Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
To begin with your claim that cap and trade is a scam is a false premise. The Democrats did almost solely rescue the country from a financial collapse brought on by the Republicans I agree with.
Try putting up a question that uses neutral language, but I know it easier to push your own agenda, I am guilty myself at times.
The democrats are almost solely responsible for the "cap and trade" and the bailouts is true. Forgive them for calling it a scam, it works reasonably well here, but it could use some improvements. I am happy that Amerika is accepting science again.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Here is just one of the quotes make by Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
Caves?, Not yet! But with Obama it won't be long, if we're lucky, if we're not, it'll be cardboard boxes!
The dems were in charge of congress, the banking committees were all controlled by the dems. The financial industry was the industry that crashed. The dems were busy stuffing their pockets with the special interests money, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks. When Dodd stuffed his pockets he didn't cover his tracks, well enough! and they trailed him to Ireland and his home away from home.
I've been through this with you before and found how you twist the words around to change the meaning or completely mis-quote the person. As you just did, change the subject, etc.
I didn't come here to be quizzed by you and yes, I am ignoring you because I've answered it before and you conveniently forgot it or you're just playing games, whatever, your on your own.
I did not change the subject, nor am I misquoting. When there are quote marks around something I am quoting it exactly. Don't say it, if you don't mean it. *sheesh*
I am pointing out to you that the people in charge of regulatory enforcement were NOT the house and senate banking committees. Therefore your claim that the "dems" were controlling the financial industry is fallacious.
I don't blame you for not wanting to answer, though. Your position is indefensible.
[3 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
>>You're just full of "what the Bull leaves behind"!<<
I made my statement and you decided to quietly ►change my words◄, ►answer your own thoughts◄ to my questions, ►change the subject◄ and ►mis-quote me!◄ time after time.I have to keep correcting you to what "I" said.
Just for the record I answered you again & again but you just keep changing the subject and asking new questions.
You can't answer the questions yourself so you need to ask them instead. I guess the "real" problem is the subject you're impossibly trying to defend like deep hole in a long trench.
Oh, I see. So you're telling us that a political candidate had more power than the President of the United States? Seriously? That's what you're telling us?
[4 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
If you had any knowledge of the stimulus, you would know Obama was elected but the time between the election & inauguration (Nov & Jan) was when Bush did the 1st bailout at Obama's request to help speed up the process. If Bush had refused it would have just been a delay.
[1 point]3 years ago by ncattReplyEdited 3 years ago by ncatt
You're being stupid again, the stimulus was signed after the election. McCann's "fix the problem" was before the stimulus and election.
2 different things, but as usual your changing the words around to suit yourself. Another liberal, lying to try and make his point. It was explained to you so even you could understand it but either you're intentionally lying or just being stupid.
In any case it's not worth continuing this with you when you can't understand or won't. You just go around & around & around no matter how many times it's explained to you. You keep changing the subject.
I'm not changing the subject. For crying out loud, do you even know what the words "changing the subject" mean? We're still discussing Bush and Obama and the stimulus are we not? *sheesh*
The POINT here is that IF (as you claim) Bush didn't make any stimulus decisions without consulting Obama, that is patently false.
Not me, nor have I forgotten that anything more then three pages and no pictures seems to be to hard to comprehend for the republicans. (See how easy it is to make stupid remarks)
You're under a false truth thinking the Republicans are the richest members of congress!
►Wrong◄ John Kerry is the richest next is
Jane Harman
Jay Rockefeller
Frank Lautenberg
Dianne Feinstein
Edward Kennedy
Claire McCaskill
Carolyn Maloney
and we mustn't forget Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Rodham Clinton
Now if you remember Jimmy Carter was instrumental in raising the interest rates and inflation to over 20%. He wasn't re-elected, Reagan was but congress decided to get involved and the Keating 5, 4 were dems. You may want to say only Republicans are bankers, not true but congress was more to blame then the banks.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
BO claimed he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250K. When asked to explain the massive tax increase caused by cap and trade their answer changes. BO meant he would not raise personnel income tax. Cap and trade is a pass thru tax.
Every time the government collects money, you don't think they keep some or all of it. Salaries, paperwork, transportation costs, etc. Do you honestly believe it goes from the left hand to the right and no one has a pocket handy?
Who else would get the money? Of course it is a tax. The whole concept is basically energy rationing. The government decides how much you should be using and if it is above the level they determine you will be hit with additional taxes.
Companies will continue to make money. Any increase in operating expenses wil be passed on directly to the consumer. When it becomes too expensive to operate in the US, companies will just move jobs over seas to a country that has no restrictions on pollution.
No it is not a tax, it is "free market environmentalism" but I have not seen the details on the U.S. plan.
A little information, in case you are interested -- A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
and sure it is an international problem and an international solution is needed. That is the reason why international agreements like the Kioto protocol are important. Some enforcement system will need to be put in place though.
I don't think they should be able to, what do you propose we do about it?
Nope, the U.S, was the largest polluter, surpassed by China (5 times the population) last year I believe. with the economic downturn it will be hard to say who is on top now, Canada per head of population pollutes more then the U.S. and they signed on to Kyoto.
You should be applauding his entrepreneurial spirit. Do you have something against capitalism? Why shouldn't he be allowed to make money? What are you... a socialist?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
He's a ►scam◄ artist not a "capitalist".
Nothing wrong with making money but to do it with scare tactics. Living in his 30 something room mansion, preaching conservation just to become rich. If you feel like contributing to his wealth, go for it, I could care less but don't expect me to voluntarily support him also. Capitalism works great until it is forced on you with lies or the government.
You may believe in socialism or a dictatorship by self proclaimed leaders that want to force their false ideas on us, using unproven or outright lies on the non believers. He's a scam, that's all!
Careful. Benny Hinn, Robert Schuller, Deepak Chopra and a whole lot of other people fit very nicely into your description. Contrary to your implications, nobody is forcing you to listen to or contribute to Al Gore.
Actually, no. I don't believe in socialism or a dictatorship by self proclaimed leaders. Well... I believe they exist of course, but i do not believe I would like to live under one.
The consumer pays ►EVERY◄ tax levied. You tax the phone company, trucking co.(tolls included), water, lights, local store or big chain, every tax is paid by the comsumer. You pay higher prices or get less service or product.
But if your the consumer you'll pay the tax.
[1 point]3 years ago by ncattReplyEdited 3 years ago by ncatt
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
The answer didn't change. When he said he would not raise taxes on people making less than $250k (that would "income," you see) he was talking about income ($250k), hence income taxes... you know... taxes on income (like the $250k). This is difficult for you to comprehend why?
He was talking about INCOME. You know the amount of money you make is called "income," right? So if he's talking about taxes as they relate to income, doesn't it make sense that he's talking about taxes on "income." Doh.
I know, I know. It's too much that I ask for logic to work in Limbaugh Land.
[3 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
How convenient for them!. It's also sad they can't get their facts straight. Like you say demon-crat control of congress and the mis-guided blame. The election fraud claim belongs to the dems, oil prices again the dems, the debt, etc.
√ = FoxNews is finally someplace to hear the ►TRUTH◄ and the other side of the story (which you'll never hear from CNN, msnbc or the networks). That's why they are hated so much by the libs, for reporting the truth and what they don't want you to hear, it the past it was always covered up! Not reported by the so-called mainstream press. They also want to stop talk radio for the same reason, to hush the opposition so they can run full throttle towards socialism. They want the American people to become zombies and just follow them down the path to destruction.
Wow... you mean those 6 1/2 years with repubs in control and they weren't able to accomplish anything? The whole financial meltdown was caused by "dems" in only the past year and a half? Good thing we voted those ineffective do-nothing "repubs" out of office, eh?
[5 points]3 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 3 years ago by plawler
The best government is a non-intrusive one. When you're as efficient at destroying a good working government as the dems are with the clowns they keep re-electing and then this administration fanaticism in controlling every working aspect of it, it doesn't take long. The repairs required for the damage this administration has caused will take years to repair, hopefully the damage won't be permanent and beyond hope.
[0 points]3 years ago by ncattReplyEdited 3 years ago by ncatt
Marked inappropriate, false premise.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyTo begin with your claim that cap and trade is a scam is a false premise. The Democrats did almost solely rescue the country from a financial collapse brought on by the Republicans I agree with.
Try putting up a question that uses neutral language, but I know it easier to push your own agenda, I am guilty myself at times.
The democrats are almost solely responsible for the "cap and trade" and the bailouts is true. Forgive them for calling it a scam, it works reasonably well here, but it could use some improvements. I am happy that Amerika is accepting science again.
I withdrew my "inappropriate mark", I ignored the word "scam" and voted "yes" Does that satisfy you?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Here is just one of the quotes make by Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
I've posted it several times so no one misses it.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplySure, but then again I try to back up my arguments.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplySure, maybe I should follow your example and make unsubstantiated statements instead.
Democrats are almost solely responsible for the bailouts? Have you been living in a cave?
Caves?, Not yet! But with Obama it won't be long, if we're lucky, if we're not, it'll be cardboard boxes!
The dems were in charge of congress, the banking committees were all controlled by the dems. The financial industry was the industry that crashed. The dems were busy stuffing their pockets with the special interests money, Chris Dodd and Barney Franks. When Dodd stuffed his pockets he didn't cover his tracks, well enough! and they trailed him to Ireland and his home away from home.
So who was it who proposed the bailouts again? Please be specific (and include party affiliation).
"The dems were in charge of congress, the banking committees were all controlled by the dems."
How quickly we forget.
1. All appointees (like the FTC, or the FED chair, or the FDIC or the SEC) were administration appointees.
2. The "dems" were only in control of Congress (and it was not filibuster proof control) for the last 1 1/2 years of the Bush Administration.
READ what I type, I said "banking committees", I also said Congress, the house and senate banking committees. You do know what they are?
Sure I know who they are. Here's a quick quiz for you. Who has regulatory authority over Wall St.? The SEC or "banking committees?"
I also notice you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the "dems" were only in control for the past 1.5 years, not the past 8.
I've been through this with you before and found how you twist the words around to change the meaning or completely mis-quote the person. As you just did, change the subject, etc.
I didn't come here to be quizzed by you and yes, I am ignoring you because I've answered it before and you conveniently forgot it or you're just playing games, whatever, your on your own.
I did not change the subject, nor am I misquoting. When there are quote marks around something I am quoting it exactly. Don't say it, if you don't mean it. *sheesh*
I am pointing out to you that the people in charge of regulatory enforcement were NOT the house and senate banking committees. Therefore your claim that the "dems" were controlling the financial industry is fallacious.
I don't blame you for not wanting to answer, though. Your position is indefensible.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
>>You're just full of "what the Bull leaves behind"!<<
I made my statement and you decided to quietly ►change my words◄, ►answer your own thoughts◄ to my questions, ►change the subject◄ and ►mis-quote me!◄ time after time.I have to keep correcting you to what "I" said.
Just for the record I answered you again & again but you just keep changing the subject and asking new questions.
You can't answer the questions yourself so you need to ask them instead. I guess the "real" problem is the subject you're impossibly trying to defend like deep hole in a long trench.
*yawn*
Bush started the bailouts with the approval of Obama, for he was consulted. It was in the fall before the election.
Oh, I see. So you're telling us that a political candidate had more power than the President of the United States? Seriously? That's what you're telling us?
If you had any knowledge of the stimulus, you would know Obama was elected but the time between the election & inauguration (Nov & Jan) was when Bush did the 1st bailout at Obama's request to help speed up the process. If Bush had refused it would have just been a delay.
Please read what he wrote. He wrote, "It was in the fall before the election."
So, he was off a month or so, you never make a mistake in a timeline, grow up and stop being a dork!
You knew exactly what he meant, just the date was off a little, it doesn't change the meaning in the comment.
I not playing these stupid games of yours!
Actually it totally changes it. It is the difference between him being the president elect or a candidate.
As I recall even John McCain announced that he would put his campaign on hold and go to Washington to "fix the problem."
You're being stupid again, the stimulus was signed after the election. McCann's "fix the problem" was before the stimulus and election.
2 different things, but as usual your changing the words around to suit yourself. Another liberal, lying to try and make his point. It was explained to you so even you could understand it but either you're intentionally lying or just being stupid.
In any case it's not worth continuing this with you when you can't understand or won't. You just go around & around & around no matter how many times it's explained to you. You keep changing the subject.
I'm not changing the subject. For crying out loud, do you even know what the words "changing the subject" mean? We're still discussing Bush and Obama and the stimulus are we not? *sheesh*
The POINT here is that IF (as you claim) Bush didn't make any stimulus decisions without consulting Obama, that is patently false.
Yeah, the Savings and Loan bailout of Republican bankers--no, wait, that was Bush One.
Oh, wait, the $700 billion mortgage bailout, no, wait... That was Bush Two.
Marked inappropriate for being untrue.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyLike lying?
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyLike hypocrisy?
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyBush only used half of that. He left the rest for BO spend.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyNot me, nor have I forgotten that anything more then three pages and no pictures seems to be to hard to comprehend for the republicans. (See how easy it is to make stupid remarks)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Prove it! Lets see some links! Need the facts! If that's not false you have to post links, We need proof!
Demon-crat are stupid though! Canadians aren't too bright either.
Sorry, This is personal!
►Yep, it's pretty easy!◄
Ok, thanks for the warning, I will keep this in mind.
Got my point?
It's very easy making stupid remarks, when the truth doesn't matter!
You're under a false truth thinking the Republicans are the richest members of congress!
►Wrong◄ John Kerry is the richest next is
Jane Harman
Jay Rockefeller
Frank Lautenberg
Dianne Feinstein
Edward Kennedy
Claire McCaskill
Carolyn Maloney
and we mustn't forget Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Rodham Clinton
Now if you remember Jimmy Carter was instrumental in raising the interest rates and inflation to over 20%. He wasn't re-elected, Reagan was but congress decided to get involved and the Keating 5, 4 were dems. You may want to say only Republicans are bankers, not true but congress was more to blame then the banks.
True, and completely off point.
I was making a point just like you off topic or not, no different then you.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
BO claimed he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250K. When asked to explain the massive tax increase caused by cap and trade their answer changes. BO meant he would not raise personnel income tax. Cap and trade is a pass thru tax.
Will the U.S. government get any of the money? If not it is not a tax and it is a commodity (pollution) that can be traded.
Every time the government collects money, you don't think they keep some or all of it. Salaries, paperwork, transportation costs, etc. Do you honestly believe it goes from the left hand to the right and no one has a pocket handy?
Who else would get the money? Of course it is a tax. The whole concept is basically energy rationing. The government decides how much you should be using and if it is above the level they determine you will be hit with additional taxes.
Companies will continue to make money. Any increase in operating expenses wil be passed on directly to the consumer. When it becomes too expensive to operate in the US, companies will just move jobs over seas to a country that has no restrictions on pollution.
No it is not a tax, it is "free market environmentalism" but I have not seen the details on the U.S. plan.
A little information, in case you are interested -- A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
and sure it is an international problem and an international solution is needed. That is the reason why international agreements like the Kioto protocol are important. Some enforcement system will need to be put in place though.
Your are not the only one who has not read any of this legislation. Most of Congress hasn't either.
Maybe you should tell them to go to work then.
It's going to cost every American family $3,000 on average.
Don't worry about "AlGore" though, he made $100 million pushing his "global warming" thing.
Could well be more, but should companies be able to pollute?
Should companies in India or China be able to pollute? Russia? Iran or Pakistan?
The Kyoto Protocol unfairly punished the U.S. It has to be equal to work or else we will no longer be competitive.
I don't think they should be able to, what do you propose we do about it?
Nope, the U.S, was the largest polluter, surpassed by China (5 times the population) last year I believe. with the economic downturn it will be hard to say who is on top now, Canada per head of population pollutes more then the U.S. and they signed on to Kyoto.
You should be applauding his entrepreneurial spirit. Do you have something against capitalism? Why shouldn't he be allowed to make money? What are you... a socialist?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
He's a ►scam◄ artist not a "capitalist".
Nothing wrong with making money but to do it with scare tactics. Living in his 30 something room mansion, preaching conservation just to become rich. If you feel like contributing to his wealth, go for it, I could care less but don't expect me to voluntarily support him also. Capitalism works great until it is forced on you with lies or the government.
You may believe in socialism or a dictatorship by self proclaimed leaders that want to force their false ideas on us, using unproven or outright lies on the non believers. He's a scam, that's all!
Careful. Benny Hinn, Robert Schuller, Deepak Chopra and a whole lot of other people fit very nicely into your description. Contrary to your implications, nobody is forcing you to listen to or contribute to Al Gore.
Actually, no. I don't believe in socialism or a dictatorship by self proclaimed leaders. Well... I believe they exist of course, but i do not believe I would like to live under one.
The consumer pays ►EVERY◄ tax levied. You tax the phone company, trucking co.(tolls included), water, lights, local store or big chain, every tax is paid by the comsumer. You pay higher prices or get less service or product.
But if your the consumer you'll pay the tax.
Well... there's something we can agree on. But it is not a direct tax "on" the consumer... which is, of course, what Obama was talking about.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
WRONG!
Obama said "no taxs". I just saw it again tonight(on video tape), I saw him say it while campaigning and again in a campaign commercial.
Already he's broken it with a cigarette tax increase.
Just ►another◄ broken Obama campaign promise.
"Every ►Tax◄ ever created is paid for by the consumer".
Here is just one of the quotes make by Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
The answer didn't change. When he said he would not raise taxes on people making less than $250k (that would "income," you see) he was talking about income ($250k), hence income taxes... you know... taxes on income (like the $250k). This is difficult for you to comprehend why?
He said he would not raise "TAXES" on anyone making less then $250,00, then $200,000, then $250,000 again (and then the VP said $150,000).
He said nothing about "income taxes". The dems are going to keep spinning it every which way they can.
It's just another lie! Not the 1st and it won't be the last.
He was talking about INCOME. You know the amount of money you make is called "income," right? So if he's talking about taxes as they relate to income, doesn't it make sense that he's talking about taxes on "income." Doh.
I know, I know. It's too much that I ask for logic to work in Limbaugh Land.
Here is just one of the quotes make by Obama
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase -- not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"
I'll repeat it for some of you if your a little hard-headed.
►"not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"◄
Let me tell you what I'll remember, for the rest of my life:
- 9/11 on Bush's watch
- Afghanistan War unfinished and foolishly managed by Bush
- Iraq War entered based on a fools gambit
- Lives lost for nothing
- Halliburton / KBR no-bid contracts
- War profiteering
- Billions in dollars and weapons unaccounted for
- Blackwater murders
- Enabling Iran to undermine Iraq
- Katrina
- FEMA
- Terrorist threat level - Orange!
- Dick Cheney's "so what" comment
- Dick Cheney's "fuck you" comment
- Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location"
- Dick Cheney
- Fox Hate News Network
- Economic collapse
- Epic failure of republicans over 8 years
- Continued moronic republican-speak since being tossed out
You missed a few.
- Ousting of a CIA agent.
- Wiretapping without warrants.
- Increase in income inequality.
- Doubling of the federal debt.
- Distortion of science.
- Firing of Federal prosecutors.
- Extraordinary rendition.
- Torture.
I got tired! :-)
There are lots more, some one else can chime in.
Remember:
- Home foreclosures
- Sky high oil prices due to Iraq War, in part
- Massive job losses and the recession, which started in Dec. 2007
- Trampling the U.S. Constitution
- Election fraud
Wow, what a stellar eight years. It is easy to see why they miss being in power.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
How convenient for them!. It's also sad they can't get their facts straight. Like you say demon-crat control of congress and the mis-guided blame. The election fraud claim belongs to the dems, oil prices again the dems, the debt, etc.
√ = FoxNews is finally someplace to hear the ►TRUTH◄ and the other side of the story (which you'll never hear from CNN, msnbc or the networks). That's why they are hated so much by the libs, for reporting the truth and what they don't want you to hear, it the past it was always covered up! Not reported by the so-called mainstream press. They also want to stop talk radio for the same reason, to hush the opposition so they can run full throttle towards socialism. They want the American people to become zombies and just follow them down the path to destruction.
Wow... you mean those 6 1/2 years with repubs in control and they weren't able to accomplish anything? The whole financial meltdown was caused by "dems" in only the past year and a half? Good thing we voted those ineffective do-nothing "repubs" out of office, eh?
The best government is a non-intrusive one. When you're as efficient at destroying a good working government as the dems are with the clowns they keep re-electing and then this administration fanaticism in controlling every working aspect of it, it doesn't take long. The repairs required for the damage this administration has caused will take years to repair, hopefully the damage won't be permanent and beyond hope.
So you want to explain the massive growth and doubling of the national debt under the Bush administration then? I'm dying to hear your explanation.
What? Bush didn't have a veto pen?
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyPrecisely when was that, Nutters? Please be specific in your answer, and please answer without quoting any Sean Hannity fabrications.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Don't waste your time, it's hopeless!