HogWild_101st
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
Events
Blogs
Everything posted by HogWild_101st
-
Video of Democrat VP nominee Joe Biden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArJkzRYffec&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/18/biden-low-taxes-are-unpatriotic/ He's wrong. It's called wealth redistribution. Overtaxing successful people only to give that money to those that are not. Not all rich people are saints. Not all poor people are noble. It's clearly an attempt to make a generation of people dependent on the government, and the money other people earned. Plus I have already shown how tight Senator Biden has been with his own money. But other people's money, he's more than happy to give it away.
-
Not necessary but accepted. You can question the sources, if you can prove a reputable news source is being misleading, even if it hurts my arguement I want to hear it, then I will choose what to believe. I always think the truth is the best course of action, even when it's painful. And I can't run for President, while certainly no criminal, I've got entirely too much dirt in my past...
-
OK, just one example, not looking them all up, and you weren't even speaking to "Bill O's right hand man" this time:
-
How long is this going to continue? You ask me a question. I answer. You imply stupidity, spinning, or I'm drinking Kool Aid (demeaning reference to being like the Rev. Jones people who blindly drank arsenic laced Kool Aid to commit mass suicide in Guiena) in response to my answer. Don't like what I'm saying? Then post a counter arguement using a reputable news source like I have been doing. Let people look at both sides of the issue and let them decide what they choose to believe. What's wrong with that? Can't you make your point without trying to make others out as ill informed, stupid, or worse?
-
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/substance_abuse.html At the time of this fact check, 129 bills and only two of them signed into law.
-
I don't think the American people are stupid at all. I think they are smart enough to think and decide for themselves. I think that when they see Speaker of the House Pelosi deny that no Democrat whatsoever had any failings where the economy is concerned, they can decide for themselves if they believe her or not. I think when the Senate Majority leader Democrat Senator Harry Ried from Nevada say's today about the economy "no one know's what to do" but obviously he knows who to blame. People can decide for themselves if they believe him or not. I'm not the one saying the candidate I obviously am supporting is perfect. I'm not the one telling people how they should think. That's you my friend. I'm only making the viewership informed of information that they might not be previously aware of. It's called free speech, the last time I read the Constitution this was a free country.
-
Dude, those are all letters and statements. Not accomplishments.
-
During the Saddleback Forum, Obama said that biggest moral failure of his lifetime was the lack of generousity of the United States. Which in it's self is a bogus remark, the US is the most charitable country on the planet, and among industrialized nations as much as 21% more generous than other countries, as a government and per private donations from it's citizens. Since Senator Obama has decided to make "charity" an issue, let's take a look at the charitable gifts give by a few people. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/charitable-gifts-by-politicians-add-up-for-some/ First up, those evil Bush's and Cheney's: President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush donated over $165,000 in 2007. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, have donated close to $8 million while he has been in office. What about the Clinton's: As far as other politicians go, tax returns show that Bill and Hillary Clinton gave more than $10.2 million to charity over the past seven years. What about that poor guy Senator Kerry who had the last election stolen from him: Democrat John Kerry, who ran in 2004, sometimes did not claim any charitable contributions in the 1990s despite having a six-figure income, although he did report nearly $44,000 in contributions on earnings of nearly $400,000 in 2003, the year before his unsuccessful White House bid. Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is thought to be worth at least half a billion dollars. She files her tax returns separately, and the Kerry campaign never released her tax returns. Amost done, only two left, next up is fiesty VP Nominee Senator Joe Biden, the right man at the right time, or so they say: Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden has come under criticism in recent weeks for his charitable giving — or, more specifically, the lack of it. The Delaware senator and his wife, Jill, showed annual earnings of more than $200,000 and sometimes $300,000 between 1998 and 2007. And they gave relatively very little of it away. In 2007, their most generous year, the Bidens gave $995 to charity. In 1999, their charitable donations added up to $120. Wow. I bet if I shoved a lump of coal up his ass I would have a diamond in a week, because that's tight right there. And finally, the rock star Senator Obama and his wife: A check of Obama’s giving reveals a wide range of interests. According to figures released by his campaign — Obama has released his tax returns dating back to 2000 — Obama and his wife, Michelle, who earned a total of $4.2 million in income in 2007, donated $240,000 to charity that year. So, after publicly and more importantly wrongly criticizing America for it's lack of charitable spirit, Senator Obama has seen fit to only give less than 5% of his income to charity. Submitted for your consideration as to one's words compared to one's deeds.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-16-biden-lobbyist_N.htm WASHINGTON — As Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama targets his Republican rival Sen. John McCain for hiring former lobbyists to work on his campaign, a key member of Obama's campaign is paying a Washington lobbyist for legal advice: his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden. You can read the whole article for yourselves. I think ^^^^^ that sum's it up pretty well.
-
Let me help Red out, not a statement, just one question. What has Barrack Obama ever accomplished as a community organizer or politician?
-
And how does that affect the American people and their troubles? I mean, if talking about the US military is a distraction or not a priority (not my words, someone else's) to the American people at this time, don't tell me that the UFC is a concern. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKqHFk-3yQM&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mafpac-ad-hits-obama-on-iraq-interference/
-
Change you can make up as you go.... http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-inflates.html Obama Inflates Role in Creation of Stimulus Package September 16, 2008 7:04 PM In Golden, Colo., today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., took credit for the stimulus package that passed earlier this year. "In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy," Obama said, "which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress." Is that true? Democrats on Capitol Hill who support Obama say no. Wanting Obama to win, however, none will say so on the record. Moreover, Obama today was guilty of inflating his role in the creation of that bill.
-
Well, if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi say's it's so.... http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-dems-bear-no-responsibility-for-economic-crisis-2008-09-16.html House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.†Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement†of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation. “I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,†Pelosi told MSNBC. When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility†regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.†Taken in light of my previous post about Democrats blocking more regulation 5 years ago. Make up your own mind.
-
I am going to change my trajectory a bit here. Believe me, I love the back and forth bantering on political stances more than I probably should, but I got away from why I started in this thread in the first place. And that was to inform those interested of something they may not have been previously aware of. So let me get back to that. The current theme of this thread is the economy is all President Bush's fault. I submit the following for your consideration, a New York Times article from 5 years ago, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were part of the subject of this news report: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws. After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall. (Just a note, Oxley and Shelby are Republicans) Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'' Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said. I only pulled out the pertinent and interesting part of the article, I invite all to read the whole article for themselves and make up their own mind. The truth remains, President Bush's administration saw that Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac were in trouble and tried to give more oversight, something Obama and McCain are saying they will do if elected. But President Bush was blocked by Senate and House Democrats and nothing got done. So who's fault was Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac's collapse? Make up your own mind.
-
Why not, you have. You said right here in this thread the Clinton admin had nothing to do with the lead up to the 9-11 attacks, that he had no responsibility with it at all. As a point of fact, according to you, Democrats make no mistakes at all.... evah. High gas prices, economy, bad bank loans, corrupt CEO's, world view of the US. All the fault of the republicans. Sounds like "responsibility" is only a republican burden to bear. Hog, you're fixing to make me write a post longer than anything Goat himself could imagine...along with taking a whoopin, because republicans have consistently been the LARGER problem. The Dems aren't innocent for the way this country is, but more than a majority of the weight of what is wrong, sits on the shoulders of the GOP. Take your best shot. I've never given the pretense that the republicans are perfect, they are far from it, that's why the lost the House and Senate majorities in the last election. They got drunk with power and forgot they were the party of ficscal conservative and was spending money like a liberal. But the fact remains that the Democratically controlled Congress has the LOWEST APPROVAL RATININGS in the history of approval ratings, but according to a few here, don't seem to have any legislative power or oversight at all. The Democrat Congress didn't seem to have a clue about what was happening to the economy BUT THEY CAN INVESTIGATE THE HELL OUT OF STEROIDS IN BASEBALL. A story broke yesterday by a reputable news source, alleging Obama has attempted conduct illegal foriegn policy in Iraq, undermining a sitting US President in an attempt to gain a political advantage. But here in the forum Obama has recieved praise for possibly doing such a thing. If this is proven true against Obama, it's a violation of the Logan Act which is a felony. I'm willing to let everyone decide for themselves if it's something worth considering when they vote. So roll it out Deutscher. Explain how everything is President Bush's fault and the Democrats were helpless from 2000 to 2006 to do anything. Since 2006 they have had majorities in the House and Senate, but somehow are still helpless and unable to accomplish anything and now have a 9% approval rating from the US citizens.
-
Why not, you have. You said right here in this thread the Clinton admin had nothing to do with the lead up to the 9-11 attacks, that he had no responsibility with it at all. As a point of fact, according to you, Democrats make no mistakes at all.... evah. High gas prices, economy, bad bank loans, corrupt CEO's, world view of the US. All the fault of the republicans. Sounds like "responsibility" is only a republican burden to bear.
-
Gasoline prices are hurting American's, correct? http://hamptonroads.com/2008/09/democrats-offshore-drilling-plan-would-give-states-nothing Even as House Democratic leaders handed Republicans a symbolic victory this week in their long fight for new offshore oil development, critics charged that the fine print in the plan probably will continue to keep drillers out of the Atlantic. While lifting a 25-year federal ban on most offshore oil and natural gas drilling, the legislation would block Virginia and other coastal states from sharing in a $2.6 trillion bonanza of tax revenue expected to flow from offshore fields. A Senate bill still in the works would give states part of the money. Unless states stand to profit from offshore development, they almost surely would exercise their right under the bill to block any drilling within 100 miles of their shores, critics of the House initiative charged. "With no financial incentive, no state will choose to 'opt in,' " House Republican leader John A. Boehner of Ohio told reporters, "and this bill will result in little or no new American energy production." Read the whole article, very interesting.
-
LOL. Why should I admit anything? You haven't. But yea, the Bush economy isn't doing well. I guess it's the President's fault that banks loaned money to people that they shouldn't have or people bought homes they can't afford? It's not the Republican's hamstringing American industry over global warming fears. It wasn't a Republican that came up with NAFTA either. The economy goes up and down. It's not the fault of the government that private businesses go out of business because they ran their company like a bunch of idiots. Besides, no one has mentioned that the stock market reached record high's during the Bush years, so we can give him credit for that since what's going on now is all his fault? And yes, I am making more than I did 8 years ago. Much more. I keep doing a good job and I keep getting promoted to higher positions, wierd how that works isn't it?
-
WarPig, the SOFA protects our servicemembers from being prosecuted in forgien countries unjustly, and states specifically under what circumstances they can be prosecuted. So you want to leave that decision up to the likes of Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha?
-
Check this out: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm "WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence. According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July. "He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview. Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion." Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate. While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined. Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America. Everyone take a good hard look, read the entire article, I just highlighted the really interesting stuff. A US Senator and Democratic Presidential Nominee for President is actively working to undermine the current President on foriegn relations. Plus, and this is a biggie for those who serve in the military, and I know we have a few that will see this. As Commander in Chief and President of the US, Obama wants to hand over the Status Of Forces Agreement to Congress. Yes, the same Congress that has a 9% approval rating. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried in charge of SOFA's while they remain in office. The fact Obama intends to do this is simply inexperience showing it's self in bold neon colors.
-
I'm suprised it's that close, Obama has the 18 to 30 year old voting block locked up, just like most Democrats usually do, and while I am just guessing, I would say a majority of the viewership of this forums falls into that age block. I'm not implying anything by that, I was 18 to 30 myself once, and I had a heck of a good time while I was there too. It's just a statistcal fact, and for this election looking at the poll numbers a fact now as well, young people leaning Democrat. So about 100 votes cast here and McCain is down by only 6, yes that is suprising to me. Plus, once you vote on the forums, you can't change your vote. How many learned something that they weren't previously aware of that may cause them to do a little more investigating and possibly change their mind? What will they learn in the next 50 days? What happens when Chicken Little... uh er I mean Obama finally has to face McCain in a debate?
-
Yes WarPig, I really do believe Obama is afraid. Afraid to let the independents in this country know where he really stands on things, because when they find out, they aren't going to vote for Obama, at least that's my informed opinion.
-
No reason to get upset. I'm not upset. You asked me to provide proof that Obama declared he would debate McCain "anytime, anywhere", and I did, since my word wasn't good enough. Instead of admitting that I was right and you were wrong, I get that ^^^^^ (quoted). Bush is not doing what Obama suggested, earlier I called Obama's plan "withdrawl" but really it's a surrender to al Queda. The end game was always to have a secure Iraq that could defend it's self before leaving. It's happening, that is what's going on, and I for one am thrilled about it. But McCain won't set a deadline, he will finish and then leave, so that we never have to go back and finish at a later date. So what's it going to be WarPig, you going admit that Obama is a liar or at the very least admit Obama is afraid to debate McCain? Or sacrifice your integrity to make a political point?
-
Listen to what he said, not what you think he said, but what he said. "Maintain a presence" is not fighting a war as Obama has quoted him as saying.
-
OK WarPig, since my word doesn't seem to be enough: Is that enough, or did the Republican's force him to say that?