OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mongooz said:
yea.....i voted for obama for many of the same reasons. to vote against the GW machine, to vote against Billary and to be honest (not racist) but to have the first (seemingly sensible) black man as president. turns out he was a pretty darn good actor during the campaign, also.
Click to expand...
I never voted for Obama.

I will give Obama credit for proving what we all knew all along: someone can be president regardless of skin color. Nobody was talking about the fact that Ben Carson is black in the early primaries - that was refreshing and I give Obama credit for that. The bridge has been crossed and like him or not (I don't), Obama made that journey.

People are talking about Trump being orange and having bad hair though so perhaps there is still work to be done.
 
Tig said:
He talks about 9/11, but calls it 7-Eleven. :facepalm:

OMG, they were behind it the whole time?! :embarrassed:
7-eleven-murder.jpg
Click to expand...

it all started when they started pushing those plastic skateboards to kids in the 70's, along with Slurpees. Anarchy ensued.


sl6jAoU2Y-0gimZIiy9UNA.jpg

Mine looked like this. (Jaws edition). Mine had a clear wheels.
 
Last edited:
what's there to think about? they are right. NONE of the candidates are good for america, and ALL of them have agendas that would NOT be good for america or our economy or our ecology.

the problem is: who, then, DO we vote for?

i don't know that i agree completely with their assessment of Kasich. i don't think he would be another term for Dubuya. firstly, Kasich is not THAT stupid. and seondly, Kasich would not have Rumsfeld and Chenny contantly in his ear pushing for war.

as much as i hate clinton, she would be a far cry better than Cruz or Trump. Cruz has actually said (in church and to others) that he has received word FROM GOD to become president and TURN AMERICA INTO A THEOCRACY FOR THE LORD.
not joking. NO SERIOUSLY NOT JOKING!!!

Trump would end up getting us into wars all over, cuz...you know.....the rest of the world has rigged everything and it's not fair that he doesn't get his way.

my three cents.
 
I often wish “none of the above” were an option. Literally allow no confidence votes for the election itself. If “none of the above” wins, hold a new election and bar all previous participants from running for that office until the next term.
 
jp_nyc said:
I often wish “none of the above” were an option. Literally allow no confidence votes for the election itself. If “none of the above” wins, hold a new election and bar all previous participants from running for that office until the next term.
Click to expand...
^^^^^ EXACTLY!!!
(sadly....i've been supporting this idea since the 80's)
 
GDSmithTX said:
I have to take issue with that characterization. Who were the sponsors of that bill? Phil Gramm (spit!), Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley: R's all.

Clinton didn't initiate that bill, didn't vote for the bill. He signed it after it passed both houses by veto-proof majorities.

He didn't start the deregulation.
Click to expand...

true, but he did sign it because he knew he was gonna jump in on the deregulation and make a killing in the markets.
if he truely was against it, he would have vetoed it and MADE congress pass it above him. then he could honestly say " i tried to stop them". he was for the deregulation as much as the GOP, cuz he knew he was going to take advantage of it.

it's the same with hillary screaming about taking down wall street.....she's so far into the market that the street lights can't be seen.
 
GDSmithTX said:
I have to take issue with that characterization. Who were the sponsors of that bill? Phil Gramm (spit!), Jim Leach, and Thomas Bliley: R's all.

Clinton didn't initiate that bill, didn't vote for the bill. He signed it after it passed both houses by veto-proof majorities.

He didn't start the deregulation.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a veto proof majority. Anything can happen when you make Congress vote again.
 
jp_nyc said:
I often wish “none of the above” were an option. Literally allow no confidence votes for the election itself. If “none of the above” wins, hold a new election and bar all previous participants from running for that office until the next term.
Click to expand...

Takes me back to 1982 and my favorite home grown hard core punk band.
71tdUQvQHaL._SX522_.jpg
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-4-19_12-45-38.jpeg
    upload_2016-4-19_12-45-38.jpeg
    9.7 KB · Views: 12
GDSmithTX said:
600px-Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Vote_1999.png


It was veto-proof, after the Dems had extracted what concessions they could out of the majority Republican Congress.
Click to expand...

It's not veto proof until you veto the bill, make Congress vote again, and they overturn it. The truth is, Clinton made the deal he wanted and signed it willingly. That makes him as culpable for deregulation as the Republican Congress.
 
GDSmithTX said:
Huh? I mean that sincerely.
Click to expand...
the clinton's have made tens of millions from wallstreet. they've always been about the money more than the DNC platform. look at whitewater, rose law firm, hillary short selling stocks back when she was first lady and in charge of the then 'universal health care' program and talking about eliminating big pharma and big insurance.
she was making hundreds of thousands on the short sells, which because SHE was the one controlling the potential elimination of for profit health insurance, qualifies as insider trading.
bill signing the deregulation was a win for them and their foundation(s).

and as posted before, he COULD veto the bill and force congress to over ride it, if he really wanted to show he meant it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top