Preview of Obama's Speach tomorrow...
01-23-2009, 12:46 AM
#141
Well Alex, there is propaganda stating that Barak was not a U.S. born citizen either, have to heard of that one. Supposedly the last I had read he was still yet to prove fact of a legal birth certificate. There was actually a lawyer out of Philadelphia I believe that brought a court case up against this issue and throughout the election and all it just never got taken into consideration.
He said he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, and his sister mentioned another hospital there. Another relative I believe said he was born in Kenya????? Then I heard the U.K. However, rather than fight me on this issue, why is it that he fights providing documentation on this?????
He said he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, and his sister mentioned another hospital there. Another relative I believe said he was born in Kenya????? Then I heard the U.K. However, rather than fight me on this issue, why is it that he fights providing documentation on this?????
But I didn't know that there was a question as to whether he was actually born there or not.
01-23-2009, 06:27 AM
#142
Alex, looks like your points are going to be proven before mine, lol.
I'd rather pay for Mexican abortions than for some *******'s bonus or yearly company retreat or someshit like some of the initial 750 billion went to.
What's the matter Alex? you afraid there won't be enough labor workers available to mow your friggin' lawn??
I'd rather pay for Mexican abortions than for some *******'s bonus or yearly company retreat or someshit like some of the initial 750 billion went to.
What's the matter Alex? you afraid there won't be enough labor workers available to mow your friggin' lawn??
01-23-2009, 07:46 AM
#143
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Jersey/Moorestown
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's the point of the matter essentially. Just look at it. You and I have all taken trips to Philadelphia, New York. How many times do you come out of the Lincoln Tunnel, or go across the Ben Franklin Bridge now how many homeless men and women do you see there?? Shouldn't our tax dollars go to one of those less fortunate as opposed to the mexican chick that got knocked up so she can get an abortion?
Now I "talk" to a girl from Sweden. In that country if an employer "lays" you off, then it's not a welfare system that kicks in, but the EMPLOYER pays the percentage of your salary until you get a new job. I think that's a great idea. It would promote job security more because if the person lays you off they still have to pay you, and help you get a new job. Just equates to a kinder atmosphere there I think.
Now I "talk" to a girl from Sweden. In that country if an employer "lays" you off, then it's not a welfare system that kicks in, but the EMPLOYER pays the percentage of your salary until you get a new job. I think that's a great idea. It would promote job security more because if the person lays you off they still have to pay you, and help you get a new job. Just equates to a kinder atmosphere there I think.
01-23-2009, 09:07 AM
#144
That sounds great, but I think you'd have every small business in the US going bullshit over it. Plus, they do pay into the unemployment every week, but this would allow that to be eliminated, which would be fine by me one less thing the government has any say in.
Make it rule, you pay a person off you have to pay them X % of their wages until they find another job, and if that job is substantially less you have to continue to pay at a reduced rate.
I dunno how that would work if a company went out of business though.
I can also see, that as one more reason that companies would quickly blast every job out of the country that they can too though, so doing something like that could cause a massive wave of job loss too... I can see that going into effect on july 1, and on june 30th about 20% of the us population losing it's jobs so they don't have to pay it out, then turning around and rehiring people at a massively reduced rate.
Make it rule, you pay a person off you have to pay them X % of their wages until they find another job, and if that job is substantially less you have to continue to pay at a reduced rate.
I dunno how that would work if a company went out of business though.
I can also see, that as one more reason that companies would quickly blast every job out of the country that they can too though, so doing something like that could cause a massive wave of job loss too... I can see that going into effect on july 1, and on june 30th about 20% of the us population losing it's jobs so they don't have to pay it out, then turning around and rehiring people at a massively reduced rate.
01-23-2009, 09:12 AM
#145
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Jersey/Moorestown
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very solid point. Something really has to be done about the jobs being sent overseas. Millions of jobs are lost over here. I heard a fact that an average person working at a Honda manufacturing plan average length having a job at the plant was 4 1/2 years. I heard that after 5 years Honda would have to pay them a pension and other perks. Not sure how accurate it is, but I work for Honda and that's just something I caught wind of. This is an overseas company that came here, and built the plant on our soil to maximize profits, but in turn screws "us" over. I don't know, jobs need to stay here at home
01-23-2009, 09:29 AM
#146
That is a very solid point. Something really has to be done about the jobs being sent overseas. Millions of jobs are lost over here. I heard a fact that an average person working at a Honda manufacturing plan average length having a job at the plant was 4 1/2 years. I heard that after 5 years Honda would have to pay them a pension and other perks. Not sure how accurate it is, but I work for Honda and that's just something I caught wind of. This is an overseas company that came here, and built the plant on our soil to maximize profits, but in turn screws "us" over. I don't know, jobs need to stay here at home
He said that American jobs have to stay in America.
01-23-2009, 09:31 AM
#147
That's not hard to believe, after 5 years your vacation accural is probably up, your pension and 401K amounts probably all jump as well, so they try to get you out the door one way or another, that's not a shocker.
NAFTA was probably one of the WORST things that ever happened to this country, that was Clinton that did that one and that's been screwing the american workfoce ever since.
I hae a simple solution to the problem. Come up with a taxation plan for all goods sold in the country. The higher the % of the parts and labor that are done outside of the country the higher the taxation rate. If the name brand that's on the product isn't based here in the country that's another %.
Example, a product is made here in the US, say an engine block. That is a strait 3% tax, no more state sales taxes it's the same everywhere. But a crank that's forged in china by a company with their headquarters here in the us, that gets hit with a 6% If the HQ was in china too, it would get hit with a 9%
This would do a couple things, stop companies from moving out of the country because everything they sell woudl be a hit to the price making it harder to sell.
Another thing it would do is make tax evasion via buying from the internet go away completely, I wouldn't care for that, but to see a tax system that punishes you for buying crap made overseas would be fine by me.
Thing that would have to happen, is the tax structure would have to be set up so it would be painful to buy stuff from overseas, say a TV that's made in japan by a jap company, you'd have to hit that with a 20 to 30% tax. This way it would motivate these companies to move the manufacturing here, as well as the HQ of operations... creating lots of jobs all over the country.
Now, all you'd have to do is lock up the boarders and stop a massive influx of people from migrating here (simply just deny that, close the boarders up no more people immigrating here. Shouldn't be that big a deal) that are the workers from overseas coming with their company and their products, and whamo, an asload of US workers back to work doing decent paying jobs.
Seems simple enough, now to just get some government to grow a pair, tell the states that they're running the sales tax there's no more state sales tax allowed other then the government sales tax % which would all go directly to the states, making it no change to the state level $ movement, shut the boarders up and be done with it.
Simple.
NAFTA was probably one of the WORST things that ever happened to this country, that was Clinton that did that one and that's been screwing the american workfoce ever since.
I hae a simple solution to the problem. Come up with a taxation plan for all goods sold in the country. The higher the % of the parts and labor that are done outside of the country the higher the taxation rate. If the name brand that's on the product isn't based here in the country that's another %.
Example, a product is made here in the US, say an engine block. That is a strait 3% tax, no more state sales taxes it's the same everywhere. But a crank that's forged in china by a company with their headquarters here in the us, that gets hit with a 6% If the HQ was in china too, it would get hit with a 9%
This would do a couple things, stop companies from moving out of the country because everything they sell woudl be a hit to the price making it harder to sell.
Another thing it would do is make tax evasion via buying from the internet go away completely, I wouldn't care for that, but to see a tax system that punishes you for buying crap made overseas would be fine by me.
Thing that would have to happen, is the tax structure would have to be set up so it would be painful to buy stuff from overseas, say a TV that's made in japan by a jap company, you'd have to hit that with a 20 to 30% tax. This way it would motivate these companies to move the manufacturing here, as well as the HQ of operations... creating lots of jobs all over the country.
Now, all you'd have to do is lock up the boarders and stop a massive influx of people from migrating here (simply just deny that, close the boarders up no more people immigrating here. Shouldn't be that big a deal) that are the workers from overseas coming with their company and their products, and whamo, an asload of US workers back to work doing decent paying jobs.
Seems simple enough, now to just get some government to grow a pair, tell the states that they're running the sales tax there's no more state sales tax allowed other then the government sales tax % which would all go directly to the states, making it no change to the state level $ movement, shut the boarders up and be done with it.
Simple.
01-23-2009, 09:33 AM
#148
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obama Snubs Medal of Honor Recipients
Every inaugurated president for the last 56 years has attended the Salute to Heroes Ball. Except one.
Every four years during inauguration evening (the galas began in 1809), groups vie for a visit from the incoming president, his wife, and anyone from his ticket. For decades, the “official” and “unofficial” galas have hoped to get a short visit from the president. He would take a few turns on the dance floor, say a few words to those gathered, and move on to the next one. Typically, these galas and ***** consist of groups of people that have a common theme or background — from youth groups (H.O.P.E. Inaugural Youth Ball) to the National Council on Women ball. Which ones the new president attends say much about his priorities (right or wrong) and which demographics he may hold in high esteem.
In this case, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, as well as other veteran’s groups, were sponsoring their gala that has coincided with the inaugural evening since Eisenhower took office in 1953. In total, nine presidents and 56 years have gone by, and each inaugural evening the new president arrived to thank the veterans and Medal of Honor recipients in attendance. As one of the “unofficial” *****, it meant quite a bit to have the president show up and make an appearance.
Except this time.
The president and first lady, for the first time in those ensuing 56 years, did not make an appearance at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball. In attendance at the gala were 48 of the 99 living recipients of our nation’s highest honor. Of the 99 who are still with us, not even half are in any condition or possess the wherewithal to travel to such an event. And by the next inauguration, likely half of those won’t be with us.
Making this evening even more special was the fact that it is the 50th anniversary of the Medal of Honor Society, which has been working hard to reach out to people to educate them about its members.
The new president’s perceived “slights” against the military have made veterans and military members quite sensitive to how President Obama treats them. From calling for a pullout from Iraq during the campaign to forgoing a visit to injured GWOT vets in Germany, we have kept an eye on his every move and decision with regards to our nation’s finest. This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration. To forgo a tradition of greeting the veterans who’ve received the highest honor in order to attend galas featuring Hollywood elites was just a bit too much to bear.
Every inaugurated president for the last 56 years has attended the Salute to Heroes Ball. Except one.
Every four years during inauguration evening (the galas began in 1809), groups vie for a visit from the incoming president, his wife, and anyone from his ticket. For decades, the “official” and “unofficial” galas have hoped to get a short visit from the president. He would take a few turns on the dance floor, say a few words to those gathered, and move on to the next one. Typically, these galas and ***** consist of groups of people that have a common theme or background — from youth groups (H.O.P.E. Inaugural Youth Ball) to the National Council on Women ball. Which ones the new president attends say much about his priorities (right or wrong) and which demographics he may hold in high esteem.
In this case, the American Legion, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, as well as other veteran’s groups, were sponsoring their gala that has coincided with the inaugural evening since Eisenhower took office in 1953. In total, nine presidents and 56 years have gone by, and each inaugural evening the new president arrived to thank the veterans and Medal of Honor recipients in attendance. As one of the “unofficial” *****, it meant quite a bit to have the president show up and make an appearance.
Except this time.
The president and first lady, for the first time in those ensuing 56 years, did not make an appearance at the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball. In attendance at the gala were 48 of the 99 living recipients of our nation’s highest honor. Of the 99 who are still with us, not even half are in any condition or possess the wherewithal to travel to such an event. And by the next inauguration, likely half of those won’t be with us.
Making this evening even more special was the fact that it is the 50th anniversary of the Medal of Honor Society, which has been working hard to reach out to people to educate them about its members.
The new president’s perceived “slights” against the military have made veterans and military members quite sensitive to how President Obama treats them. From calling for a pullout from Iraq during the campaign to forgoing a visit to injured GWOT vets in Germany, we have kept an eye on his every move and decision with regards to our nation’s finest. This “change” appears to have set the tone for the rest of his administration. To forgo a tradition of greeting the veterans who’ve received the highest honor in order to attend galas featuring Hollywood elites was just a bit too much to bear.
01-23-2009, 09:36 AM
#149
I don't get the whole Mexican abortion thing either and why we have to pay for it.
Is there a bigger picture here? Is it more cost effective for other issues down the line?
Maybe less Mexicans crossing over to the USA and becoming a issue as far as welfare and healthcare costs, I don't know? Maybe less earnings being sent from the USA to Mexico from workers to take care of their families and that money being pulled from the American economy, I don't know.
Is there a bigger picture here? Is it more cost effective for other issues down the line?
Maybe less Mexicans crossing over to the USA and becoming a issue as far as welfare and healthcare costs, I don't know? Maybe less earnings being sent from the USA to Mexico from workers to take care of their families and that money being pulled from the American economy, I don't know.
01-23-2009, 10:35 AM
#150
CARTEK Racing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex, looks like your points are going to be proven before mine, lol.
I'd rather pay for Mexican abortions than for some *******'s bonus or yearly company retreat or someshit like some of the initial 750 billion went to.
What's the matter Alex? you afraid there won't be enough labor workers available to mow your friggin' lawn??
I'd rather pay for Mexican abortions than for some *******'s bonus or yearly company retreat or someshit like some of the initial 750 billion went to.
What's the matter Alex? you afraid there won't be enough labor workers available to mow your friggin' lawn??
I don't have a lawn, so nothing to cut... I have no use for mexicans..
I don't get the whole Mexican abortion thing either and why we have to pay for it.
Is there a bigger picture here? Is it more cost effective for other issues down the line?
Maybe less Mexicans crossing over to the USA and becoming a issue as far as welfare and healthcare costs, I don't know? Maybe less earnings being sent from the USA to Mexico from workers to take care of their families and that money being pulled from the American economy, I don't know.
Is there a bigger picture here? Is it more cost effective for other issues down the line?
Maybe less Mexicans crossing over to the USA and becoming a issue as far as welfare and healthcare costs, I don't know? Maybe less earnings being sent from the USA to Mexico from workers to take care of their families and that money being pulled from the American economy, I don't know.
The idea behind paying for overseas abortions is two fold. One is globalisation, as I had said before, the other is once again spreading the wealth. Since American has more money then Mexico, we should help them because its our duty to pay for their abortions. Also, this way, a woman in a bordering state in the US which makes it hard to get an abortion can simply cross the border for the day, and get a free abortion.
This is an example of the problem. You voted for Obama because he would "cut your taxes" but you forget all the other things he will do to ruin this great nation. Very shelfish and short sighted.
01-23-2009, 10:47 AM
#151
Don't wory as soon as we're done in iraq, iran and afganistan we'll be sending troops into mexico too because the drug war that's going on down there is putting mexico up on the list of security risks right next to the other mentioned countrys.
I'll take a bet, that we will be sending troops into mexico before the end of obama's first term.
I'll take a bet, that we will be sending troops into mexico before the end of obama's first term.
01-23-2009, 11:46 AM
#153
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I "talk" to a girl from Sweden. In that country if an employer "lays" you off, then it's not a welfare system that kicks in, but the EMPLOYER pays the percentage of your salary until you get a new job. I think that's a great idea. It would promote job security more because if the person lays you off they still have to pay you, and help you get a new job. Just equates to a kinder atmosphere there I think.
Small businesses would really complain about it I'm sure because it would add so much more risk to start up companies but maybe if they created some sort of line, where if a business is this big or has grown a certain ammount, they must help the employer while he finds a new job, but a small business that is small and just started the government can take care of the person like they are doing now for everyone out of a job. This way there is still an incentive for new businesses and once they've made it and grown enough they take in more reponsibility.
But we're just talking in the wind, they wouldn't consider such a drastic change now and in the future they will probably forget all about changing anything because we will be passed this and things will be fine again with the economy growing (hopefully sooner than later, bound to turn around just a question of when).
01-23-2009, 11:55 AM
#154
That's not the only reason Alex.
Hey Alex, if we weren't friends I might take offense to that last line. I thought we'd all keep this cool but the last line seems kinda personal. I can vote for who I want w/o having you judge me for it. Stop being a Dick.
01-23-2009, 12:08 PM
#155
I hate discussing politics because of what it inevitably turns into, and I'm a proud independent. Seems to me neither on either side of the fence can ever discuss rationally.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
01-23-2009, 12:14 PM
#156
TECH Regular
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate discussing politics because of what it inevitably turns into, and I'm a proud independent. Seems to me neither on either side of the fence can ever discuss rationally.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
One thing I've learned is it's damn near impossible to change most people's minds, so eventually you gotta ask yourself, why even bother...they say politics divide's people and more and more I've found that to be such a precise statement.
01-23-2009, 12:20 PM
#157
I hate discussing politics because of what it inevitably turns into, and I'm a proud independent. Seems to me neither on either side of the fence can ever discuss rationally.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
But I do always find it funny when the paranoid righties, like young Alex here, bitch about Obama being too much of a socialist, when we just had Paulson, with Bush's help, takes 700 billion in taxpayer dollars to buy up assets of banks and investment brokerages, result the government becomes partners with them. Going a step further, Fanny and Freddie became nationalized! So the government takes control of ownership of the assets of a corporation. If that isn't goddamn socialism, what is?!?!
The far edges of both the right and left never cease to suprise me in their unending competion of who can be the bigger hippocrite.
I'll just give him a "nuggie" next time I see him for calling me names.
Last edited by tektrans; 01-23-2009 at 12:21 PM. Reason: mist
01-23-2009, 02:01 PM
#158
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Jersey/Moorestown
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all fight for the same thing, but we all have different views on getting there. Can we just hug and get the the end of the road hahahahahaha
01-23-2009, 03:11 PM
#159
CARTEK Racing
Thread Starter
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: East Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 2,182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know I love u.
Im not judging you in the least. Your political desisions make more difference to me being your friend.
However when you keep houding me to marry Mary, that will stop be from being your friend
lol
01-23-2009, 03:20 PM
#160
Political discussions almost always end up as "I'm 100% right based on this small sampling of slanted facts, no I'm not going to listen to you or your facts, and you're a complete and total idiot for having a different opinion".
Frankly I think engineers should be making the decisions around here instead of politicians
