Customer Discussions > Politics forum

If you can't run on your record


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 451-475 of 846 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 2:25:08 PM PDT
A customer says:
Giving the folks the excess profits of the states oil sales isn't socialism. It was unexpected profits, A liberal would of just spent it.

Socialism is taking from one to give to another who didn't earn it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 2:31:22 PM PDT
Ze'ev says:
Bush did not receive a roaring economy in fact he got a triple dose of economic problems.

1 he came into office in with a economic recession.

2. Dot Com bust

3. 9/11

I already explained that the 2003 tax cuts were already in effect but could not stop the meltdown that the Clinton administration had started with the changing of the regs of the CRA act which gave his administration leverage over the banks to lend out risky loans couple that with the signing of the abolishment of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non regulation of derivatives, the allowing of fannie and freddie to cook the books and finally after Bush sounding the alarm on this what did the democrats do, they scorned and attacked saying nothing was wrong.

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWJ892h5dA

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:33:33 PM PDT
F. Hollister says:
M. Daniel:

Yes, it is.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:35:01 PM PDT
F. Hollister says:
SuperFool:

Yes, the Democrats were just scared to death of Duh Gov'Nur. Sen. McCain selecting her was a brilliant political move - and it worked out so well.

Of course her opponents in the election conducted research on her. Do you honestly think that's news? Do you think the Republicans didn't research Mr. Obama? Or did they outsource the job to the FoxPAC?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:36:47 PM PDT
F.
Alaska has always paid it citizens from the royalties paid by the oil companies. It wasn't something Palin came up with.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:37:15 PM PDT
F. Hollister says:
SuperFool:

Apparently you don't understand the "windfall profits tax" on oil companies pushed through by Duh Gov'Nuh.

It has nothing to do with "the states oil sales." It had to do with additional taxes on oil companies doing business in Alaska. The taxes went up as the price of oil went up. And the tax revenues were distributed directly to the citizens.

Of course, this socialism was subsidized by the taxpayers in the other 49 states.

How's that natural gas pipeline project Duh Gov'Nuh started workin' out for Alaska? You betcha!

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:38:01 PM PDT
F. Hollister says:
Richard M. Smith:

You need to do some more research. You are confusing two separate programs.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 3:38:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 3:39:06 PM PDT
Perhaps, If I am I apologize.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 5:00:59 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
F. Hollister says: "Yes, it is."

It is socialism to give tax money to citizens?

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:19:06 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 13, 2012 6:42:31 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:22:21 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on May 13, 2012 6:42:38 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 8:42:10 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 15, 2012 12:51:21 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 11:35:14 AM PDT
M. Daniel says:
F. Hollister says: "Any reasonable person would agree to tax a specific set of companies based on "windfall profits" and then distribute all that revenue directly to the citizens is socialism."

I thought you were being critical of conservatives yelling socialism because that is not the accepted definition. Socialism is an economic term that refers to public ownership of the means of production. Giving benefits to citizens is a characteristic of the welfare state and can occur in some socialistic countries and but not in others (China). It would be socialism if the government nationalized the oil companies, not taxed them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 11:50:11 AM PDT
F. Hollister says:
M. Daniel:

You are putting up a very narrow definition of socialism - not as it is tossed around by so many people who hate Mr. Obama.

Posted on May 13, 2012 11:51:05 AM PDT
F. Hollister says:
SuperFool:

Some interesting thoughts on the support Mr. Obama receives from members, and former members, of the US Military:

http://news.yahoo.com/weary-warriors-favor-obama-040547455.html

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 12:05:44 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
F. Hollister says: "You are putting up a very narrow definition of socialism - not as it is tossed around by so many people who hate Mr. Obama."

Or by his supporters based on your statements. It is "narrow" but the only legitimate economic definition. I agree it is thrown around politically by both sides to refer to the welfare state, but that does not make it correct. The same applies to the term entitlements which is being misused by both sides.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 12:08:12 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
F. Hollister says: "Some interesting thoughts on the support Mr. Obama receives from members, and former members, of the US Military"

I had a black student in the military who said he would normally vote Democratic but instead voted Republican because he thought they would give him higher wages.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 12:34:39 PM PDT
F. Hollister says:
M. Daniel:

I only read and hear the term socialism thrown around by one side in our current political debates.

Often, of course, by people who have no idea what they are writing or talking about.

As far as the supporters of Duh Gov'Nuh are concerned, I believe whether her tax program was socialistic or a welfare state (pun intended) move would be a distinction without a difference.

Posted on May 14, 2012 4:55:41 AM PDT
Ze'ev says:
He can't run on his record so he has sought to use wedge issues and in doing so has indeed won the news cycle but as the legit poll numbers show it hasn't helped him one bit.

Wedge issues have never won a election.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 6:43:10 AM PDT
F. Hollister says:
abc:

Your comment was probably intended to address something - but what?

"He?" "Legit poll numbers?" "Wedge issues?"

You toss out random thoughts without anchors or other references.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:08:34 AM PDT
Ze'ev says:
It's not random it's all the garbage that they have tried such as "tax cuts for the rich", Seamus the dog, war on woman, the evolution of Obama these are all wedge issues trying to take away his failed policies.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:15:35 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:17:20 AM PDT
Robery Bykowski - " both Gore and Kerry were fine, qualified candidates "

Both of whom fought for their country. The R's went for the guy whose dad secured him a seat in the "Champaign Unit" of the ANG. Because they revere military service and stuff.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:17:44 AM PDT
How are SS and Medicare freebies for someone that contributes to them?

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 7:28:50 AM PDT
Ze'ev says:
I'm wondering why Jon Corzine is still running around could it be he is bundling money for Obamas re-election.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  846
Initial post:  May 6, 2012
Latest post:  May 23, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions