President Obama!

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member

moreluck

golden ticket member
Re: Obamanomics

That's why I posted the article......so people could read it and glean from it what they want. The words, but, and, and or are also in the article. Fix, can and while are in there too.

Why don't you think people can read it themselves?

The title of the article was made by the site. You are trying to imply that I composed it.....NOT !!
If you want to point out Buck's goodness, then start a Thread titled "I plan to vote for Obama".
 
P

pickup

Guest
Re: Obamanomics

Have you seen these ads on the side of your screen- "Are you In?, Obama 2012", with a pic of Obama and his whole family in the ad? . When you click the link, You have to give your email address for further access. I gave a fake email and got a look behind the curtain. Yes , they are asking for donations, (and if you gave them your correct email address, they will still ask you in the future). But they are running some sort of contest that when you enter , you could, along with two other entrants win a dinner with the president. When I look at the details via another link, there is something about no donation necessary to enter contest , but that isn't too clear when you look at the first page about the contest.

Geez, they are taking a page out Publisher's Clearing House with this contest. Moreluck, why don't you enter? That would be a helluva dinner if you got to go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

klein

Für Meno :)
Re: Obamabastic !!

Obama shouldn't do anything "bombastic" like apologize to these creeps OR send them any money....................But since Obama does bombastic things, I'm sure he'll do both!!

You need tpo revamp your military ! Most Nato countries were or are in Afghanistan, including us Canadians (of which hundreds have been killed).
Yet, you don't hear bad things other Nato military soldiers have done - because they don't !

What's wrong with American soldiers / American military ?
 

menotyou

bella amicizia
Re: Obamabastic !!

Wait a minute, Klein. There are jerkfaces everywhere, and they are proportionate to their numbers. What about that Jerkface from Quebec who blatantly rammed my car because it was in his way of making an illegal maneuver on American streets?? He looked a state trooper in the face and lied while his wife shrunk in the background. He had no ethics or morals, either. It just was presented in a les disgusting manner. But, no ethics just the same.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
Re: Obamanomics

That's why I posted the article......so people could read it and glean from it what they want. The words, but, and, and or are also in the article. Fix, can and while are in there too.

Why don't you think people can read it themselves?

The title of the article was made by the site. You are trying to imply that I composed it.....NOT !!
If you want to point out Buck's goodness, then start a Thread titled "I plan to vote for Obama".

The problem is people will only read the (misleading) headline and form their opinion based on that. I prefer to form my own opinion and not to have it formed for me through mis- or half-information. Of course, I would not use a website called "Weasel Zippers" as part of my research.

I never said or even implied that you wrote the article. I posted what I did as I believe in fairness in journalism. Perhaps you should do the same. Dave.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Re: Obamanomics

The problem is people will only read the (misleading) headline and form their opinion based on that. I prefer to form my own opinion and not to have it formed for me through mis- or half-information. Of course, I would not use a website called "Weasel Zippers" as part of my research.

I never said or even implied that you wrote the article. I posted what I did as I believe in fairness in journalism. Perhaps you should do the same. Dave.
If people only read the headline,that's their choice....you don't control it.

Let the gods of journalism punish their own if lines are crossed. The alternative for me would be to post the entire article and then that would just take up space and you'd be bitchin' about that too.
And I said you implied that I write the headlines, not the articles.

Your best bet would be to ignore what I post completely.....Surely you have other things to do.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Just a question.
Presently, if some person with no med. coverage goes to the E.R. my taxes or something actually pays for their care.

When Obama's plan has a mandate for everyone to have med. coverage.....will I be getting some sort of a refund now that the E.R. won't be getting stiffed ? :fantasysmiley:
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Actually you are wrong that the government mostly pays for it.
It's the ER and hospital that pays for it, and to make up for those losses they end up charging more.
In the end, all of the insurance companies end up paying more, which they pass on in higher insurance rates.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Re: Obamanomics

The office of Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, sends along this chart, showing that 'America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece,' as well as Ireland, Italy, France, Portugal, and Spain:
-1.img_assist_custom-640x421.png
 
P

pickup

Guest
Re: Obamabastic !!

You need tpo revamp your military ! Most Nato countries were or are in Afghanistan, including us Canadians (of which hundreds have been killed).
Yet, you don't hear bad things other Nato military soldiers have done - because they don't !

What's wrong with American soldiers / American military ?

We would have loved to know more about Canada's role in handing over prisoners to Afghanese torturers/interrogators, but Stephen Harper once again, cried to the Governor General to shut down Parliament. After the Governor General called up the Queen to find out what she wanted to do, the Governor General did shut down parliament.

Canadian Afghan detainee issue - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from the article:

Opposition MPs in the House of Commons began calling for all documents the government possessed regarding the detainee issue to be made public since Richard Colvin’s testimony in November 2009. Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon assured the House of Commons that the documents would be handed over to a special committee in charge of looking into the issue.[SUP][36][/SUP] "There's a mandatory obligation on public officials to ensure that when information is released that it is in compliance with the Canada Evidence Act [to avoid security risks]," according to Minister of Defence Peter MacKay. However, opposition MPs and other critics stated that this was an absurd argument, as Parliament has the constitutional right to have access to the documents uncensored.[SUP][37][/SUP] On December 10, 2009, the House of Commons passed a motion requiring the release of unredacted documents concerning the Afghan detainees to the committee hearing the issue.[SUP][38][/SUP][SUP][39][/SUP] However, the government refused to abide by the motion. Critics repeated that the government was violating the Constitution of Canada and will be in contempt of Parliament if it continued to refuse to release uncensored documents regarding the Afghan detainee issue.[SUP][40][/SUP][SUP][41][/SUP]
300px-Redacted_documents.png

A select group of MPs and an independent panel of 3 jurists are responsible for determining what documents are relevant to allegations of detainee abuse, and how to release them to the public.[SUP][42][/SUP]​

On December 30, 2009, Parliament was put on hold, or 'prorogued' at the request of the Prime Minister. According to his spokesman, he sought this prorogation to consult with Canadians about the economy.[SUP][43][/SUP] The move caused cries from opposition MPs who labelled it as an attempt to "muzzle parliamentarians amid controversy over the Afghan detainees affair."[SUP][43][/SUP] Prorogation prevented the parliamentary committee from continuing to probe the issue. Although informal committee meetings continued, they had no power to compel testimony or grant immunity, and Conservative MPs would not be represented.[SUP][44][/SUP][SUP][45][/SUP]
 
Top