President Zero.... I like it. That is his new name. :D

Oops, Obama touts his jobs plan today at an Ohio bridge that won't qualify

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...incinnati.html

Seems like a new bridge is needed. Whats the issue?

IT'S NOT THAT BRIDGE HE'S LYING!!!!!!

Who wrote that article, some 5th grader from Kentucky?

and

The bridge sort of handles 20,000 Alien Aircraft a day, also, and 154 Weinermobiles.

I start sentences with conjunctions in informal writing, and I know it's casual. I'm not trying to write professionally.

Any moron can be a 'journalist' these days.

Actually what they need is another bridge. The bridge is fine.

Consider where it was written. :)

:)

I know the Brent Spence bridge. I've driven on the Brent Spence bridge. You, other bridge in need of repairs, are no Brent Spence bridge. :lol:

...and from your link:
Again.. whats your issue?

"WE will accomplish more than Henry Quirk singularly will."
 

No doubt, but at what price?

President Zero should be better informed...

And again.....

New gaffe: Obama hails America's historic building of 'the Intercontinental Railroad'

Like I said, President Zero should be better informed... I thought we did away with this stuff when Bush left office.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...idge-ohio.html

The same price. Or lower, due to economy of scale. And we'll get more value than we pay for. We'll get a sense of community, of comradery, of friendship. We rule!

I bet we could pick one up for them cheap, sort of like SF did, from CHINA!

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/...rom-china.html

"The same price. Or lower, due to economy of scale."

Talking in terms of 'gold': I'm sure you're right...however: I wasn't talking 'price' in that sense.

The price I ask about is the price to one's 'self'.

For many, it seems, 'self' is an easy commodity to trade away.

For a few, 'self' is the first, best, property.

Gold is easy...'self' is not.

*shrug*

#

"...a sense of community, of comradery, of friendship."

All: very nice...mind the price, though!

#

"We rule!"

Yes, unfortunately, 'WE' does.

Are you saying that one's self is less when one gives? When one shares, cooperates, unites? I'll bet you've never been in a satisfying marriage or domestic relationship, have you?

"Are you saying that one's self is less when one gives?"

Giving is voluntary: there's much value in giving (and in the discretion employed about 'what' to give and 'who' to give to).

The dissolving of boundaries demanded by 'WE' is another matter entirely.

#

"I'll bet you've never been in a satisfying marriage or domestic relationship, have you?"

A wholly irrelevant and undeserved assessment masquerading as a question.

Thanks for that…remind me to return the favor someday.

Thats effed up Merc, but a different issue entirely.
Again, whats your issue with building a needed new bridge?

Don't wanna be...

http://www.wimp.com/obamaelf/

Dude! Read my lips...

Obama stood in front of a bridge and claimed some bullshit position on his continually failed plan of "shovel Ready Jobs" about how he wants to fix and repair a bridge that does not and will not qualify for the funds, he should just shoot himself in the foot, no one who is in the "Know" says his plan will do what he says it will do, all the while railing on "Millionaires and Billionaires" but really taxing people who make more than 200k, so he is fomenting class warfare to pander to his base. This God Damm Fool is duping the electorate to get them to vote for him, nothing more, nothing less. The guy is nothing more than a scumbag politician no different from anyone else, Republickin or Demoncrat. He is not a God. He is not the Messiah. He is attempting to be re-elected. He is President Zero....

Well actually not true.

A Republic, not a Democracy. (THANK frigging God!)

200k is 8X the average income. Not Uber-rich, but still wealthy.
Its all a matter of perspective.

Absolutely....

So far, as I have asked this question numerous time on this forum, define "Wealth"... Zippy the Pin Head finally stepped up to the plate and stated, "Anyone who makes more than me", which confirms my feelings... it is nothing short of Class Warfare.

OK - you tell me. What is your $$$ for someone to be considered wealthy?

Personally, I think raising the income tax on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains tax. THAT is where the Uber-rich derive their wealth. Additionally, I would adjust the alternative minimum wage. Increasing both the minimum income adn the percentage. No more free rides.

Define "class warfare"... (other than as a Repubican bullet item)

See what you did now Lamp - you scared him off.

Oooops... that was not intended.

In my definition of "we", "we" is totally voluntary. If you are a citizen of the USA, you are a part of a "we". There is no I in USA. You are part of a communtiy that takes care of each other, or at least should. My taxes go to help those in need from the fires in Texas, floods and hurricaine in the northeast, earthquake in the mid Atlantic, mudslides in California. I pay taxes voluntarily. I hope that if I am in need, my fellow citizens will be just as generous. My taxes also go to plenty of programs that I don't like, but maybe you do. And I pay those taxes voluntarily, as well. That's what a community, a society, a relationship is all about.

I apologize if I offended you, but I believe that when "self" is as important to someone as it appears to be to you, you can't allow a partner to be satisfied or fulfilled, and so cannot have a true "marriage". Your "self" will always drive those people away.

:lol:

New gaffe: Obama confuses Jews with janitors
September 26, 2011 | 5:18 am

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...deo-gaffe.html

Waiting for those who rail against it to define it. I can assure you that unlike President Zero I don't think people who make over 250K millionaires and billionaires...

"Millionaire" is a measure of wealth, not income. Plenty of people making over $250K have over $1 million net worth.

But that's beside the point. The proposed millionaire tax is on income over $1 million. If someone with enough income over $1 million per year to care about the tax isn't a millionaire, then taxes aren't their problem.

President Zero uses the term "the wealthy" at every chance he gets...

"A millionaire (originally and sometimes still millionnaire[1]) is an individual whose net worth or wealth is equal to or exceeds one million units of currency." wiki.

How many? Does that include those who make over $1 million? Maybe that's what Zero is doing, guessing there are plenty of people who make over $250k are actually closet millionaires.

are you being deliberately dumb about this? If so, you're doing a remarkable job of it.

I'm tired of giving your crap the time of day when you act this way. When you just call names and holler making outrageous and unhelpful statements... I'm done trying to have a serious dialog when only one of us is serious. Get back to me when you grow up.

Just how long do you expect to live?

KIDDING. I KID. I got no dog in this race, and even if I did he'd probably maul somebody.

;)

Ask HM those questions, I was only answering his comments.

And you obviously have a problem with that.

Why should I have a serious dialog with a person, you, who thinks they know everything already and need not look at what other people post to support their positions? You mind is much more closed than you let yourself on to be...

This long:

{-----------------------------------------------------------------> x 1 million pi + the speed of light to the 2 millionth power-------}

I conclude from this reply that you aren't being deliberately dumb on this subject, therefore, there must be some other explanation, like you really do not understand the difference between wealth and income. That's fine, fine, really, you have lots and lots of company.

As for what I obviously have a problem with... I have a problem attempting to have a serious conversation about a serious subject with someone, you, who regularly uses language that I left behind on the playground. president zero, republickins, demoncrats, etc ad nauseam. It's childish and disrespectful. Disrespectful to me because you are acting like this is the kind of language *I* use to think critically. I don't. And that is the part I have a problem with. I can't have a conversation with someone who persists in using that kind of language.

You're right, my mind is closed in this regard. I close my mind to the words of a child that is having a tantrum and says things that are clearly untrue, clearly emotionally saturated. If I didn't I'd be at risk of being drawn into an argument on those terms. What could be the best possible outcome of such an indulgence on my part? That you would actually persuade me that the Democrats are really demons? Or that Republicans lick pubes (I hear a long U sound when you use that way). Really? I mean, let's say we get into it and you WIN! What has been accomplished? Not a fucking thing. That's why I won't engage you until you start talking like a grown up. Or I lose my cool and start spouting playground insults.

As for why you should have a serious dialog with me, my answer is that by means of a serious dialog, each of us has a chance to learn something we didn't know before. Your idea that I think I already know everything would be very early on that list of things you could learn, if we only had a serious conversation. I wonder if you are referring to a recent set of posts and links from politifact discussing taxation. In that case, I did already know the things I posted about before I read the information at that link. What I read confirmed what I'd already said.

It is a measure of my open mindedness that I have let you throw so much trash in it. I'm closing my mind to more of your garbage.

in summary,

Motto of the Cellar Politics Forum:

"I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."

That's what makes the "discussions" around here so compelling.

Eh? What?

Interesting. I've seen that before. Let me ask you UT, do you think I've treated TheMercenary terribly?

I stopped watching at number 2.

'They' ARE idiots. ;)

(disclaimer: 'they' in no way refers to any individual or entity that you know of, and these views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Cellar. Content may not be duplicated without the express written consent of 'them')

well, then you tuned out before she said the third conclusion is that "they" are evil, then said this strong attachment to our sense of being "right" causes us to treat others terribly.

this is what I was asking about.

Afterward do we get to hold hands and sing Kumbaya?

'Cause I really need me some Kumbaya.

:p:

I posted it before. It references the forum motto "I'm right and the rest of you are incredibly stupid."

I think it's probably a good approach, to not consider people's arguments on a matter when they don't approach it in an adult way.

Most people here do not approach the discussions in an adult way.

But, you know what? Some people ARE stupid.

Seriously. Why do you think they 'measure' intelligence?

And stupid people are easily swayed...so...

If some moron said "duhhhhh the world is flat" am I supposed to nod and politely tell them I disagree but it's just that we DIFFER not that the dumbass is WRONG. ;)

I didn't watch yet.

If someone who endorses policies that are in direct conflict with my well-being, they are evil. If those people achieve their goals, it will be to my detriment.

Including you.

We're imperfect fucking assholes.

So what? Who isn't?

But at least we're not stupid.

Are they still evil if said policies are for the betterment of more than just you?

Isn't that what all conflict IS though?

You think it's harmful (probably to you) and I think it's beneficial in some way (probably for me).

Or vice versa.

I'm not opposed to conflict.

Conflict for the sport of conflict, even. But that should be restricted to sporting events, or sparring, or other forms of vigorous exercise. But conflict in the name of some greater purpose, political, social, economic, whatever, those kinds of conflict should be conducted within certain boundaries, preferably mutually agreed upon boundaries. This makes for fair fights. Now before I'm laughed off the stage for believing in, much less desiring fair fighting, I submit that we all have a concept of fairness. We usually notice it when our opponent has breached it, but we have it and we work with it. Think about it--you don't solve all your problems with summary executions, effective (and justifiable) though it may be. It is the method that I have recently objected to, not the objective.

I like learning. When I'm learning, I'm in conflict with my own ignorance, my own bad habits, maybe with other people who hold different positions from mine, and I have to try to overcome these opposing forces if I'm going to learn anything. I have standards though, which I explained earlier.

Conflict is not just ok, it is necessary. Without friction, we would get nowhere. But the end does not justify all means.

The Obamanation:

WHat!?!!? The world is not flat?!?!? Oh hell....:p:

Hmmmm.....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-04-06-36-08

Man, that's really digging. I never answer automated calls of ANY kind. I'm not going to waste my time talking to a computer. If I can hang up on those calls from my land line, I can sure as hell hang up on them from my cell, too. I bet I'm not alone either. BFD :eyebrow:

I think people should own their debts and pay them off. I just don't think these organizations should be able to have and share my personal info, cell phone number, across the board and I don't think government should have to authority to do it.

no, again not looking for one. Just a search for the truth.

MSNBC report via CNBC


Official in charge of energy loans resigns

Solyndra officials plead the 5th...

Another piece of the puzzle.
Reuters