timesjoke

Good thing my understanding does not require you to be sure, lol. The writer did a pretty good job on delivering a possible source of Obama's brand of anti-colonialist mindset, but as I already said, my point concerning how it is used today in the progressive/liberla agenda is not based on any specific story and most definately is not based on Newt's parroting this guys words. You went all out trying to claim I get this from Newt, but Newt got it from D'Souza so what is your point? I didn't even know about Newt's comments about D'Souza until today, but yes I did see the Forbes story. But.....D'Souza is also not the first person to draw connections to anti-colonialist beliefs and the modern progressive movement. You ever read his posts? See his constant attacks on those with power of any sort? Wez attacks all use of the military and all "abuse" from big companies, Wez is the very definition of the modern liberal/anti-colonialist, they see the "rich" as evil and their gaining their success/money by stealing it from the little guys. As I already pointed out, even wiki describes modern anti-colonialist as including monetary power as the same thing as military power, just like Wez and the rest of the progressives do, Newt and D'Souza are not breaking any new ground with these comments.

Like you would ever ban yourself, your such a child sometimes. Being as the progressives who voted this thing into law without ever reading it don't care, why do you? Blind trust in your chosen messiah? There is not a single line in that monster that openly says there will be a 'death panel' but it does say there will be panels who will oversee medical treatments. It is not the rules that will directly ration care, it is the people using the new rules that will do that, people like Donald Berwick who has already said there must be rationed care. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, he told an interviewer according to the Associated Press. "The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." ~ Donald Berwick So now you admit it was a tax break, that is a good start, now can you try answering the actual question as to what this tax break special deal for Unions did to help all Americans? Why was it part of Obama's healchare reform plan? You have clearly lost your mind. New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that a majority of American union members now work for the government. The pattern of unions adding members in government while losing members in the private sector accelerated during the recession. The typical union member now works in the Post Office, not on the assembly line. … The BLS’s annual report on union membership shows the labor movement’s decline in membership continued in 2009. While a full 23.0 percent of Americans belonged to labor unions in 1980, by 2008 only 12.4 percent did. In 2009, that figure dropped slightly to 12.3 percent.[2] There are now 15.3 million union members in the United States, 770,000 fewer than in 2008. … What is newsworthy, however, is another figure reported by the BLS: 52 percent of all union members work for the federal or state and local governments, a sharp increase from the 49 percent in 2008. A majority of American union members are now employed by the government; three times more union members now work in the Post Office than in the auto industry. Union funds go to liberal political figures way more than conservatives, you may see a few RINO's get some funds, not true conservatives. Right, so why did you try to say Obama didn't make this sweetheart deal for Unions first? While I do know exactly what socialism is, what is really the difference? This is America, we have our own political system and don't need to know what Marx's work was all about for us to see that what is happening today is not what our founding father's had in mind. All except the few Democrats who truly are 'blue dogs' are progressives in one form or another. I look at voting records, nothing else and every person who voted for the healthcare bill as written is definately a progressive. Well you did still dodge the question, I never asked you if this was a tax break or not, I was the one asking you "why" Obama gave the Unions the tax break and what that massive back room deal did to help the average American? So tell me Bender, how did Obama help America by giving Liberal Union leaders/his campaign supporters a sweet exclusion to healthcare taxes everyone else not in a Union must pay?

Lol, well I was not sure of exactly what quote IWS was talking about but I took it on faith Newt did say these things but he had to get them from someone else, and as scary as it is, I looked it up and guess what, I was right again, it is almost scary how good I am, lol. It turns out Newt was responding to an article by Dinesh D'Souza with Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html Dinesh D'Souza makes some good points about Obama's specific form of anti-colonialism but unless he had the support of like minded individuals his attempts to attack anti-colonialism here in America would not work now would it? My comments about anti-colonialism has nothing to do with just Obama, he is certainly a big part today but the mindset to view "the rich" as evil and going after them as gaining their wealth by taking advantage of the "poor" has been around for a lot longer than Obama in his political career.

The progressive crutch, bury your head in the sand and pretend things don't exist just because you have forced yourself not to see it. Hugo showed you a great example and in the new bill there are advisory boards and incentive measures in place to control what services will be done and those that will not, I know you have the ability to understand the sticks and carrots example, your just choosing not to for the sake of defending the undefendable. Bender, how about you answer my question instead of dodging it over and over again, we both know Obama included a special exclusion for all Unions to escape the big new taxes on their insurance policies that 95% of Americans are subject to. How exactly did that gift to the Unuions help America? Or was that a payoff to the Unions for their political support? This is a great healthcare bill question but you have dodged it like 12 times now, why is this question so painful you refuse to answer it?

I agree, I do not believe Obama has any true religious feeling of a Deity, but he does believe in a "Higher Power" of Government. Only the Government can protect the little guy from the all powerful and evil "Rich".

Is that like calling shotgun so you don't have to ride b!tch with your buddies in the pickup truck? You kill me sometimes on how you spend most of your energy always trying to pick apart anything I say, did you take my post to a therapist this time too? Are you so self-deluded that you think Newt was the originator of that point? Really? Go back and read what I posted about some recent books I had been reading, I already admitted my views on this was changed by some reading I had been doing, obviously Newt had read some of the same stuff I had, but whoever started discussing it, that does not change if the concept is good or bad now does it. Stop concentrating on me and try to actually look at the information offered instead and if I am wrong then fine, tell me how the idea is flawed instead of ignoring the points over, and over, and over. It seems to me it was you who did not understand Newt's point so you think nobody else can understand it. Hell, I just looked it up on Wiki and they show the same modern view of how money might is seen as the same as military might. Force applied with money instead of a gun. Again, I already admitted to reading some books that helped me to understand how their mindset had evolved to see the power of wealth to be the same as military might, have you never learned something new from books before Joe? And by the way, the only reason I switched to using 'progressive' on this board and not the other boards I post on was purely because of Bender. Bender tried to paint being progressive as not being liberal, he said many times progressives were one or two policies from being a Libertarian and I started trying to pin him down on a few of those things and as usual he dodged everything. There is no meaningful difference in liberals and progressives as they operate in America so I simply switched terms to make a point with Bender. I also posted where progressive=liberal=socialist a few times as well. This forum out of all forums should know by now I don't jump on bandwagons like everyone else here does, you even joined at the jungle just to go there and jump me. Hell, you even went out of your way to flame me about my poems, so your just as much a bandwagon follower as Wez or anyone else. And just to let you know, I don't really see Newt as that great of a conservative, you have any idea how many times that man voted for raising the debt? Just because you see his words as a reason to fawn, don't expect me to. Do you even read what is posted? Do you love Newt so much you see his words even though he actually stole the idea from someone else? Try again, read more slowly this time. The modern view of anti-colonialism is to equate financial might to be the exact same thing as military might. Remember how even Bender talked about the evil insurance companies and such? Big companies making lots of money is in their minds colonialism or imperialism, they hate the "power" these people and companies have while they "stole" their success and money from the little guy.

I loved this guy, and he is dead on, the people whispering in Obama's ear are all living in their own private fantacy world where even if stuff is severely damaged, they are insulated from that damage so why should they care? The last bit was the best and what I am always talking about, while these "evil rich" guys are making their money, they are at the same time employing a lot of people. While some will complain giving these "evil rich" guys a tax break could cost some money I also point out that the masses they employ also pay taxes and while they are employed your not paying tax money to support them either, and thoat employed masses are out there spending money, and money circulating is something else that the Government gets tax money from.

I do, but not sure you do. Being anti-colonialism, is a good thing. Just like the word "liberal" can have many meanings depending on where your standing in the world and what time period your discussing using that term (liberal in America was something very different not that long ago) being anti-colonialism in the modern world in the majority of European and American circles is a description of how these people view those who operate the majority of the wealth. The original concept was one against military might but it has evolved in modern times to consider economic might to be seen as the exact same things as military might. Several new books have come out recently to explain that most of the modern movements that some consider to be socialist in design are actually more closely related to anti-colonialism in their execution and attitudes. Of course the original usage fits how the progressives saw our involvement in places like Iraq as well. Put short, the modern concept of economic might being seen as the same as military might allows those who hold these beliefs to see any success by those with the economic might as actually stealing their success from the masses. That is why they seem to be socialist in many ways when they are out to punish the "rich".

Even if they did create a "new" job through the IRS, that is again not a private sector job, only private sector jobs help the economy and help create new tax dollars to pay for things the Government does.

No you inserted lies and dodged the direct question. How did Bush tell a lie if Clinton and all the progressives said the exact same thing based on the exact same intel long before Bush ever took office?

Well said.

You refused to answer the questions first Wez, lol. So you admit with all this crap that you were wrong and being as you can't prove that Bush ever lied about anything, now you want to redirect attention away from the fact you once again shot your mouth off about something you knew nothing about just to be hateful and support the progressive agenda.

So Bush never told a lie and now your busy trying to cover up your failure to prove he did with your usual personal attacks and such, can't say I did not expect it.

So clearly there was no lie from Bush. Bush said exactly what Bill Clinton and the rest of the progressive leadership said before Bush took office, there was no lie unless that lie was planted by Bill Clinton and company. You don't understand the term IWS?

You decide: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/los-angeles-official-disappointed-city-used-stimulus-funds/ More than a year after Congress approved $800 billion in stimulus funds, the Los Angeles city controller has released a 40-page report on how the city spent its share, and the results are not living up to expectations. "I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million," said Wendy Greuel, the city's controller. "With our local unemployment rate over 12 percent we need to do a better job cutting red tape and putting Angelenos back to work." According to the audit, the Los Angeles Department of Public Works spent $70 million in stimulus funds -- in return, it created seven private sector jobs and saved seven workers from layoffs. Taxpayer cost per job: $1.5 million. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation created even fewer jobs per dollar, spending $40 million but netting just nine jobs. Taxpayer cost per job: $4.4 million. Greuel blamed the dismal numbers on several factors: 1. Bureaucratic red tape: Four highway projects did not even go out to bid until seven months after they were authorized. 2. Projects that were supposed to be competitively bid in the private sector went instead went to city workers. 3. Stimulus money was not properly tracked within departments 4. Both departments could not report the jobs created and retained in a timely fashion.. "I would say maybe in a grade, a B- in creating the jobs," Greuel told Fox News. "They have started to spend those dollars but it took seven months to get some of those contracts out. We think in the city that we should move quickly and not in the same usual bureaucratic ways." So 55 jobs cost $111 million dollars? Really? Why not just randomly give 222 people $500,000 each and let their natural spending of the money boost local business and job creation? I can't see how that would not have been any worse than only getting 55 jobs out of that %111 million myself.

Nice dancing from the question but no cigar. You have to prove either Bush or anyone else actually told a lie first. Based on all the facts and even Bill Clinton what Bush said was no more than what Bill Clinton already said. How can it be a lie if even Bill Clinton said the exact same thing Wez? And by the way, if a staff under you broke the rules and made an error because they went outside the rules and guidelines, no your not responsible. But you keep dodging the fact that it was Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, Harry Reid, all the progressive leadership who said Iraq had WMD;s "FIRST", long before Bush took office so stay on that fact and tell me why Bill Clinton was telling the lie? Are you trying to say Bill Clinton, Al Gore, all the progressives were just the puppets of Bush? Bush only repeated what she and Bill Clinton said, he was saying what they said based on the same intel, if there was a lie created and intel that was falsed to create the impression there were WMD's in Iraq then that had to be planted by Clinton and the progressives, not Bush, Bush only said what he saw based on the intel, intel already there long before he took office. Bill Clinton did toss a few missles here and there based on this info and he also said the exact same things Bush said so if there was any lie it was one created by Bill Clinton, not Bush. And yes you are a progressive, socialist, America hater, anti-colonialist. But you still dodge the point, the so called "LIE" existed before Bush took over, Bill Clinto and every progressive in power said that Iraq had WMD's before Bush took office so there is no possible way Bush could have lied. A lie would mean he knew a truth outside of the offered facts Wez, are you now saying Bush was smarter than Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives who all said the information available pointed to Iraq having WMD's so Bush should have come to a completely different conclusion than they did? The attack in Iraq was not about 9/11, please try to keep up. Unless you work a little harder on trying to stay on the facts I will simply ignore you, I really do try and give everyone a fair shake at conversation but you always seem more interested in fighting with someone than having a honest discussion so if that is all you want, I really see no point in paying attention to you. I know, I am most likely not doing the right thing in giving you chances to be reasonable, but I really believe all people can be reasonable if you can get them to look past their hate.

In story after story we see how the once magical and even worshiped one, Obama, is seeming to be in full free fall from favor even in his own party. I posted yesterday how many Democrats are already putting down his intent to increase taxes on those who create jobs and the long list of Democrats who have told Obama they don't want his help in their bids for re-election is so clear even CNN is starting to report on it, but today the first Democrat has broken with the President and has come out in support of repealling the massive health scam and is calling it for what it was: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/16/democrat-joins-house-gop-effort-repeal-health-care-law/ Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor has become the first Democratic co-sponsor of a Republican effort to repeal the health care law, joining 172 GOPers to call for a vote to end the legislation. Taylor, an 11-term lawmaker known as a Blue Dog for his fiscal moderation, issued a statement Thursday saying that he is joining the "discharge petition" proposed by Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23. "I didn't vote for it, people don't want it, and the taxpayers cannot afford it," Taylor said in a statement issued on his website. He told Fox News that he'd rather see Congress deny health insurance firms their antitrust law exemption -- something lawmakers have tried to do. "I want to see competition in insurance," Taylor said. If 218 lawmakers sign a discharge petition, it forces a bill to be brought to the House floor for a vote, although the majority leadership has maneuvers to avoid a vote. No House Republicans supported the bill and 31 Democrats opposed it at the time of the vote. Several Democrats are campaigning for re-election on their disapproval of the bill. However, even if the legislation gets 218 people to sign on, and it is approved in the House, and a like-minded bill passed the Senate, it's not likely President Obama would sign off on abolishing his hallmark legislation. But opponents of the law say it's important to get on the record in support of a repeal. I know a lot of you guys say you don't like Fox news but I did look on other news sites like CNN and guess what, not one word of this defection is on their sites so they are doing their usual coverup in service to their progressive roots and agenda but just like the ACORN story they refused to air, once the public starts to hear of this they will be forced to report it too. So what does all of this say, each piece all on it's own means nothing, there is give and take in all politics, but put together we start to see that the public is starting to admit that Obama is not the guy he pretended to be to get elected. The last thing most Democrats want right now is to be considered part of Obama's team. Even Bill Clinton is trying give Obama a hint, in a interview Bill Clinton said Obama needs to have a clear messaage and one of the things he must make clear is: Even Bill Clinton is saying we have to get the Government out of things and help the private sector, well what is the private sector? The private sector is the so called "rich" that Obama wants to punish.

Again, progressives and conspiracy nuts all support eash other with these kinds of false claims, but not one shread of hard proof to support their claim, take the nonesense Wez just posted, let's look at just one point made: First of all he tosses out the shock value big number of "532 separate occasions" but what does that really mean? Sure, he said over and over again the same things about the WMD's but how does the number of times it was said change if the information was an intentional lie or not? Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the progressives said the exact same things more than Bush but you don't see the author attacking them for saying that more than Bush said it. But where is the "BUSH" lie? The existence or not of WMD's was nothing Bush had any independent knowledge of. For it to be a "LIE" Bush would first have to know what he said was not true....right? Let's look it up: Lie = tell an untruth; pretend with intent to deceive Before Bush ever took office Bill Clinton and everyone else all said the exact same things Bush said so how is this a lie by Bush? Get past the progressive BS and actually look at what Bush said and how does the words Bush said differ from what Bill Clinton and the rest said when they had access to the same intel Bush saw? -------------------------------------------------- "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ From a letter by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry and many others on October 9, 1998 "(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" ~ National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998 "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." ~ Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998 ------------------------------------------ So I have a direct question for you Wez, let's see if you can answer it. If every high ranking Progressive who had access to the intel available all agree and openly say that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction before Bush ever took office, why is it a "Bush lie" if he says exactly what they said before him? Why is it other progressives like Nancy Pelosi who has her own access to the reports outside of what Bush does agrees with what Bush and Bill clinton said and agreed that the evidence clearly showed these things, again, how does that make what Bush said a lie? There is the biggest problem with almost every arguement you progressives make, your hold a clear and well defined double standard, Bill Clinton says there are WMD's and right or wrong, you will never say one word against him, but Bush says the exact same thing and suddenly everyone wants to claim he lied. The only way Bush could have lied is if everyone else to include the Prince of Progressives Al Gore had to also be in on that lie together, is that what your trying to claim Wez? That everyone worked together long before Bush ever took office to conspire to attack Iraq?

One of the few things I have seen you say that shows your paying attention Joker. Bravo.

Foaming at the mouth? Your such a child sometimes Builder, I was just screwing around with you two, you both decided to flame me when I said nothing to you and after I gave it back, then suddenly you tried to pretend to ignore me while I kept playing wiht you, I laughed so hard at you guys having to admit you can't compete with me I almost spotted. Reminds me of how you tried to play sex games with me talking about me buying nipple clams then after I replied you discovered you were out matched and tired another direction, you fail Builder, but your not alone, all progressives are just a tad off their rocker, you love to gather together and prop each other up but at the same time it is really you guys who believe stupid things like 9/11 being an inside job and taxing people to death will motivate them to invest in creating new jobs. But as they say, ignorance is bliss, and you guys seem very blissful

So you were wrong, you claimed the ban was already lifted and you said what IWS posted was a non story, how about just admitting you were wrong instead of trying to save face? And the outcome is not certain, the oil rigs are not going to just sit around waiting forever as round, after round, after round of new obsticles are tossed in their way by this Obama administration. The loan is to a company, not a specific form of drilling kid, this company (PEMEX) does a lot of deep water drilling and there is no reason to believe they will not be deep drilling with this loan. And again, this is more about how Obama is eliminating jobs here, while helping oil jobs get started someone else, the fact they will be drilling in the Gulf too is simply an interesting cherry on the top. We need more of our own oil, not set in place policies and actions that make us more dependent on foreign oil. Well as usual your not even keeping up with the conversation. Let's try this again, the Obama administration has blocked deep drilling because of his concernes for the "greater danger" of dealing with a spill at those deapths. Yes, spills do happen in shallow water, but they are easier to cap and deal with than the deep water drilling. Nothing in life is 100% safe, but if Obama is so concerned with the deep water drilling he can open up the shallow drilling industry instead and provide hundreds of thousands of American jobs and at the same time provide America with a much larger domestic oil supply that increases the security of this Nation. I would call that a win-win situation. I already told you then you ran around trying to gain some knowledge with last minute google searches and even your own links said the same thing I did: Your confusing getting a permit with getting oil as well, they have to get the permit then start the process of trying to get the oil, many permits result in no oil being harvested Joker. But look at this, 15 rigs are sitting around idle, we could have way more than 46 rigs but there is no reason to have more if the American Government will not approve permits to let them work so companies are out trying to get the oil where they are allowed to drill, and that is why we were deep drilling. It costs a lot more to deep drill, if America would let them they would gladly turn away from deep drilling and concentrate on shallow drilling instead. So as I said, there is an easy solution if this Administration wants to make it easier to shallow drill and it has a nice side effect of employing hundreds of thousands of Americans. Oh, all those workers will also be paying taxes, something the Government needs right now, lol.

So you on the personal attack kick now Bender because I again have you running away from questions you refuse to answer? That garbage Wez posted does not show where Bush lied about anything. Let me help you guys out a little being as it seems progressives don't understand how this whole thing would have to work: For Bush to have told a lie, he would need to have independent knowledge that Iraq not having weapons of mass destruction, from the time of the last weapons inspectors leaving Iraq (long before Bush being President) to the day we invaded, all of the information from the Clinton Administration to that day was consistent. Bill Clinton and every other Progressive politician who had full access to the same intel Bush later had all said the same things and everyone from Bill Clinton of old to his wife of the Bush time all agreed that this info showed the same things. So how could this be a lie? Unless.......it was a lie shared by everyone? Is that what your saying Bender? Do you believe the lie was started by Blill Clinton then everyone just went along with that lie and years later Bush decided to use that lie for his own purposes? While I don't think Bush did I can see that as the only logical way the invasion later could be based on a lie. So either everyone lied, or nobody lied, which one is it Bender? You can't have it both ways.

Okay, the usual hide your intentional dodging of a direct question with a lot of personal attacks has already been seen by you and every other progressive for many years now, but how about answering the actual question, that would a be a real change in your guys who always "claim" you are smarter than everyone else but when we try to get you down to the details, you refuse to talk about those details. So let's try this again. When Obama gave that sweetheart deal to all Unions to make them exempt to the new higher taxes on "Cadillac" plans used to actually pay for his big new entitlement, how did that move help all Americans? You are the guy calling people like me names and looking down your nose at me so do us a favor as the resident Progressive mastermind Bender, educate us as to why that was a great deal for all of America to give Unions this kind of monster break the majority of Americans cannot get? Anyone want to make a side bet Bender still will refuse to answer the question?

Check it out Bender: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/16/democrats.obama.taxes/index.html Looks like some Democrats are starting to understand this too.... "We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and make sound budget decisions. Providing this certainty will give small businesses, the backbone of our economic recovery, confidence and stability," It really is very basic logic, if you want the private sector to create jobs, you have to stop treating the private sector like the enemy.

And that is the one thing you will never see anyone ever try to do because they can't argue against it, at least not honestly.