oggism
Well-known member
Very well put I could get on board with something like that
Democrats are ruining America!
- Thread starter troutfly
- Start date
Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:
Very well put I could get on board with something like that
Possum
Well-known member
I am still waiting bubbacat. Only solutions I see from right is post of cartoons and jokes about Obama followed by thumbs ups and emos.
Bubbakat
Well-known member
Sometimes Possum there ain't no straight answer so we tend to make a joke out of something serious to keep from crying. Sometimes the best form of flattery is mockery.
Possum
Well-known member
So, when I do it I am out of line? Is there a different standard here? I have had stuff sent to my house. Not an infant, I just move on. It is a political forum and people should not come on here with feelings on their sleeves. Am I wrong in believing this. This forum serves a purpose. It involves citizenship, one vote, two obey the law, and third, take up for rights when violated. If you come onto a forum like this and take things personally you should not be here. Stick with firshing. Bubbacat, things in our economy are screwed up. I think both parties have done a wonderful job in identifying that problem. Other than being part of the problem, and part of the solution. what does the right wing have to offer?
tie1on
Well-known member
Cultural Dictionary
Progressive movement
A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and John McCains hero and mentor. He said so himself. I think McCain would be classified as a Progressive. Teddy did a lot of good for conservation, which I love!, but some of his progressive ideas were a little bizzar!IMHO
Progressive movement
A movement for reform that occurred roughly between 1900 and 1920. Progressives typically held that irresponsible actions by the rich were corrupting both public and private life. They called for measures such as trust busting, the regulation of railroads, provisions for the people to vote on laws themselves through referendum, the election of the Senate by the people rather than by state legislatures, and a graduated income tax (one in which higher tax rates are applied to higher incomes). The Progressives were able to get much of their program passed into law. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were associated with the movement.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Cite This Source
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and John McCains hero and mentor. He said so himself. I think McCain would be classified as a Progressive. Teddy did a lot of good for conservation, which I love!, but some of his progressive ideas were a little bizzar!IMHO
Davo
Well-known member
I'm tired of hearing that Bush is to blame for just about everything and Obama is just trying to clean up his mess. The real problem for where we are now started with Clinton trying to get everyone into a house. The mortgage crisis is really the center of all this garbage, but it seems like everyone wants to say it's something else. Granted, there are plenty of other issues out there, but the main problem still started with lenders making loans to people who did not deserve them. A lot of people say that mortgagees were taken advantage of but when someone is making $6.50 an hour flipping burgers they should know that there is no way they can afford a $300,000 house.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html
tie1on
Well-known member
I agree! I was in realestate In 2005-2006 and the preditory lenders were unbelievable! We had many talks and debates about this situation because we could see the bubble was going to burst! Its a shame that, in America, something like this could happen. It is a scandal, no matter who is at fault, and needs to be investigate more!
Hopefully the public is more aware of this problem and we can learn from history and not make this mistake again!
I would be more worried about this, than a bow:
Last time I checked most jihadist can't read, maybe teaching them to read would make them more peaceful and less likely to follow the radicals oral teachings of other jihadist.
SpurHunter
Well-known member
Nice stretch on the kiss versus bow. MAJOR cultural difference here. While the kiss in most countries is a sing of friendship and respect, a bow in ALL countries especially to a leader, is a sign of being sub servant (sp?).
But it was a nice attention diversion from answering questions on Obama.....again folks BUSH IS NOT the president anymore. Can you hear me now.......can you hear me now.........
But it was a nice attention diversion from answering questions on Obama.....again folks BUSH IS NOT the president anymore. Can you hear me now.......can you hear me now.........
Spur, I disagree. IMO both are a sign of friendship and respect and neither is sign of being sub-servant nor more so than a pat on the back. Twisting it to fit your political agenda (on either side) really just shows ignorance of worldly customs.
Bubbakat
Well-known member
Piss poor job of photo shop to. The soft ware can do better but like our presedent he had rather half do it.
Regardless, Lets not forget Eisenhower bowed before De Gaulle (a Frenchman, sacré bleu!), Nixon bowed before Emperor Hirohito (who'd ordered the bombing of Pearl Harbor), and George W. Bush actually kissed the Saudi Arabian King, something his former press secretary Dana Perino admitted to Wolf Blitzer on CNN.
I suppose these are photoshopped too:
Bubbakat
Well-known member
To help on the theory of the title of this post here is some more on the Dem,s
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3..) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
Do I need to keep adding to this to take the blinders down just a wee bit.
This is all researcherable not copy and past . There are a string of demerocates tied into the act of cleaning out the Social Security . I'll gladly add some more if you want it. Don't post smack talk post acutal proof.
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3..) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
Do I need to keep adding to this to take the blinders down just a wee bit.
This is all researcherable not copy and past . There are a string of demerocates tied into the act of cleaning out the Social Security . I'll gladly add some more if you want it. Don't post smack talk post acutal proof.
Bubbakat
Well-known member
one word---- proof
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyn don Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyn don Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
Sniperchoke
Well-known member
Here is some more proof.... Copy and Pasted from Stossel
[W]hen Democrats took over Congress in 2007, the debt ratio was 36.2%, but within a year it had climbed to 40.2% and was heading north. Now the public debt ratio is climbing even faster amid slow economic growth and a spending binge, reaching an expected 63.6% this year, 68.6% next year and above 70% later this decade even by White House reckoning.
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.co...ng-better-except-govt-spending/#ixzz0egxKiNq8
[W]hen Democrats took over Congress in 2007, the debt ratio was 36.2%, but within a year it had climbed to 40.2% and was heading north. Now the public debt ratio is climbing even faster amid slow economic growth and a spending binge, reaching an expected 63.6% this year, 68.6% next year and above 70% later this decade even by White House reckoning.
Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.co...ng-better-except-govt-spending/#ixzz0egxKiNq8
htreefish
Member
You blame the Clinton administration for trying to get everyone in a house when it was the Republican controlled congress that pushed for deregulation. If you must know the deregulation that put us in the current position happened under the Reagan administration from decisions made in 1980 and 1982.
bent rod
Well-known member
Dang, you had 8 years to send a letter to Bush and get him to fix that.
