BendBrewer
Well-Known Member
You don't seem to know which thread you are in. You posted here regarding something in another thread.
You haven't figured that out yet? And you call me a numbskull? It's why I laugh at jokers like you Jeff. Sorry.
Poor, Poor Obama.
- Thread starter jeff f
- Start date
You haven't figured that out yet? And you call me a numbskull? It's why I laugh at jokers like you Jeff. Sorry.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
whenever someone takes it upon themselves to repeatedly mention the skin color of the president without provocation and preemptively defend themselves as not racist, it is a sure sign that said person is not racist
jeff, seriously...what is wit the race baiting? is it so that when i call you out you can accuse me of playing the race card? and then cry about how hard it is to be a white male in america?
every thread you make is a joke.
jeff f
New Member
Lemme get this straight, every time in the last 2.5ish years anyone's critical of the ONE, we were called racist. And now that I throw the preemptive race card, YOU DON'T GET IT? That's fucking hilarious.whenever someone takes it upon themselves to repeatedly mention the skin color of the president without provocation and preemptively defend themselves as not racist, it is a sure sign that said person is not racist
jeff, seriously...what is wit the race baiting? is it so that when i call you out you can accuse me of playing the race card? and then cry about how hard it is to be a white male in america?
every thread you make is a joke.
your half brain dead, half white, half black, 100 percent affirmative action president isn't cutting the mustard.
He is an incompatent, bumbling fool who needs to be told what to think... just ask his teleprompter
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he could probably spell "incompetent" correctly
and please show me where he earned his prestigious degrees thanks to 'affirmative action'. because that is a racially charged accusation, and pretty bigoted.
sync0s
Well-Known Member
On what basis? Please, do explain.
Before you do, realize that only 1/3 of republicans make over $250k per year and that most 'red states' are actually the poorer states?
Luger187
Well-Known Member
judging from that graph and what you said about 1/3 of republicans, id say theres a large amount of income inequality in red states.On what basis? Please, do explain.
Before you do, realize that only 1/3 of republicans make over $250k per year and that most 'red states' are actually the poorer states?
sync0s
Well-Known Member
I don't know where you got that assumption from, enlighten me.
Luger187
Well-Known Member
well according to the graph, the average income is 30k. and you said 1/3 make over 250k. so that means there is a lot of poor people and 1/3 make over 250k
Himself
Member
Well Cincos, I am not really sure what point you are trying to make with a 7 year old graph from be a gov that shows 20 states. But what I was saying is that republican tax policies are ALWAYS, without fail regressive. Our tax code has been getting tilted more towards the wealthy for the last 50 years. This is clearly evident today. They don't even try very hard to disguise it anymore.
The "job creators" are actually you and me. When WE go out and buy stuff thus creating demand businesses will start hiring. More demand=more sales=more jobs(eventually; because most business owners will pay overtime before adding staff). The best way to get our economy growing vibrantly again is to give away money by extending jobless benefits and rebuilding our infrastructure. We're one hairdryer away from a massive blackout.
The "job creators" are actually you and me. When WE go out and buy stuff thus creating demand businesses will start hiring. More demand=more sales=more jobs(eventually; because most business owners will pay overtime before adding staff). The best way to get our economy growing vibrantly again is to give away money by extending jobless benefits and rebuilding our infrastructure. We're one hairdryer away from a massive blackout.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
oh, c'mon. minnesota was not that bad. we can handle a few more of those
incognito5320
Active Member
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer ... you may be, but I thought this was interesting. It appears that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service does not agree with this interpretation of the 14th Amendment
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/13/crs-obama-14th-amendment-circumvent-debt-limit/
"It does not appear that the executive has the constitutional authority to borrow funds, even if they are for the express purpose of preventing a default on the debt," said CRS, which is the non-partisan advisory research arm of Congress.
Some commenters have argued that the 14th Amendment means the government cannot suspend payments and that President Obama can act to keep funding government even without congressional authorization.
CRS's experts said that language doesn't convey any new powers on the president to circumvent Congress when it comes to borrowing or spending.
"There appears to be no basis in the legislative history, or arguably in the structure of the Constitution itself, that can support an executive power to borrow funds," the research service said in the report, which was released to several congressional offices this week and was reviewed by The Washington Times
[video=youtube;rXH_12QWWg8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXH_12QWWg8[/video]
It's Only Wafer thin!
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
So wonderful to be talked down to. Amazing, simply amazing.BendBrewer;5955239[COLOR="blue" said:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
first off, he wasn't even talking to you.
second off, you would only see that as 'being talked down to' if you really needed that explained to you. the person who asked that question brought it upon themselves by being ignorant of the constitution.
finally, cool substantive rebuttal, bro
Charlie Ventura
Active Member
^^^ Ok but this is the one and only time. From now on, you are going to have to educate yourself. Deal?
OH, well forgive me for finding this to be condesending, uncle buckie.
OH, well forgive me for finding this to be condesending, uncle buckie.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
it's only condescending if you are unfamiliar with the constitution. or even current news, for fucks sake.^^^ Ok but this is the one and only time. From now on, you are going to have to educate yourself. Deal?
OH, well forgive me for finding this to be condesending, uncle buckie.
if you follow either, it is not condescending, it is 'fact'.