she will find "adequate" work soon? Of course not! She's obviously an educated woman with a financial background so i'm sure she understands the economy and the limited power the public sector has over the job market without inplementing a large public jobs program. (which many are against because it's expensive) So I was actually glad she spoke out. It showed that all kinds of people are hurting. I don't think Obama is "woe is me-ing". He just continues to point it out because it's true. American's have short memories. Our instant gratificaiton, hedonistic society just wants a lot of everything at low prices and they want it now. We want a balanced budget and we want the government to cut spending but no one will be willing to cut benefits that affect them. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Sept 27, 2010 12:29:14 GMT -5
I'm sure Velma is doing a lot better than a vast majority of those who are out of work. Not to mention, when she goes back to work, she will probably be in that upper 5% of Americans. Does she have a legitimate grips? Of course. Does she realistic expectations that she will find "adequate" work soon? Of course not! She's obviously an educated woman with a financial background so i'm sure she understands the economy and the limited power the public sector has over the job market without inplementing a large public jobs program. (which many are against because it's expensive) So I was actually glad she spoke out. It showed that all kinds of people are hurting. I don't think Obama is "woe is me-ing". He just continues to point it out because it's true. American's have short memories. Our instant gratificaiton, hedonistic society just wants a lot of everything at low prices and they want it now. We want a balanced budget and we want the government to cut spending but no one will be willing to cut benefits that affect them. Say that thrice so those in the balcony can hear you! |
|
|
|
Post by Chal™ on Sept 29, 2010 11:13:06 GMT -5
I'm sure Velma is doing a lot better than a vast majority of those who are out of work. Not to mention, when she goes back to work, she will probably be in that upper 5% of Americans. Does she have a legitimate grips? Of course. Does she realistic expectations that she will find "adequate" work soon? Of course not! She's obviously an educated woman with a financial background so i'm sure she understands the economy and the limited power the public sector has over the job market without inplementing a large public jobs program. (which many are against because it's expensive) So I was actually glad she spoke out. It showed that all kinds of people are hurting. I don't think Obama is "woe is me-ing". He just continues to point it out because it's true. American's have short memories. Our instant gratificaiton, hedonistic society just wants a lot of everything at low prices and they want it now.
We want a balanced budget and we want the government to cut spending but no one will be willing to cut benefits that affect them. 4 times for the folks outside!! |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Sept 30, 2010 15:16:54 GMT -5
I read it just fine MD.
I would rather have expensive prices than a ridicualous income tax. I would also like public schools to be able to vote on school prayer, the people in the town courthouse to put up the Ten Commandments if they so desire, etc. Money is one of the chief means of controlling people.
You want a blanced budget and so do I, but how one goes about doing it is a different story. Democrats want to call health care a right so they can make people fund it. Well it's not a Constitutional Right, nor is it a fundamental human right, and this country would be one of the greatest of hypocrites to say so.
Anyone in their right mind knows that universal health care cannot be funded. It's just another EMTITLEMENT along with the others that will trash the economy.
People on welfare should have to work. If people want the benefit, then they should have to work for it. Imagaine if the almost $300 Billion spent on welfare (including unemployment) were used to fund the workers needed to help the infrastructure problems. Obama wouldn't need the EXTRA $50 Billion he's asking for. It could already be included in the $300 Billion for those sitting on their tails and for those who are trying to find work.
Shoot, that's a whole lot of people that could be working to restore dams, bridges, the rail system, etc. and the government wouldn't have to cut an extra check. In 2005, the estimate for infrastructure costs was $1.6 trillion. So instead of it being welfare to work, it would be work for your welfare. Now these people may be paid by the government, but private industry would employ them WITH the money already alotted to those individuals by the Fed or State Government. In all honesty, $1.6 trillion dollars is what's spent on all entitlements every year. There is plenty of work that can be done. There's a lot of higways to be cleaned up. Instead of coming up with crafty inventions to use less manpower, let's put people who are not able to find work, and who are sitting on their lazy tails to have something to do. I could say more, but I will stop here for now.
Now mommyD, the one thing that Egypt understood was that the more backs you had working, the more you could get done.
The problem with government is all the rules they make people follow. Rules that are unnecessary, redundant, overbearing, etc. Only a few smart people understood what it really meant (THE AGENDA) behind the stimulus money, and chose not to take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Oct 1, 2010 13:25:03 GMT -5
I agree with you Denounced about able bodied welfare recipients having to work to received their benefits.
The reason we try to find innovative ways to use less manpower is because the biggest benefactor of government money is private business. The private sector wants the government to outsource everything. They don't really want the government to get completely out of the way....
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Oct 4, 2010 15:56:26 GMT -5
I agree; not completely, but if it were there more to enforce laws, it would help a great deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Oct 4, 2010 18:09:37 GMT -5
^^^ Are more laws needed or do current laws need to actually be enforced?
|
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Oct 7, 2010 13:45:18 GMT -5
We need enforcement and less government intervention in terms of trying to dictate "how" people should run their business. Planned Parenthood gets a cool $300 million from the government, and I do not see the gov't trying to tell them how to run their business.
I was talking to a lady who works at a certain company. After they accepted stimulus money, a whole new set of rules and regulations came with it. If a business is successful, and worthy of gov't money to generate jobs, then leave well enough alone.
An example of enforcement ans oposed to more laws is this Hate Crimes foolishness. Their are already laws against hate crimes. I have a very extended amount of rights to say and believe what I want, and this Hate Crimes legislation is trying to be a thought/free speech police. If I say that homosexuality is a sin, they want to criminalize that. Whatever!!!!!!!!!!
A perfect real time example is this lady in California who is an illegal alien/criminal trying to extort money from Meg Whitman. But it will be interesting to see how the law is enforced. She should be deported.
I am sure there are laws that can be taken off the books if one would take a careful look.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlackPrincess on Oct 7, 2010 14:08:59 GMT -5
We need enforcement and less government intervention in terms of trying to dictate "how" people should run their business. Planned Parenthood gets a cool $300 million from the government, and I do not see the gov't trying to tell them how to run their business. I was talking to a lady who works at a certain company. After they accepted stimulus money, a whole new set of rules and regulations came with it. If a business is successful, and worthy of gov't money to generate jobs, then leave well enough alone. An example of enforcement ans oposed to more laws is this Hate Crimes foolishness. Their are already laws against hate crimes. I have a very extended amount of rights to say and believe what I want, and this Hate Crimes legislation is trying to be a thought/free speech police. If I say that homosexuality is a sin, they want to criminalize that. Whatever!!!!!!!!!!A perfect real time example is this lady in California who is an illegal alien/criminal trying to extort money from Meg Whitman. But it will be interesting to see how the law is enforced. She should be deported. I am sure there are laws that can be taken off the books if one would take a careful look. Im focusing on the bolded statement! As I read it I said to myself "self, why do you always argue with Denounce, just leave him be". Well I do for the most part but then I think about the fact that this is the net and people read this stuff and walk away believing most of the stuff they read (most teens do...there was a survey and it stated that fact) anywho, if they are going to read this then I feel they should also be informed of opposing views as well. In this case its not necessarily opposing its just refuting ERRONEOUS statements. Denounce, Hate crime legislation has never has been a free-speech police. You are purposefully being misleading and that is irresponsible. As Lawrence O'Donnell says you are entitle to your opinion but not to your own facts Below is an excerpt of the federal hate crime law and some examples of what it is NOT...it specifically addresses what Denounce claims it is... www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm   |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Oct 7, 2010 14:38:15 GMT -5
We need enforcement and less government intervention in terms of trying to dictate "how" people should run their business. Planned Parenthood gets a cool $300 million from the government, and I do not see the gov't trying to tell them how to run their business. I was talking to a lady who works at a certain company. After they accepted stimulus money, a whole new set of rules and regulations came with it. If a business is successful, and worthy of gov't money to generate jobs, then leave well enough alone. An example of enforcement ans oposed to more laws is this Hate Crimes foolishness. Their are already laws against hate crimes. I have a very extended amount of rights to say and believe what I want, and this Hate Crimes legislation is trying to be a thought/free speech police. If I say that homosexuality is a sin, they want to criminalize that. Whatever!!!!!!!!!!A perfect real time example is this lady in California who is an illegal alien/criminal trying to extort money from Meg Whitman. But it will be interesting to see how the law is enforced. She should be deported. I am sure there are laws that can be taken off the books if one would take a careful look. Im focusing on the bolded statement! As I read it I said to myself "self, why do you always argue with Denounce, just leave him be". Well I do for the most part but then I think about the fact that this is the net and people read this stuff and walk away believing most of the stuff they read (most teens do...there was a survey and it stated that fact) anywho, if they are going to read this then I feel they should also be informed of opposing views as well. In this case its not necessarily opposing its just refuting ERRONEOUS statements. Denounce, Hate crime legislation has never has been a free-speech police. You are purposefully being misleading and that is irresponsible. As Lawrence O'Donnell says you are entitle to your opinion but not to your own facts Below is an excerpt of the federal hate crime law and some examples of what it is NOT...it specifically addresses what Denounce claims it is... www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat3.htm Actually Lawrence O'donnell's words are not his own, they are by an Unknown Author. You obviously didn;t understand what I meant by what's in ink and what the agenda is. That is why I used the word trying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the same link you provided, other countries do have issues with speech as it relates to a criminal offense. The agenda in this country is to make CERTAIN SPEECH a HATE CRIME. www.wnd.com/?pageId=86633The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a serious step forward to this agenda. "In Pennsylvania, a 75-year-old grandmother was threatened with prison for advocating a biblical perspective of homosexuality." www.wnd.com/?pageId=86215And this is how it has always been and starts; WITH A THREAT.................... |
|
|
|
Post by peppermint on Oct 8, 2010 3:13:47 GMT -5
Not trying to defend, per se, the exclusion of "gender identity" but if the law was written in 1994, was gender identity thrust into the mainstream yet? I know there were transgendered and transsexual individuals but was it as mainstream (for lack of a better word) than it is today?
The laws should be updated to reflect the current state of affairs though.
In regards to PP getting $300 mil. Part of that money is grant money. Anyone with experiences in grants realizes they are indeed being told what to do, at least for the grant portion of their funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Oct 11, 2010 11:20:34 GMT -5
We need enforcement and less government intervention in terms of trying to dictate "how" people should run their business. Planned Parenthood gets a cool $300 million from the government, and I do not see the gov't trying to tell them how to run their business. Really? You don't see ANY government regulation in the PP model? You didn't even look, did you? Enforcement means more officers hired by the government. Once we enforce laws and answer complaints we see where other, newer, more creative ways of skirting laws are being borne. From that, the public demands more laws to protect the public from these crooks and that means more restrictions. So 99.0% of all interference from government is led by or demanded by the public that eventually turns and complains about it. I was talking to a lady who works at a certain company. After they accepted stimulus money, a whole new set of rules and regulations came with it. If a business is successful, and worthy of gov't money to generate jobs, then leave well enough alone. We gave the banks money and didn't ask how they were spending it and folks had a hissy fit. Either we want accountability or not. If you are a successful business, why do you need government money? Many banks didn't receive government funds and are doing just fine. Why should businesses that receive public funds not be subject to some restrictions or regulations as a condition of accepting the money? Look, businesses aren't holding off on hiring because they need less regulations. They are holding off because there is no need to hire people right now. There is no demand for thier products!! Companies are sitting on mounds of cash right now and instead of hiring new people, they are repurchasing their stock. We need a kickstart. Companies aren't going to hire until there is demand and demand will not pick up until people are employeed. So we are at an impasse. The gas is in the reserve but we can't get it to the main tank to start the car.... ....someone has to suck the siphon. Government is the only entity that can make that big of an impact. A jobs program, as politically unfeasable as it is, is necessary. An example of enforcement ans oposed to more laws is this Hate Crimes foolishness. Their are already laws against hate crimes. I have a very extended amount of rights to say and believe what I want, and this Hate Crimes legislation is trying to be a thought/free speech police. If I say that homosexuality is a sin, they want to criminalize that. Whatever!!!!!!!!!! I would agree that it should never be a crime to express your opinion. If you want to scream that homosexuality is a sin from the rooftops of the tallest building in NYC then so-be-it! It's your right. We all have a right to be a pompus, judgemental, asshole. **smile** A perfect real time example is this lady in California who is an illegal alien/criminal trying to extort money from Meg Whitman. But it will be interesting to see how the law is enforced. She should be deported. And Meg Whitman should be convicted for the felony of knowingly and willingly harboring and hiring a person she "should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment." What about that aspect of the situation? She hired that lady because she was cheap. She's a multi billionaire...she couldn't hire Molly Maids? I am sure there are laws that can be taken off the books if one would take a careful look. There is no doubt about that but remember that most laws, regulations, procedures, etc...were put in place for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Oct 20, 2010 10:36:35 GMT -5
Not trying to defend, per se, the exclusion of "gender identity" but if the law was written in 1994, was gender identity thrust into the mainstream yet? I know there were transgendered and transsexual individuals but was it as mainstream (for lack of a better word) than it is today? The laws should be updated to reflect the current state of affairs though. In regards to PP getting $300 mil. Part of that money is grant money. Anyone with experiences in grants realizes they are indeed being told what to do, at least for the grant portion of their funds. They Actually get 300 million from the gov't, 300 Million from private donors, and 300+ million from abortions. They get grants from those who already agree with their agenda, so there are no regulations or laws enforced on thse clinics. Example: I am an undercover cop or better yet nurse at an abortion clinic. Girl comes to PP with parent and wants an abortion. How old are you? 14 How old is your boyfriend? 19 What's the daddy's name and address? Hit the Road, he lives next door? Is he the only guy? Yes Abortion clinics will not follow up on the law being broken here. |
|
|
|
Post by denounced on Oct 20, 2010 11:09:22 GMT -5
"Really? You don't see ANY government regulation in the PP model? You didn't even look, did you? Enforcement means more officers hired by the government. Once we enforce laws and answer complaints we see where other, newer, more creative ways of skirting laws are being borne. From that, the public demands more laws to protect the public from these crooks and that means more restrictions. So 99.0% of all interference from government is led by or demanded by the public that eventually turns and complains about it." CAM
Yes I have, but the point I am making is that the government itself is party to the abortion industry, get it?
"We gave the banks money and didn't ask how they were spending it and folks had a hissy fit. Either we want accountability or not. If you are a successful business, why do you need government money? Many banks didn't receive government funds and are doing just fine. Why should businesses that receive public funds not be subject to some restrictions or regulations as a condition of accepting the money? CAM
Because there are already laws in place to deal with financial malfeasance. This particular Admin. is placing undo regulation on individual's beliefs. DIVERSITY or Perversity is actually an infringement on their first amendment rights of what they so hotly claim, separation of church and state. Two girls got kicked out of college for refusing to change their personal Christian beliefs on homosexuality. The rules were revised by the APA to purposely exclude Christians from becoming counselors. This is what I mean by rules and regulations. Where's their FREE EXERCISE of religion?
"Look, businesses aren't holding off on hiring because they need less regulations. They are holding off because there is no need to hire people right now. There is no demand for thier products!! Companies are sitting on mounds of cash right now and instead of hiring new people, they are repurchasing their stock. We need a kickstart. Companies aren't going to hire until there is demand and demand will not pick up until people are employeed. So we are at an impasse. The gas is in the reserve but we can't get it to the main tank to start the car...." CAM
You believe that? If it's true, then what are they waiting for? You and I both know and have seen what this healthcare debacle is doing, what this stimulus is NOT doing, etc. The jumpstart has done anything. By the way, the reserve kicks in when the main tank runs out. Why should businesses start hiring when the government is firing as well. That money that went to teachers, didn't save their jobs? Why? Because the money didn't go to them? Where did it go Cam? Bottom line- Taxing for revenue has NEVER worked, but Free Enterprise systems unimpeded by useless government intervention has always been the "little train that could".
"....someone has to suck the siphon. Government is the only entity that can make that big of an impact. A jobs program, as politically unfeasable as it is, is necessary." CAM
So you want to suck on the governments teat? You really think that's how it's done? Go back to the founding fathers and show me where you find excessive income taxes. The impact is on us, not the elites. Nanci Pelosi, we have to pass it, before you can see what's in it.......... Are 90% of black voters that stupid? No need to answer, it's a RQ.
"I would agree that it should never be a crime to express your opinion. If you want to scream that homosexuality is a sin from the rooftops of the tallest building in NYC then so-be-it! It's your right. We all have a right to be a pompus, judgemental, asshole. **smile**" CAM
Truth is judgmental and love is what puts everything in its proper place. But love or no love, it doesn't change the truth.
"And Meg Whitman should be convicted for the felony of knowingly and willingly harboring and hiring a person she "should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment." What about that aspect of the situation? She hired that lady because she was cheap. She's a multi billionaire...she couldn't hire Molly Maids?" CAM
Innocent until proven guilty!!!!!!!!!!!
"There is no doubt about that but remember that most laws, regulations, procedures, etc...were put in place for a reason." CAM
Many laws would not be necessary, if you go back to our root for law, the U.S. Constitution. Abortion is an crime against another person. That baby in the womb has the same rights as its mother and father. Entitlements are not constitutional and neither is the Healthcare Law. If government would stop its socialistic attack on and against the free enterprise system, individuals and communities could do a great deal in helping those who are poor, unfortunate, and abandoned. But here is the goveernment again, sticking its unwanted hand into religious business by offering welfare entitlements. All they care about is your compliance, vote, word of mouth praise, but could care less how your kids are dressed, where they live, or go to school, as long as its a gov't run humanistic brainwashing mill.
|
|
