Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on December 04, 2015, 09:55:14 PM
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-lives-matter-protesters-cut-off-donald-trump-in-north-carolina/
But it was Trump who ended the speech early, which was striking, given his comments at an August press conference about fellow presidential candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who himself cut a rally short in Seattle as a result of Black Lives Matter protesters.
-
#Black-Wives-Fatter
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/black-lives-matter-protesters-cut-off-donald-trump-in-north-carolina/
But it was Trump who ended the speech early, which was striking, given his comments at an August press conference about fellow presidential candidate, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who himself cut a rally short in Seattle as a result of Black Lives Matter protesters.
He had nearly 2 dozen protesters thrown out. I don't see the comparison to Bernie Sanders letting protesters take the mic and stage from him.
-
He had nearly 2 dozen protesters thrown out. I don't see the comparison to Bernie Sanders letting protesters take the mic and stage from him.
Bernie said, Fuck it and left. He said, if these people don't want me here, I am not going to waste my time.
-
Trump as always had a good relationship with the blacks. They love him!
-
Trump as always had a good relationship with the blacks. They love him!
It's not like if Blacks would compose Beethovens 5th anyway...
-
Trumps speeches are pure shit. Its worse than Sarah Palin content wise. I just watched the one he had in NC. Its pretty bad.
-
Trumps speeches are pure shit. Its worse than Sarah Palin content wise. I just watched the one he had in NC. Its pretty bad.
I won't disagree with you there, but at least he wasn't so chickenshit to let a group of fat women take the mic from his hands
s
-
Trump probably fled for his safety, he didn't act like beta cuck Sanders and give the stage to racist blacks.
TA which candidate do you support and plan on voting for? I don't like anyone on either side. :-\
-
Trump probably fled for his safety, he didn't act like beta cuck Sanders and give the stage to racist blacks.
TA which candidate do you support and plan on voting for? I don't like anyone on either side. :-\
Bernie Sanders. Best candidate by far and best in a long, long time.
-
Trump probably fled for his safety, he didn't act like beta cuck Sanders and give the stage to racist blacks.
TA which candidate do you support and plan on voting for? I don't like anyone on either side. :-\
So he's a scared little bitch?
I'm confused as to how this is a good thing.
-
So he's a scared little bitch?
I'm confused as to how this is a good thing.
Have you seen the capabilities of the American Hebrew?
-
Bernie Sanders. Best candidate by far and best in a long, long time.
Why? I've asked you this before?
-
Bernie Sanders. Best candidate by far and best in a long, long time.
Okay, but how is he not the Dem's version of Ron Paul? Appeals to old school Democrats...too old to get in trouble for telling the truth but at the same time too old to win.
-
Okay, but how is he not the Dem's version of Ron Paul? Appeals to old school Democrats...too old to get in trouble for telling the truth but at the same time too old to win.
How do you figure? He has the younger demographic vote overwhelmingly over Hillary. He is polling WAY higher than Obama was at this point in 08. People really do not like Hillary for many reasons. With Bernie, you can't not like him, you can only dislike his political positions. He is the real deal and hides behind no facade. Extremely intelligent.
And Pellius, I already answered you, but I guess you chose to ignore the post so I figure you would just do the same again. :-\
-
Have you seen the capabilities of the American Hebrew?
Isn't Trump surrounded by security?
I thought it was the illegals who were the criminals?
-
How do you figure? He has the younger demographic vote overwhelmingly over Hillary. He is polling WAY higher than Obama was at this point in 08. People really do not like Hillary for many reasons. With Bernie, you can't not like him, you can only dislike his political positions. He is the real deal and hides behind no facade. Extremely intelligent.
And Pellius, I already answered you, but I guess you chose to ignore the post so I figure you would just do the same again. :-\
Well, you make the mistake of trying to back a genuine and intelligent candidate, haha. I have a feeling when the real money starts flying the hits on his age will come. New York Times had a pro-Bernie story called "Your Cool Socialist Grandpa". Not good.
Yes, Hillary has huge negative numbers and rightly so...and Obama was losing until Ted Kennedy threw his dying support behind him.
Also, I don't think she was leading Obama by 25-30 points in all polls was she?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
-
With Bernie, you can't not like him, you can only dislike his political positions. He is the real deal and hides behind no facade. Extremely intelligent.
Lmao. OK.....
-
Lmao. OK.....
Actually he is a genius..on paper
-
Okay, but how is he not the Dem's version of Ron Paul? Appeals to old school Democrats...too old to get in trouble for telling the truth but at the same time too old to win.
All this Bernie support is very silly. He is not a real candidate. He is put up to give the appearance of competition and to make Hillary look less leftist and socialist. He's also there to try to garner some excitement because there is ZERO for Hillary. He already knows that when his master's tell him to drop out he drops out, but it looks like there was some kind of race. How you can't see that I don't know. All those stupid young kids being played into voting for Hillary.
-
How is someone who can't handle a few protesters going to run the country?
-
Trumps speeches are pure shit. Its worse than Sarah Palin content wise. I just watched the one he had in NC. Its pretty bad.
President Trump.....practice saying it nancy boy
-
All this Bernie support is very silly. He is not a real candidate. He is put up to give the appearance of competition and to make Hillary look less leftist and socialist. He's also there to try to garner some excitement because there is ZERO for Hillary. He already knows that when his master's tell him to drop out he drops out, but it looks like there was some kind of race. How you can't see that I don't know. All those stupid young kids being played into voting for Hillary.
x2
-
Politics are beneath me.
The winner - whomever shall be revealed - is long since decided.
-
Well, you make the mistake of trying to back a genuine and intelligent candidate, haha. I have a feeling when the real money starts flying the hits on his age will come. New York Times had a pro-Bernie story called "Your Cool Socialist Grandpa". Not good.
Yes, Hillary has huge negative numbers and rightly so...and Obama was losing until Ted Kennedy threw his dying support behind him.
Also, I don't think she was leading Obama by 25-30 points in all polls was she?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
Yep.
In 2007-2008, she was.
(http://www.pollster.com/US2TopzDems600.png)
-
So he's a scared little bitch?
I'm confused as to how this is a good thing.
The American Hebrew is a deadly species.
-
The American Hebrew is a deadly species.
I think you meant ignorant and lacking manners
-
President Trump.....practice saying it nancy boy
::)
If the election were held today between Trump and Sanders:
Quinnipiac 11/23 - 11/30 1,453 RV Sanders-49 Trump-41 4 Sanders +8
-
::)
If the election were held today between Trump and Sanders:
Quinnipiac 11/23 - 11/30 1,453 RV Sanders-49 Trump-41 4 Sanders +8
Not a chance.
Trump is the next POTUS.
And he will undo the last 7 years of liberal stupidity
-
Not a chance.
Trump is the next POTUS.
And he will undo the last 7 years of liberal stupidity
Yeah, with what plan?
All he says, "duhhhhhh Im gonna make America great again" (would love to know what time period he is comparing to and would like to return to) , "I will stop China", "I will get back the jobs from Mexico".
Dumb shit like that. How does that even work?
-
Yeah, with what plan?
All he says, "duhhhhhh Im gonna make America great again" (would love to know what time period he is comparing to and would like to return to) , "I will stop China", "I will get back the jobs from Mexico".
Dumb shit like that. How does that even work?
What has worked in the last seven years of complete incompetence?
What "plan" does Hillary have for the country? For chrissakes, every time her or Obama screw up they have to trot Bill out in front of the media to tell the country the screw up was a good thing.
The same people crying about what Trump will do, are perfectly content to accept Obama accomplishing nothing in 8 years. Liberalism is a sickness that has to be eradicated
-
Not a chance.
Trump is the next POTUS.
And he will undo the last 7 years of liberal stupidity
This won't happen.
He will NEVER get the independent middle group. He will only get the far right.
-
Yeah, with what plan?
All he says, "duhhhhhh Im gonna make America great again" (would love to know what time period he is comparing to and would like to return to) , "I will stop China", "I will get back the jobs from Mexico".
Dumb shit like that. How does that even work?
That's the thing, Trump talks a good game, but I rarely hear an ACTUAL PLAN come from him.
All he's doing is catering to what people want to hear. However, making the actual change is a whole other issue.
-
That's the thing, Trump talks a good game, but I rarely hear an ACTUAL PLAN come from him.
All he's doing is catering to what people want to hear. However, making the actual change is a whole other issue.
What politician doesn't tell people what they want to hear?
Other than an unsuccessful one.
Hillary Clinton windsocks so much on every issue you cannot even begin to tell where she even stands on an issue.
-
Yeah, with what plan?
All he says, "duhhhhhh Im gonna make America great again" (would love to know what time period he is comparing to and would like to return to) , "I will stop China", "I will get back the jobs from Mexico".
Dumb shit like that. How does that even work?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=435317.0;attach=479889;image)
You have lost the privilege of having a political opinion, you contributed to situation we are currently in.
-
What politician doesn't tell people what they want to hear?
Other than an unsuccessful one.
Hillary Clinton windsocks so much on every issue you cannot even begin to tell where she even stands on an issue.
I agree that they ALL do that. However, you stated, "And he will undo the last 7 years of liberal stupidity." Thus, making the assumption that he is going to overturn a lot of policies and make America great again (I am assuming this is what you mean)? How is he going to undue the last 7 years? How is he going to change things? What specific plan of action does he have?
-
Bernie said, Fuck it and left. He said, if these people don't want me here, I am not going to waste my time.
He caters to their bullshit cause, read his platform.
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=435317.0;attach=479889;image)
You have lost the privilege of having a political opinion, you contributed to situation we are currently in.
I seriously ask this.
What "situation"?
If Obama wasn't President...
Would the debt be lower? No.
Would the economy be better? No.
Would someone be tougher on the Saudi's? No.
Would we have less killings? Murders? Shootings?
No. No. No.
I mean, is everyone else's life other than mine THAT terrible?
Don't get me wrong. There are things about Obama and his policies I don't agree with.
Continuing erosion of Civil Liberties.
Not doing what I think should be done in South East Asia / North East / North Africa.
But really, no President is going to do what I want them to do, so all I can do is be thankful that my life doesn't suck.
-
I agree that they ALL do that. However, you stated, "And he will undo the last 7 years of liberal stupidity." Thus, making the assumption that he is going to overturn a lot of policies and make America great again (I am assuming this is what you mean)? How is he going to undue the last 7 years? How is he going to change things? What specific plan of action does he have?
Repeal obamacare
Close the borders
Deport undesirable illegals
Cut government spending
Protect the middle class
Enforce immigration laws
Improve the education system
Have an actual foreign policy
Admit the problem with radical Islam
Scale back entitlements
Support the armed services
Remove the crooks from the DOJ
Stop kowtowing to middle eastern countries
It's not hard to give the people what they want.....unless you're so afraid of doing something that will offend someone (Obozo) that you do nothing at all.
-
Repeal obamacare
Close the borders
Deport undesirable illegals
Cut government spending
Protect the middle class
Enforce immigration laws
Improve the education system
Have an actual foreign policy
Admit the problem with radical Islam
Scale back entitlements
Support the armed services
Remove the crooks from the DOJ
Stop kowtowing to middle eastern countries
It's not hard to give the people what they want.....unless you're so afraid of doing something that will offend someone (Obozo) that you do nothing at all.
I was going to suggest you read this before replying but ... too late
anyway have a look
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=435317.0;attach=479889;image)
You have lost the privilege of having a political opinion, you contributed to situation we are currently in.
14-inch arms and moobs.
(Him, not her)
-
Repeal obamacare
Close the borders
Deport undesirable illegals
Cut government spending
Protect the middle class
Enforce immigration laws
Improve the education system
Have an actual foreign policy
Admit the problem with radical Islam
Scale back entitlements
Support the armed services
Remove the crooks from the DOJ
Stop kowtowing to middle eastern countries
It's not hard to give the people what they want.....unless you're so afraid of doing something that will offend someone (Obozo) that you do nothing at all.
This is the thing, they all have "plans" like the plans you're referring to. Anyone can spout off a plan like that. But actually putting a plan into action and developing a policy or program is a whole other story. You can have the best plan in the world, but you also need a way to accomplish that plan. He has not specifically stated how he would accomplish each plan, i.e., the ins and outs of each plan. For instance, "improve the education system." Great, but what does this plan actually look like? Hows he going to accomplish it? How does one go about improving education? Right now, these are very superficial plans. I must admit that I do not follow politics, but if Trump is elected, it will be interesting to see how he goes about addressing each plan. You list about 10 plans--we shall see how many actually get accomplished if he is elected.
-
President Trump.....practice saying it nancy boy
X2
-
This is the thing, they all have "plans" like the plans you're referring to. Anyone can spout off a plan like that. But actually putting a plan into action and developing a policy or program is a whole other story. You can have the best plan in the world, but you also need a way to accomplish that plan. He has not specifically stated how he would accomplish each plan, i.e., the ins and outs of each plan. For instance, "improve the education system." Great, but what does this plan actually look like? Hows he going to accomplish it? How does one go about improving education? Right now, these are very superficial plans. I must admit that I do not follow politics, but if Trump is elected, it will be interesting to see how he goes about addressing each plan. You list about 10 plans--we shall see how many actually get accomplished if he is elected.
Your troll responses are so fucking tiring.
Of course no one is going to give you a 100 point outline on an immigration plan on Getbig. You're not worthy of it anyway.
If I was Trump the first things I'd do on day one of my presidency would be to end affirmative action, repeal obamacare, cut off all funding to sanctuary cities, close the border air tight, mandate every police agency at all levels strictly enforce our immigration laws, and then arrest Obama, Holder, Reid, and Pelosi.
Then sit back and watch the liberals cry.
-
Your troll responses are so fucking tiring.
Of course no one is going to give you a 100 point outline on an immigration plan on Getbig. You're not worthy of it anyway.
If I was Trump the first things I'd do on day one of my presidency would be to end affirmative action, repeal obamacare, cut off all funding to sanctuary cities, close the border air tight, mandate every police agency at all levels strictly enforce our immigration laws, and then arrest Obama, Holder, Reid, and Pelosi.
Then sit back and watch the liberals cry.
Calm down, Walt, its just a bodybuilding forum. I know its your thing to curse and scream and yell, but its really not necessary.
-
Calm down, Walt, its just a bodybuilding forum. I know its your thing to curse and scream and yell, but its really not necessary.
Neither is your childish trolling and stupidity
-
Neither is your childish trolling and stupidity
I wasn't trolling, Walter Slobbercock. I was asking for any plan on any issue (even a general outline, not a 100 point plan). But you or Trump couldn't even provide that.
Calling me stupid? Pot meet kettle. :D :D
-
I wasn't trolling, Walter Slobbercock. I was asking for any plan on any issue (even a general outline, not a 100 point plan). But you or Trump couldn't even provide that.
Calling me stupid? Pot meet kettle. :D :D
Weak troll.
Go ahead - feel free to outline Hillary's plans in detail.
Especially her foreign policy.
Or you can just fuck off.
-
Weak troll.
Go ahead - feel free to outline Hillary's plans in detail.
Especially her foreign policy.
Or you can just fuck off.
1) I never stated that Hillary had any plan about any issue.
2) I never stated that Hillary would correct the last 7 years of screw up.
3) I do not plan on voting for Hillary.
4) Thus, I do not have to outline any of Hillary's plan in any detail (her plans, if she has a plan, are probably just as lame as Trumps).
5) You made a statement that Trump has all these plans that he wants to implement, thus the burden is on you to prove how he plans to do it (since you are advocating for him). You can't. Hope this helps, you deluded moron.
-
Sf who do you plan on voting for? I think all the candidates are terrible :-X
-
1) I never stated that Hillary had any plan about any issue.
2) I never stated that Hillary would correct the last 7 years of screw up.
3) I do not plan on voting for Hillary.
4) Thus, I do not have to outline any of Hillary's plan in any detail (her plans, if she has a plan, are probably just as lame as Trumps).
5) You made a statement that Trump has all these plans that he wants to implement, thus the burden is on you to prove how he plans to do it (since you are advocating for him). You can't. Hope this helps, you deluded moron.
Burden?
Because a spermburper like you "demanded" something on the internet?
I'd like to drive a large truck over your empty, liberal, troll face.
-
Burden?
Because a spermburper like you "demanded" something on the internet?
I'd like to drive a large truck over your empty, liberal, troll face.
Well, you made a claim about Trump, you moron. I never even mentioned anything about Hillary. Why would I have to outline her plans? You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, dingus. Okay, I cannot argue with stupid (you) any more. :D :D
ps - Ive never voted for any liberal in my life, let alone, Obama. Hell, Ive only voted ONE time in my life, and it was not liberal.
-
Well, you made a claim about Trump, you moron. I never even mentioned anything about Hillary. Why would I have to outline her plans? You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, dingus. Okay, I cannot argue with stupid (you) any more. :D :D
ps - Ive never voted for any liberal in my life, let alone, Obama. Hell, Ive only voted ONE time in my life, and it was not liberal.
How's that "burden" thing working out for you Princess?
Useless fucking penis puffing troll. About as funny as your asinine Basile schtick.
-
How's that "burden" thing working out for you Princess?
Useless fucking penis puffing troll. About as funny as your asinine Basile schtick.
Blah, blah, blah, same old shit with you. More jokes about penises. How original. Do you have any other jokes other than penis jokes? You're lame, dumb, and not funny at all. Carry on, Walt.
-
Blah, blah, blah, same old shit with you. More jokes about penises. How original. Do you have any other jokes other than penis jokes? You're lame, dumb, and not funny at all. Carry on, Walt.
Weak troll loves the cock.
Only thing missing is the lame "walk on the beach with Basile joke".
-
Weak troll loves the cock.
Only thing missing is the lame "walk on the beach with Basile joke".
Another penis joke. :D :D Have any more?
-
bernie is a fool he wants tax money 2 fund college
trump would say gtfo off your ass and learn something knowledge is already free through trial n errror
-
We have a member of the Bush white house DURING 9/11, accusing trump of being a 911 Truther. (Ari Fleischer)
We have Trump going ON ALEX JONES SHOW, and they're VERY sweet and loving on each other.
We have trump saying "brought the buildings down" over and over
We have trump being a liberal for exactly 60 years of his life.
And yall are still supporting him for GOp nominee?
okay cool... I wanna establsh this... so the next time a lifelong liberal sucks up to alex jones and is accused of being a truther by a Bush apointee from during 911, you'll all step up and defend the schmuck. Just as youre doing right now Wink
-
bernie is a fool he wants tax money 2 fund college
trump would say gtfo off your ass and learn something knowledge is already free through trial n errror
Well, Trump didn't pay for his own college, so that's not really a thing.
Of call the things that probably should be free, as opposed to shit like free phones or extra money because you got knocked up for the 10th time, shouldn't it be education? Whether it's college or trade school or what have you?
I'm not saying everything should be free, but there's like 2 things I think would probably be ok with a relative free label.
Water (can't believe people have water bills in places) and education.
That's all.
Everything else should be free enterprise so to speak, but really, charging for education and increasing the costs and whatever has done nothing but increase the cost of tuition by over 100% in the past 10 years.
-
Well, Trump didn't pay for his own college, so that's not really a thing.
Of call the things that probably should be free, as opposed to shit like free phones or extra money because you got knocked up for the 10th time, shouldn't it be education? Whether it's college or trade school or what have you?
I'm not saying everything should be free, but there's like 2 things I think would probably be ok with a relative free label.
Water (can't believe people have water bills in places) and education.
That's all.
Everything else should be free enterprise so to speak, but really, charging for education and increasing the costs and whatever has done nothing but increase the cost of tuition by over 100% in the past 10 years.
So you think taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost for some neckbeard fuck to go to university for 8 years to get a fine arts degree?
Bullshit.
-
So you think taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost for some neckbeard fuck to go to university for 8 years to get a fine arts degree?
Bullshit.
Women's lit is important!!!!! >:(
-
Well, Trump didn't pay for his own college, so that's not really a thing.
Of call the things that probably should be free, as opposed to shit like free phones or extra money because you got knocked up for the 10th time, shouldn't it be education? Whether it's college or trade school or what have you?
I'm not saying everything should be free, but there's like 2 things I think would probably be ok with a relative free label.
Water (can't believe people have water bills in places) and education.
That's all.
Everything else should be free enterprise so to speak, but really, charging for education and increasing the costs and whatever has done nothing but increase the cost of tuition by over 100% in the past 10 years.
It does not make sense to charge outrageous sums forcing loan programs just to complete basic requirements for most employment. k-12 in public schooling is already free for everyone, why not just extend it 4 more years to public universities?
Or establish learning centers in each state that would be tuition free and would be nothing but hard education- no frills, no stupid waste sports programs, swimming pools. Just pure education where anyone can go without having to worry about debt.
For as much as Republicans pretend to loathe debt, they sure love to force it upon people. They think the current Insurance/Healthcare system is the best model when its nothing but a disaster. Repeal Obamacare? Why bother? Its the same exact system they love in the first place with Insurance companies at the forefront like always.
The goal should be to get citizens out of debt, not put them in it. Using the government to take them out is a better usage of money than using it to put them directly in debt.
-
So you think taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost for some neckbeard fuck to go to university for 8 years to get a fine arts degree?
Bullshit.
No.
I don't. I think it should be for a degree with a skill set to it. Something productive. It's also why I mentioned a trade school.
Learning facts and dates is not something I consider a skill.
Don't taxpayers already pay 100% for us to go blow up other countries with zero return on investment?
You do realize if we just stayed home and defended our own homeland instead of involving ourselves in every fucking conflict around the goddam world, we would be able to pay for everyone's education right?
-
So you think taxpayers should pay 100% of the cost for some neckbeard fuck to go to university for 8 years to get a fine arts degree?
Bullshit.
What is wrong with a fine arts degree? Specifically.
And can you provide me some data to where a fine arts degree is detrimental?
-
I would also like to mention that it should only apply to public universities.
Private institutions of course are exempt.
As they should be.
I do like Adonis' idea of the learning center with no frills hard education.
-
-
It does not make sense to charge outrageous sums forcing loan programs just to complete basic requirements for most employment. k-12 in public schooling is already free for everyone, why not just extend it 4 more years to public universities?
Or establish learning centers in each state that would be tuition free and would be nothing but hard education- no frills, no stupid waste sports programs, swimming pools. Just pure education where anyone can go without having to worry about debt.
For as much as Republicans pretend to loathe debt, they sure love to force it upon people. They think the current Insurance/Healthcare system is the best model when its nothing but a disaster. Repeal Obamacare? Why bother? Its the same exact system they love in the first place with Insurance companies at the forefront like always.
The goal should be to get citizens out of debt, not put them in it. Using the government to take them out is a better usage of money than using it to put them directly in debt.
You want a free learning center?
Four years university traded for four years service in the armed forces.
There ya go!
-
No.
I don't. I think it should be for a degree with a skill set to it. Something productive. It's also why I mentioned a trade school.
Learning facts and dates is not something I consider a skill.
Don't taxpayers already pay 100% for us to go blow up other countries with zero return on investment?
You do realize if we just stayed home and defended our own homeland instead of involving ourselves in every fucking conflict around the goddam world, we would be able to pay for everyone's education right?
There isn't enough political power in all the US to pull us out of the Middle East.
-
8)
-
You want a free learning center?
Four years university traded for four years service in the armed forces.
There ya go!
I'm fine with the idea if military service is first.
-
Dig up every last Confederate Officer's grave as well.
Bernie 2016
-
What is wrong with a fine arts degree? Specifically.
And can you provide me some data to where a fine arts degree is detrimental?
Troll elsewhere Prince Valiant haircut.
Or post up the tremendous benefits to society a $160,000 bachelors degree in fine arts offers.
14-inch spaghetti arms on his Obozo t-shirt.
Classic!
-
There isn't enough political power in all the US to pull us out of the Middle East.
But that's our fault for letting it get this fault.
We should not be there.
You want a free learning center?
Four years university traded for four years service in the armed forces.
There ya go!
The GI Bill doesn't really cover enough for education anymore due to the extreme expense.
-
You want a free learning center?
Four years university traded for four years service in the armed forces.
There ya go!
It would be cheaper if you did not make them serve in the military. Do you know how much it costs the government to train and house just one soldier for 4 years? ???
Republicans at it again, not realizing long term costs. ;)
-
I'm fine with the idea if military service is first.
Exactly......Adonis is proposing to have/use the government to get Americans out of debt.
That is Wiggs type stupid.
One of the main reasons this country is so screwed up is government intrusion into our personal lives. There is no way in hell an administration as incompetent and self-serving as the Obozo administration is going to be able to manage the personal finances of Generation Entitlement and thirty-something year old liberal she-men
-
One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising. By Larry Shaughnessy.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.Feb 28, 2012
One soldier, one year - CNN Security Clearance
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
-
But that's our fault for letting it get this fault.
We should not be there.
The GI Bill doesn't really cover enough for education anymore due to the extreme expense.
It's been out of hands for years.
We wouldn't need a GI bill. Do four years and get tuition paid at a state school.
I'd also be in favor of community service.
-
Exactly......Adonis is proposing to have/use the government to get Americans out of debt.
That is Wiggs type stupid.
One of the main reasons this country is so screwed up is government intrusion into our personal lives. There is no way in hell an administration as incompetent and self-serving as the Obozo administration is going to be able to manage the personal finances of Generation Entitlement and thirty-something year old liberal she-men
And you want the government to spend 1 million dollars on one soldier just so they can get the GI bill.
You tell me who is stupid.
Fiscal Conservative. Don't. Make. Me. Fucking. Laugh.
Pathetic.
-
But that's our fault for letting it get this fault.
We should not be there.
The GI Bill doesn't really cover enough for education anymore due to the extreme expense.
Hell it costs around 1 million dollars for just one soldier for one year.
Thats a lot of money from tax payers just so Johnny can get his GI bill, which will add to the cost.
Republicans are hilarious.
-
One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising. By Larry Shaughnessy.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.Feb 28, 2012
One soldier, one year - CNN Security Clearance
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
Are you stupid or an ideologue?
If stupid: You won't possibly understand how stupid the number is posted and how it was derived, and why it's bullshit.
If an ideologue: You already know its bullshit and are hoping one of us is stupid.
-
It's been out of hands for years.
We wouldn't need a GI bill. Do four years and get tuition paid at a state school.
I'd also be in favor of community service.
The cost of keeping troops far outweighs the cost of education and education is too expensive.
I think free education and go do something after school. Or maintain a minimum GPA in a degree of study that is beneficial.
Math, sciences, engineer, architecture, just to name a few.
If you want to learn music history or whatever, you gotta pay.
I'll just ask this.
Which one would be more beneficial to our society. Paying more for people to go blow things up 1/2 a world away (I'm not talking about actual defense of our nation) or pay for a person to learn something that may lead to cold fusion?
-
Hell, the cost went up:
http://news.yahoo.com/it-costs--2-1-million-per-year-for-each-soldier-deployed-in-afghanistan--report-133150602.html
In 2014, it will cost an average of an eye-popping $2.1 million for every U.S. troop serving in Afghanistan, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA).
To put this in context, the report, which analyzed the Pentagon's budget, found that from 2008 to 2013, the per-troop cost was roughly $1.3 million.
-
Are you stupid or an ideologue?
If stupid: You won't possibly understand how stupid the number is posted and how it was derived, and why it's bullshit.
If an ideologue: You already know its bullshit and are hoping one of us is stupid.
Yes because drkaje, internet budget expert with his hands on classified internets documents, knows more than the people who actually help write the budget. ::)
-
The cost of keeping troops far outweighs the cost of education and education is too expensive.
I think free education and go do something after school. Or maintain a minimum GPA in a degree of study that is beneficial.
Math, sciences, engineer, architecture, just to name a few.
If you want to learn music history or whatever, you gotta pay.
I'll just ask this.
Which one would be more beneficial to our society. Paying more for people to go blow things up 1/2 a world away (I'm not talking about actual defense of our nation) or pay for a person to learn something that may lead to cold fusion?
They want the tax payer to pay millions and millions of dollars for one soldier, so they can get a GI bill which will also add to the tab.
They think that makes sense fiscally. Fucking hilarious isn't it. :D
-
It would be cheaper if you did not make them serve in the military. Do you know how much it costs the government to train and house just one soldier for 4 years? ???
Republicans at it again, not realizing long term costs. ;)
Bullshit.
Your premise was that you wanted the taxpayers to fund someone else's poor choices and responsibilities. Typical liberal stance that you want something for free without putting any skin in the game or being accountable for your debt/actions. Where does it say that anyone has the right to a free college or university education?
The system of borrowing money to get a degree is not broken and allows many hard working people to better themselves. People borrowing a ton of money for eight years of partying and a shitty degree are at fault for their own problems. I'm sure, like you, that realization that they are not special and unique little snowflakes with their $200,000 history degree is devastating, but the world needs Walmart clerks too.
-
They want the tax payer to pay millions and millions of dollars for one soldier, so they can get a GI bill which will also add to the tab.
They think that makes sense fiscally. Fucking hilarious isn't it. :D
Certainly policing the world is an expensive task.
Especially considering that the people that we are doing the police work for, never pay a cent.
-
One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising. By Larry Shaughnessy.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.Feb 28, 2012
One soldier, one year - CNN Security Clearance
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
Try to keep up drop-out.
I never said they had to be stationed in Afghanistan
-
Certainly policing the world is an expensive task.
Especially considering that the people that we are doing the police work for, never pay a cent.
The other hilarious takeaway here is what Walter and his friends answers were.................... .....................Soc ialism.
Go in the military, the largest Socialist entity of our government, in order to get a GI bill- another Socialist program thanks to FDR.
Hilarious.
You can't make this shit up.
-
And you want the government to spend 1 million dollars on one soldier just so they can get the GI bill.
You tell me who is stupid.
Fiscal Conservative. Don't. Make. Me. Fucking. Laugh.
Pathetic.
Weak strawman argument.
There are many other places a soldier could be stationed, including right here in the U.S.
Try to follow along.
-
Try to keep up drop-out.
I never said they had to be stationed in Afghanistan
Ok snowflake, tell me again how it would be cheaper for the taxpayer even if they were not in Afghanistan. ::) I am literally, all ears. ;)
You are just proving my point further. Even if they are not sent to Afghanistan or anywhere, it will still be more expensive for just one soldier to get a fucking GI bill.
Do you even know how to add?
-
Bullshit.
Your premise was that you wanted the taxpayers to fund someone else's poor choices and responsibilities. Typical liberal stance that you want something for free without putting any skin in the game or being accountable for your debt/actions. Where does it say that anyone has the right to a free college or university education?
The system of borrowing money to get a degree is not broken and allows many hard working people to better themselves. People borrowing a ton of money for eight years of partying and a shitty degree are at fault for their own problems. I'm sure, like you, that realization that they are not special and unique little snowflakes with their $200,000 history degree is devastating, but the world needs Walmart clerks too.
You ever watch a show about the history of WW2? I watch the American Heroes Channel all of the time.
Stuff about Vietnam, Gulf War, WW2, Old West History... It's great.
Someone with a history degree is why we are still able to know, understand, and learn from the past.
It's not quite the same as a degree in "fashion".
A lot of degrees have value, a lot don't, but I don't think History or Literature are technically devalued.
Maybe they would be 50% of the normal tuition rate, but they would cost due to it not leaving a skill after.
-
Weak strawman argument.
There are many other places a soldier could be stationed, including right here in the U.S.
Try to follow along.
Ok snowflake, tell me again how it would be cheaper for the taxpayer even if they were not in Afghanistan. ::) I am literally, all ears. ;)
You are just proving my point further. Even if they are not sent to Afghanistan or anywhere, it will still be more expensive for just one soldier to get a fucking GI bill.
Do you even know how to add? ???
-
The other hilarious takeaway here is what Walter and his friends answers were.................... .....................Soc ialism.
Go in the military, the largest Socialist entity of our government, in order to get a GI bill- another Socialist program thanks to FDR.
Hilarious.
You can't make this shit up.
Actually.....your answer is far more dependent on the government. Free 8 year useless degree, no job, unemployment for a few years, then welfare.
The liberal utopia.
-
You ever watch a show about the history of WW2? I watch the American Heroes Channel all of the time.
Stuff about Vietnam, Gulf War, WW2, Old West History... It's great.
Someone with a history degree is why we are still able to know, understand, and learn from the past.
It's not quite the same as a degree in "fashion".
A lot of degrees have value, a lot don't, but I don't think History or Literature are technically devalued.
Maybe they would be 50% of the normal tuition rate, but they would cost due to it not leaving a skill after.
All you got to do is read Getbig for a while to realize that we need more people who actually know stuff and can teach it. :D
-
Actually.....your answer is far more dependent on the government. Free 8 year useless degree, no job, unemployment for a few years, then welfare.
The liberal utopia.
8 years? ???
No job? ???
Unemployment? ???
Welfare? ???
Why are you having such trouble staying on topic?
-
Yes because drkaje, internet budget expert with his hands on classified internets documents, knows more than the people who actually help write the budget. ::)
Just as I thought. You want to believe it's true.
Anyone stupid enough to misunderstand the difference between infrastructure vs training one soldier should have a court-mandated care attendant.
The information's only useful if you can sift through the bullshit and figure out how the statistics were manipulated. I'm no rocket surgeon and it was fairly simple to surmise how the number was arrived at.
The people who argued that the democratization of information would lead to a more educated society have been proven wrong with your post, LOL!
-
Actually.....your answer is far more dependent on the government. Free 8 year useless degree, no job, unemployment for a few years, then welfare.
The liberal utopia.
Could you clarify why they would get a useless degree, not have a job, and be unemployed, then receive welfare because they got a free education?
I mean, I'm not trying to pick nits, but Australia has unemployment rate on par with the US and it was much better than ours during the economic downturn a few years ago.
They took the unemployed, retrained them, and put them back to work.
I'm not saying their system is amazing or fantastic, but they didn't have more unemployment because they gave people a free education.
In case you are wondering, I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in why you believe people with an education would automatically be unemployed.
Just as a reminder, I am saying they should have to maintain a good standard of GPA to continue to receive this "scholarship" so to speak.
-
Just as I thought. You want to believe it's true.
Anyone stupid enough to misunderstand the difference between infrastructure vs training one soldier should have a court-mandated care attendant.
The information's only useful if you can sift through the bullshit and figure out how the statistics were manipulated. I'm no rocket surgeon and it was fairly simple to surmise how the number was arrived at.
The people who argued that the democratization of information would lead to a more educated society have been proven wrong with your post, LOL!
So what you are saying is that you want the American tax payer to fund 4 years of military for one soldier so they can in turn fund 4 years in college?
Maybe that is the 8 years Walter was talking about? ???
Tell me again how that is cost effective. :-\
-
Ok snowflake, tell me again how it would be cheaper for the taxpayer even if they were not in Afghanistan. ::) I am literally, all ears. ;)
You are just proving my point further. Even if they are not sent to Afghanistan or anywhere, it will still be more expensive for just one soldier to get a fucking GI bill.
Do you even know how to add?
You really are stupid.
The obvious $200K the taxpayer pays for zero return in your scenario versus the $200K in service in return for the degree. Or in the case where the service comes first, you can beginning training toward a degree or skill.
The cost of a soldier deployment is constant whether a GI Bill student or regular enlisted man. Taxpayers are going to pay that in either case. Which is obviously higher in times of war.
-
Hahaha, bunch of old deadbeats arguing about this on the Internet.
Go do something with your pathetic remaining years.
-
8 years? ???
No job? ???
Unemployment? ???
Welfare? ???
Why are you having such trouble staying on topic?
That is the topic. That is exactly what you want to fund with other people's tax dollars.
Don't call it a Learning Center, call it what it really is......Adult Daycare
-
Could you clarify why they would get a useless degree, not have a job, and be unemployed, then receive welfare because they got a free education?
I mean, I'm not trying to pick nits, but Australia has unemployment rate on par with the US and it was much better than ours during the economic downturn a few years ago.
They took the unemployed, retrained them, and put them back to work.
I'm not saying their system is amazing or fantastic, but they didn't have more unemployment because they gave people a free education.
In case you are wondering, I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in why you believe people with an education would automatically be unemployed.
Just as a reminder, I am saying they should have to maintain a good standard of GPA to continue to receive this "scholarship" so to speak.
Walter is actually the one who wants the American tax payer to pay 4 years for military for one soldier and 4 years of college which equals 8 years.
-
You really are stupid.
The obvious $200K the taxpayer pays for zero return in your scenario versus the $200K in service in return for the degree. Or in the case where the service comes first, you can beginning training toward a degree or skill.
The cost of a soldier deployment is constant whether a GI Bill student or regular enlisted man. Taxpayers are going to pay that in either case. Which is obviously higher in times of war.
Again, your "brilliant" solution was- "Want a 4 year degree for free, 4 years in the military". (8 years)
Do you know what "free" means? Do you know how much your "solution" costs the taxpayer for just one person if they do that?
Can you add?
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTej_8z9vAa8eEMivIEqa31nH9qPoIz8Ttw7txJBOLFg3d9uk-b0H9ry_KF2g)
Old people arguing over the intenet of peace.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTej_8z9vAa8eEMivIEqa31nH9qPoIz8Ttw7txJBOLFg3d9uk-b0H9ry_KF2g)
Old people arguing over the intenet of peace.
No one is arguing kid.
It's just a discussion.
-
Could you clarify why they would get a useless degree, not have a job, and be unemployed, then receive welfare because they got a free education?
I mean, I'm not trying to pick nits, but Australia has unemployment rate on par with the US and it was much better than ours during the economic downturn a few years ago.
They took the unemployed, retrained them, and put them back to work.
I'm not saying their system is amazing or fantastic, but they didn't have more unemployment because they gave people a free education.
In case you are wondering, I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely interested in why you believe people with an education would automatically be unemployed.
Just as a reminder, I am saying they should have to maintain a good standard of GPA to continue to receive this "scholarship" so to speak.
You're talking about re-training people who were successful working members of society and want to work.
I'm talking about the absurd handout we would be using taxpayers money to fund being given to an entire group of people not interested in working, being responsible for their actions, and feel this is owed to them.
-
You're talking about re-training people who were successful working members of society and want to work.
I'm talking about the absurd handout we would be using taxpayers money to fund being given to an entire group of people not interested in working, being responsible for their actions, and feel this is owed to them.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw_4d_jcGLUcH99XeReDhTY_m3nxd0slVy3rHqG_GxwCfr9LOBxh1sxbIH)
-
You're talking about re-training people who were successful working members of society and want to work.
I'm talking about the absurd handout we would be using taxpayers money to fund being given to an entire group of people not interested in working, being responsible for their actions, and feel this is owed to them.
The military is filled with scum who want handouts, Like Navy_Mike. Are you aware of that?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=577388.0;attach=633585;image)
-
Walter is actually the one who wants the American tax payer to pay 4 years for military for one soldier and 4 years of college which equals 8 years.
You still have no clue what the costs included in the link you provided.
The armed forces are going to have to build the infrastructure to fight a war or protect a foreign land regardless of whether the soldier is GI Bill or regular enlisted.
You really aren't able to comprehend this are you?
You really cannot grasp any type of fixed cost concept, or cost of safety and protection supplied by the armed forces.
You want a taxpayer funded adult daycare for liberal twats to hide in for 8 years before graduating with a useless degree.
-
You're talking about re-training people who were successful working members of society and want to work.
I'm talking about the absurd handout we would be using taxpayers money to fund being given to an entire group of people not interested in working, being responsible for their actions, and feel this is owed to them.
I mentioned Australia, but that is not the real basis of my point.
How can you say they aren't interested in working because they have a free education?
The two do not seem connected at all.
-
The military is filled with scum who want handouts, Like Navy_Mike. Are you aware of that?
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=577388.0;attach=633585;image)
Society is Adam.
But if Navy Mike signed up and put his life on the line to defend the U.S., you will never hear me criticize that. I'm fully in support of the US taking better care of veterans and funding it by decreasing handout programs
-
I mentioned Australia, but that is not the real basis of my point.
How can you say they aren't interested in working because they have a free education?
The two do not seem connected at all.
If I paid you to go to college and party for as long as you wanted, with no debt or obligation when you finally decided to graduate.....what would be your motivation to study hard in a challenging degree and go to work?
-
You still have no clue what the costs included in the link you provided.
The armed forces are going to have to build the infrastructure to fight a war or protect a foreign land regardless of whether the soldier is GI Bill or regular enlisted.
You really aren't able to comprehend this are you?
You really cannot grasp any type of fixed cost concept, or cost of safety and protection supplied by the armed forces.
You want a taxpayer funded adult daycare for liberal twats to hide in for 8 years before graduating with a useless degree.
Your argument was not every soldier gets sent to Afghanistan or anywhere. I agree. But you also have FAILED to show me how its cheaper to make the American tax payer fund one soldier-who DOES NOT get deployed anywhere- for four years to get a GI bill for another 4 year draw on the tax payer.
The first four years will be way more expensive than the 4 years of GI bill. Do you not see that?
Also, are you aware that soldiers can use the GI bill for "useless" degrees? Or has that escaped you as well?
-
If I paid you to go to college and party for as long as you wanted, with no debt or obligation when you finally decided to graduate.....what would be your motivation to study hard in a challenging degree and go to work?
Maybe you want nice things? :-\ Maybe you want to start a family? Maybe you enjoy helping animals? Maybe you like to brag on the internet how much money you make? Everyone has a different motivation.
-
If I paid you to go to college and party for as long as you wanted, with no debt or obligation when you finally decided to graduate.....what would be your motivation to study hard in a challenging degree and go to work?
What was your idol Donald Trump's motivation to study hard in a challenging degree after going to college, partying with no debt?
-
Your argument was not every soldier gets sent to Afghanistan or anywhere. I agree. But you also have FAILED to show me how its cheaper to make the American tax payer fund one soldier-who DOES NOT get deployed anywhere- for four years to get a GI bill for another 4 year draw on the tax payer.
The first four years will be way more expensive than the 4 years of GI bill. Do you not see that?
Also, are you aware that soldiers can use the GI bill for "useless" degrees? Or has that escaped you as well?
If a person wants to trade four years military service for a useless degree that is their choice. As long as it is not paid as a 100%, no obligation handout using taxpayer money.
-
If I paid you to go to college and party for as long as you wanted, with no debt or obligation when you finally decided to graduate.....what would be your motivation to study hard in a challenging degree and go to work?
Why wouldn't it be? People who want to do better will appreciate the assistance and work hard to get to the end and be able to better themselves.
Why are all of these evil socialist countries that have free education doing better than the US when it comes to things like sciences and math? Why are a large number of advancements in the sciences being done elsewhere than here if our system is so much better?
Are you holding people to some arbitrary standard? I also mentioned there would be no "partying", there would be a GPA requirement and you aren't going to get a high GPA if all you do is party.
-
What was your idol Donald Trump's motivation to study hard in a challenging degree after going to college, partying with no debt?
I don't remember saying Donald Trump was my idol.
You're scrambling now dumbo ears.
-
If a person wants to trade four years military service for a useless degree that is their choice. As long as it is not paid as a 100%, no obligation handout using taxpayer money.
How do you determine what is useless and what is not?
Someone with a Mechanical Engineering degree who wants to be a manager at Starbucks?
Or a Marine who majors in Dance, opens up a large Dance studio and is artistic director of Exit 12 Dance Company in New York. Founding Exit 12 in 2007, a year after coming home from Iraq. Exit 12 focuses on choreographing works that relay the experiences of veterans and their families, often in ways that language cannot express.
How One Former Marine Used Ballet To Spread Veterans' Stories Around The World
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628206/thumbs/o-DANCE-900.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628200/thumbs/o-GUN-900.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628210/thumbs/o-DANCE-900.jpg)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/roman-baca-dance_n_6753020.html
-
Why wouldn't it be? People who want to do better will appreciate the assistance and work hard to get to the end and be able to better themselves.
Why are all of these evil socialist countries that have free education doing better than the US when it comes to things like sciences and math? Why are a large number of advancements in the sciences being done elsewhere than here if our system is so much better?
Are you holding people to some arbitrary standard? I also mentioned there would be no "partying", there would be a GPA requirement and you aren't going to get a high GPA if all you do is party.
So you feel a student loan should be forgiven if you maintain a certain GPA?
-
So you feel a student loan should be forgiven if you maintain a certain GPA?
I would be ok with that. Sure... Say anything 3.0 and above?
I am being somewhat arbitrary, but what's wrong with a B average being the criteria?
-
I would be ok with that. Sure... Say anything 3.0 and above?
I am being somewhat arbitrary, but what's wrong with a B average being the criteria?
So a B average for an English Lit degree at Yale at $85,000 a year tuition is okay and forgivable?
But a person with a C+ average in biomedical engineering at MIT gas to pay their own way??
-
Sf who do you plan on voting for? I think all the candidates are terrible :-X
Sorry to butt in, but I just wanted to say I agree with you.
-
How do you determine what is useless and what is not?
Someone with a Mechanical Engineering degree who wants to be a manager at Starbucks?
Or a Marine who majors in Dance, opens up a large Dance studio and is artistic director of Exit 12 Dance Company in New York. Founding Exit 12 in 2007, a year after coming home from Iraq. Exit 12 focuses on choreographing works that relay the experiences of veterans and their families, often in ways that language cannot express.
How One Former Marine Used Ballet To Spread Veterans' Stories Around The World
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628206/thumbs/o-DANCE-900.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628200/thumbs/o-GUN-900.jpg)
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2628210/thumbs/o-DANCE-900.jpg)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/roman-baca-dance_n_6753020.html
What does this have to do with your Adult Daycare concept?
I don't care if someone studies Engineering or Computer Science.....as long as it is not a 100% handout using taxpayer money
-
So a B average for an English Lit degree at Yale at $85,000 a year tuition is okay and forgivable?
But a person with a C+ average in biomedical engineering at MIT gas to pay their own way??
I have never once mentioned English Lit, so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.
I am flexible in giving it a sliding scale... English Lit (since you brought it up, not me, would require 3.5 or a 4) and Engineering would perhaps be a B.
MIT wouldn't be feasible as it's a private institution, not a public one.
So no... The BME kid would have to pay their own way no matter what.
-
So a B average for an English Lit degree at Yale at $85,000 a year tuition is okay and forgivable?
But a person with a C+ average in biomedical engineering at MIT gas to pay their own way??
I would do away with GPA requirements at public institutions. The GI bill does not have GPA requirements for instance.
Also, Yale is a Private University which can charge whatever they want because it is private. I don't really care what they charge. I am speaking of Public options.
-
What does this have to do with your Adult Daycare concept?
I don't care if someone studies Engineering or Computer Science.....as long as it is not a 100% handout using taxpayer money
You seem to think some degrees are useless and others are not. However, you only have your opinion and no data. Furthermore, how do you determine what is useless and what is not?
-
I would do away with GPA requirements at public institutions. The GI bill does not have GPA requirements for instance.
Also, Yale is a Private University which can charge whatever they want because it is private. I don't really care what they charge. I am speaking of Public options.
You also seem to think the cost of education will remain constant once the government makes tuition free.
Absurd
-
You seem to think some degrees are useless and others are not. However, you only have your opinion and no data. Furthermore, how do you determine what is useless and what is not?
Simple....if the student is not willing to make that investment in themselves with education, then why the hell should the taxpayer?
-
Simple....if the student is not willing to make that investment in themselves with education, then why the hell should the taxpayer?
???
What exactly do you mean here?
-
How do you figure? He has the younger demographic vote overwhelmingly over Hillary. He is polling WAY higher than Obama was at this point in 08. People really do not like Hillary for many reasons. With Bernie, you can't not like him, you can only dislike his political positions. He is the real deal and hides behind no facade. Extremely intelligent.
And Pellius, I already answered you, but I guess you chose to ignore the post so I figure you would just do the same again. :-\
Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the link/thread? I admit that I don't know a lot about him and would like to know his appeal. He is considered a Socialist which means bigger government and more control over our lives. Are you a Socialist? Do you support a bigger government?
-
That's the thing, Trump talks a good game, but I rarely hear an ACTUAL PLAN come from him.
All he's doing is catering to what people want to hear. However, making the actual change is a whole other issue.
Deport illegal immigrants. Build a wall. Wage war against ISIS and actually fight it. lower corporate tax rates, China will have to open their markets to the US as we have opened it to them or face tariffs....
What is Hillary's plan? Obama has no plan for combating Islamic terrorist. He doesn't seem to even acknowledge that they are our enemy.
-
What politician doesn't tell people what they want to hear?
Other than an unsuccessful one.
Hillary Clinton windsocks so much on every issue you cannot even begin to tell where she even stands on an issue.
Trump does. He says a lot of things that many people don't like and consider an outrage, even by other Republicans. But it is also what makes him popular to many as well.
The difference between Trump and Hillary is that Trump isn't afraid of pissing off his base whereas Hillary caters to them. Even talking with a Southern twang when in the South.
-
Deport illegal immigrants. Build a wall. Wage war against ISIS and actually fight it. lower corporate tax rates, China will have to open their markets to the US as we have opened it to them or face tariffs....
What is Hillary's plan? Obama has no plan for combating Islamic terrorist. He doesn't seem to even acknowledge that they are our enemy.
Obama is an islamic sympathizer, no secret.
-
This is the thing, they all have "plans" like the plans you're referring to. Anyone can spout off a plan like that. But actually putting a plan into action and developing a policy or program is a whole other story. You can have the best plan in the world, but you also need a way to accomplish that plan. He has not specifically stated how he would accomplish each plan, i.e., the ins and outs of each plan. For instance, "improve the education system." Great, but what does this plan actually look like? Hows he going to accomplish it? How does one go about improving education? Right now, these are very superficial plans. I must admit that I do not follow politics, but if Trump is elected, it will be interesting to see how he goes about addressing each plan. You list about 10 plans--we shall see how many actually get accomplished if he is elected.
He supports school vouchers, lowering corporate taxes, eliminating the death tax, any couple earning less than 50 grand pays NO taxes. He supports going to war with ISIS. Supporting and arming the Kurds as well as intensifying the bombing campaign. Obama's strikes are just token efforts.
Name a Democratic candidate that has gives specific plans of action?
-
Sorry, I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the link/thread? I admit that I don't know a lot about him and would like to know his appeal. He is considered a Socialist which means bigger government and more control over our lives. Are you a Socialist? Do you support a bigger government?
You aren't working with a correct definition of socialism.
-
One soldier, one year: $850,000 and rising. By Larry Shaughnessy.
Keeping one American service member in Afghanistan costs between $850,000 and $1.4 million a year, depending on who you ask. But one matter is clear, that cost is going up.Feb 28, 2012
One soldier, one year - CNN Security Clearance
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
Bull shit!
"the amount of money spent in Afghanistan for a year and dividing it up by the number of soldiers."
Not an accurate portrayal. There's a difference between the cost of war: planes, tanks, missiles..., and the cost of keeping a soldier in the field. It's a dishonest argument because if we remove one soldier from the field it's not going to save us a million bucks.
-
Obama is an islamic sympathizer, no secret.
I don't think he's a sympathizer but I do think he's too chicken shit to call a duck a duck.
That's what I don't get.
If any group of people does something bad to others, and it's primarily that group, it's certainly not wrong to say so.
The truth is a bitch to a lot of people in this day and age it seems.
-
The other hilarious takeaway here is what Walter and his friends answers were.................... .....................Soc ialism.
Go in the military, the largest Socialist entity of our government, in order to get a GI bill- another Socialist program thanks to FDR.
Hilarious.
You can't make this shit up.
This where the issue of the what the role of government is under out Constitution. Our Constitution states that one of the roles of our government is to provide for the common defense and national security. In fact, it is the only function that is MANDATORY:
"National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them."
National defense and protecting our citizenry is the most important role of our government. Providing for their education is not a function of our government.
-
That may be true and I'm willing to concede that from the original constitution, however, you must admit that the cost of war has skyrocketed.
Remember, the original founding fathers didn't want a standing army and thought it should all be militia based, but of course that's not the case now.
Right or wrong, the world and the requirements have changed.
Would the US be able to truly have zero government involved in other areas? Could it survive?
We could try, but I doubt it would be feasible in today's world.
-
This where the issue of the what the role of government is under out Constitution. Our Constitution states that one of the roles of our government is to provide for the common defense and national security. In fact, it is the only function that is MANDATORY:
"National defense is the only mandatory function of the national government. Most of the powers granted to Congress are permissive in nature. Congress is given certain authorities but not required by the Constitution to exercise them."
National defense and protecting our citizenry is the most important role of our government. Providing for their education is not a function of our government.
Nothing in the Constitution about a permanent standing army. (something that would leave the Founders aghast.)
:D
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
-
You aren't working with a correct definition of socialism.
Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.
I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.
-
Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.
I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.
How about you educate yourself. I don't want you to believe me. Research for yourself and bring me your findings.
Here is a start:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
-
Perhaps you can educate me. I understand it to mean that it is about public and not private ownership. Prices are not set by market forces but determined and set by an outside authority (usually government). For example, the minimum wage is a socialist policy because a third party determines the price for a service (a worker) rather than the actual buyer or seller. Rent control would be another example of a socialist policy.
I am against it because I believe in liberty. In any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved.
Oh really?
So you think Bill Gates should be allowed to buy every single power company in say, Rhode Island and then charge, 100,000 per year for electricity per customer if he wants. Lets pretend he has no interest in making money because he does not need it. He wants to prove your theory of "Liberty. any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved."
"You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."
-
That may be true and I'm willing to concede that from the original constitution, however, you must admit that the cost of war has skyrocketed.
Remember, the original founding fathers didn't want a standing army and thought it should all be militia based, but of course that's not the case now.
Right or wrong, the world and the requirements have changed.
Would the US be able to truly have zero government involved in other areas? Could it survive?
We could try, but I doubt it would be feasible in today's world.
Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.
Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.
The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.
-
Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.
Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.
The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.
-
Yes, the cost of war has gone up considerably in a sense. It has not gone up in terms of lives lost because of technical advancement and military capabilities and safety. It is way more safer today to be a fighter pilot than it was in WW2. The amount of pilots that died just in training missions in WW2 is just staggering.
Also, it could be because of the way we fight wars now. We fight with one arm tied behind our backs and are more concerned with political correctness and world opinion than actually winning.
The reason we get involved in other areas of the world (addressing a point brought up by another poster) is because many things that happen outside our country will effect us. When Hussein invaded Kuwait, an ally, he threatened the worlds oil supply. I know people make the argument that is it worth our soldiers dying for oil. Well, we need oil to survive. Everything you have in your house right now, including your house, needed oil and fuel to get there. Oil is life in our society.
-
-
Nothing in the Constitution about a permanent standing army. (something that would leave the Founders aghast.)
:D
The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years....
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12
By ending it there you seem to imply it's only good for two years. It is true that this is the only clause related to the military that puts a time limit on appropriations but this does not imply that it cannot extend those limits which congress does constantly. Congress could very well withhold funding for our involvement in Afghanistan.
But your argument is beside the point I was making. It was about the role of government. It's not an issue whether it's more expensive to have a soldier in the military or using that money to pay for other people's education. It is the role of the government to provide for the national security and protect our citizens and their rights here and abroad. Whether it's to protect them from being invaded by a hostile nation or to protect them from someone building a tire factory right next door to you. It is not the role of the government to provide for a person's education. (Of course when I say "government provides" I mean tax payers.)
And just for the sake of clarity and to more fully understand your position: Are you against having a military force supported by the tax payers?
-
How about you educate yourself. I don't want you to believe me. Research for yourself and bring me your findings.
Here is a start:
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
I ask because you seem to have a different understanding of Socialism than I do. But reading your "Here's a start" it seems we have the same understanding. You do believe in SOCIAL ownership and DEMOCRATIC control which preclude private ownership and free market.
TA, we're just having a discussion and debate here. I'm just trying to understand your position, world view, and reasoning -- maybe even learn something. No need to get so hostile. I'm not attacking you. Disagreement and clarification is not an attack. You use to be able to control your emotions in a debate but seem to have gotten more ornery with age.
-
Oh really?
So you think Bill Gates should be allowed to buy every single power company in say, Rhode Island and then charge, 100,000 per year for electricity per customer if he wants. Lets pretend he has no interest in making money because he does not need it. He wants to prove your theory of "Liberty. any transaction between a buyer and a seller, whether the commodity is selling/buying shoes or selling/buying labor; it should be the decision of the actual parties involved."
"You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."
Very good point which I did not address but I will now. I do support the laws against monopolies and collusion because it undermines and even destroys free market competition.
This does not detract from the principle and my support of allowing market forces to determine the demand and supply of goods and services.
-
Sorry, my friend, but I don't not click on youtube links in a debate. I want to hear your words and your arguments.
I have youtube links to support my beliefs as well. How can we have a provocative conversation/argument if we just send each other youtube and google links?
-
Sorry, my friend, but I don't not click on youtube links in a debate. I want to hear your words and your arguments.
I have youtube links to support my beliefs as well. How can we have a provocative conversation/argument if we just send each other youtube and google links?
Whats wrong with primary sources? I don't want you to take my word for it.
-
Very good point which I did not address but I will now. I do support the laws against monopolies and collusion because it undermines and even destroys free market competition.
This does not detract from the principle and my support of allowing market forces to determine the demand and supply of goods and services.
What kind of laws?
So you don't support the Milton Friedman model of Capitalism?
-
Whats wrong with primary sources? I don't want you to take my word for it.
There is nothing wrong with primary sources. It's one thing to quote something and link a reference to the source as validation and that you are not just making it up but it's quite another to speak for yourself.
I know what Richard Dawkins says about God and creation and you know what C.S. Lewis has to say about Christianity but I am not debating them I'm debating you.
If you ask me a question about why I support the private ownership of gun control and I just quote you the 2nd amendment or link a video of John Lott how does that help? How is that interesting?
It's raining like hell right now here in Hawaii so I'm stuck in my hovel on a Saturday so I'm just doing one of things I like to do most: debate some the great issues of life. I'd rather have the give and take of a (somewhat) real time debate. I can't ask questions or challenge Bernie Sanders when watching his youtube vids.
-
What kind of laws?
So you don't support the Milton Friedman model of Capitalism?
OPEC is a cartel that sets oil prices. They don't want to compete against each other because that will drive prices down. So they agree to manipulate supply and demand to keep oil prices where they want them. That is illegal here in the US.
Microsoft has been sued, and lost, numerous times for trying to control market share.
What specific policy of Friedman are you referring to?
-
So what you are saying is that you want the American tax payer to fund 4 years of military for one soldier so they can in turn fund 4 years in college?
Maybe that is the 8 years Walter was talking about? ???
Tell me again how that is cost effective. :-\
4 years of public service (up front) in exchange for 120 credits at a state* college. I don't care if you study underwater basket weaving.
There's no way to estimate the costs of doing nothing.
People might be more invested in our society if they've been actively involved in its maintenance. Poor people would have a way to college that wasn't a handout or accumulating too much debt. Life experience would also make college degrees more useful in the real world.
The main weakness of my idea is the offspring of illegal immigrants are citizens.
*State of your natural birth but reciprocal agreements could be made.
-
What is wrong with a fine arts degree? Specifically.
And can you provide me some data to where a fine arts degree is detrimental?
lol bill the working class ::)
-
Simple....if the student is not willing to make that investment in themselves with education, then why the hell should the taxpayer?
x100000
adonis meat eating bad4brain
-
???
What exactly do you mean here?
:'( alzhemmer
-
What does this have to do with Donald Trump? He's been knocking it out of the park in Iowa since the San Bernardino attacks.
-
lol bill the working class ::)
???
-
Can someone please show me where Socialism has been successful, other than on paper of course. ???
-
Can someone please show me where Socialism has been successful, other than on paper of course. ???
It's 2015 and one of the presidential hopefuls intends to prove it'll work.
Trump is going to spend $10 trillion over a decade and create 5 million new jobs. very reagan-like. Very socialist.
-
President Trump.....practice saying it nancy boy
Yeah buddy
-
It's 2015 and one of the presidential hopefuls intends to prove it'll work.
Trump is going to spend $10 trillion over a decade and create 5 million new jobs. very reagan-like. Very socialist.
Obozo spent that and accomplished nothing
-
What kind of laws?
So you don't support the Milton Friedman model of Capitalism?
You mean the type of Capitalism where some other poor schmuck pays for your University degree?
If someone has no children, it's bad enough they pay taxes to support the failed K-12 system, and you want to add free University to that?
Your concept of a Learning Center is laughable.....will the Generation Entitlement students have a designated nap time every day too?
-
Can someone please show me where Socialism has been successful, other than on paper of course. ???
Bump, please
-
Bump, please
I do have a question.
Do people consider France and Great Britain "socialist"?
Canada?
-
Obozo spent that and accomplished nothing
UE rate has improved. In SW Fl, the job and construction market is thru the roof.
-
Can someone please show me where Socialism has been successful, other than on paper of course. ???
Greece, buddy. Happy as can be.
-
Greece, buddy. Happy as can be.
:D
guess it depends on how you define success then...
-
:D
guess it depends on how you define success then...
Pretty seascapes?
-
;D ::)
-
Again, as I've said...the Left's Ron Paul.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/wun8rpY.gif)
-
Trumps speeches are pure shit. Its worse than Sarah Palin content wise. I just watched the one he had in NC. Its pretty bad.
Now, voters can enjoy both.
A bulked-up Palin with fat lady sweater and stubby podium just came out to endorse Trump.
Standing onstage together with Trump... wow, this is bad.
Palin made her name being the tea party favorite - now she's ditching ted cruz to support the liberal celebrity. Shocking.
-
(http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/GOP/putin-palin1.jpg)
-
Now, voters can enjoy both.
A bulked-up Palin with fat lady sweater and stubby podium just came out to endorse Trump.
Standing onstage together with Trump... wow, this is bad.
Palin made her name being the tea party favorite - now she's ditching ted cruz to support the liberal celebrity. Shocking.
Some believe McCain picked Palin to give Obama and easy win...Is Trump rubbing shoulders with Palin to help give Hillary the easy win?
-
Some believe McCain picked Palin to give Obama and easy win...Is Trump rubbing shoulders with Palin to help give Hillary the easy win?
I don't think anyone really thought that then or thinks it now.
THAT SAID, though, AT THE END OF THE DAY, this phony halfwit is, without question, the dumbest, most c**tingly annoying, self-promoting, predictably over-the-top, sledgehammer-my-fucking-face, 'God, guns, and 'Murica'-type cliché South Park could've ever envisioned to caricaturize this ultimately stereotypical Far Right simpleton.
New adjectives must be invented to qualify the absolute idiocy of this insufferably pathetic, singularly imbecilic, fake-as-fuck, 'folksy' Alaskan soccer mom/moose hunter character she's adopted. These are the names Mrs. Palin felt were appropriate for her children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. I'm truly at a loss, please feel free to make up adequate descriptors for this peculiar character.
Full disclosure: I say this as a mostly conservative (former Republican) Independent. It's phonies like Palin (mindless rah rah dipshit), Beck (cry-on-cue televangelist), and propaganda Fox (Can you EVER just report?) that have right-of-centers like me with zero confidence in a party, a candidate, or any hope for this polarized f'n country.
Possible to focus on Constitution more than the Bible, Rs? SECULAR, remember? Kind of a big deal to our forefathers, even the Christians. Please reread.
(I'm on a rant-fest, apologies.)
-
Where have you gone, Sarah Palin? The woman who just endorsed Donald Trump is not the rogue conservative I knew in 2008
Back in December, I was at a small event in a Las Vegas bar; CNN's Jake Tapper was interviewing Sarah Palin. He asked which candidate she'd most like to grab a beer with. Her answer? Donald Trump.
Trump, of course, has been sober his whole life. But the moment perfectly encapsulates the Palin-Trump romance. Because in addition to endorsing a beer run with a man who doesn't drink, she also just endorsed for the presidency a man who is neither a committed conservative nor an anti-establishment rogue.
Trump's long history of liberalism is well known. He was once a registered Democrat who supported Democratic candidates, from Bill de Blasio to Hillary Clinton. He has said publicly that the economy usually does better under Democrats. At times he's supported legalizing drugs, raising taxes on the wealthy and embracing isolationist foreign policies.
But what's most jarring is the positions he's held on a number of issues that are particularly important to Palin.
In the past, he called himself "very pro-choice." Yet Palin - who made the very courageous and compassionate decision to have a baby she knew would be disabled - is unbothered.
On guns, he once supported a ban on so-called assault weapons and longer waiting periods to purchase a firearm. That should be deeply disconcerting to Palin, a Second Amendment firebrand who once said, "If you control arms, you control the people."
And Trump has supported universal health care - expressing admiration for Scotland's single-payer system as recently as last year. Palin spent years denouncing Obamacare, which is many steps short of a single-payer plan, as "socialized medicine."
These aren't minor policy differences. The beliefs long embraced by Palin and long eschewed by Trump are fundamental to conservatism. That Trump has suddenly gotten religion - on issue after issue - should be met by Palin with suspicion.
If his world-view weren't enough to make Palin cringe, Trump's inauthenticity as an anti-establishment candidate should be. Palin admirably took on what she called the "good old boy network" to become Alaska's first female governor. Now, she leaps to support a guy who helped create that network and who thrives in it. In what bizarre world is a billionaire real estate mogul who donates money to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid "anti-establishment"?
Over the past eight years, Palin's influence within the Tea Party has remained strong, but her favorability rating among all Americans has dropped 40 points. Worse, her rating among Republicans has declined more than 55 points.
But despite that waning influence, I've supported and admired Palin for defending life, religious liberty and gun rights, and for being a strong mother to a disabled son and another serving overseas.
The Sarah Palin I knew in 2008 - the one who campaigned tirelessly and many times thanklessly for John McCain, a war veteran Trump has openly mocked - would have seen through Trump's charlatan candidacy. The Sarah Palin I knew in 2008, a devout Christian whose faith was constantly scrutinized by the secular left, would have no affection for a man who is constantly scrutinizing the devout Christian faiths of other conservative candidates.
The Sarah Palin I knew in 2008, who was a passionate and fearless voice for hockey moms, mama grizzlies and women everywhere, all while enduring patently sexist attacks from the left, wouldn't have supported a man who calls other women bimbos and slobs, thinks women who breast-feed and go to the bathroom are "disgusting," and criticizes another candidate for her looks.
That Sarah Palin is gone. Maybe one day, over a beer, she'll tell me why.
-
I think Trump just fucked his whole campaign with this Palin thing. I think someone sabatoged him on purpose with this kunt
-
I don't think anyone really thought that then or thinks it now.
THAT SAID, though, AT THE END OF THE DAY, this phony halfwit is, without question, the dumbest, most c**tingly annoying, self-promoting, predictably over-the-top, sledgehammer-my-fucking-face, 'God, guns, and 'Murica'-type cliché South Park could've ever envisioned to caricaturize this ultimately stereotypical Far Right simpleton.
New adjectives must be invented to qualify the absolute idiocy of this insufferably pathetic, singularly imbecilic, fake-as-fuck, 'folksy' Alaskan soccer mom/moose hunter character she's adopted. These are the names Mrs. Palin felt were appropriate for her children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. I'm truly at a loss, please feel free to make up adequate descriptors for this peculiar character.
Full disclosure: I say this as a mostly conservative (former Republican) Independent. It's phonies like Palin (mindless rah rah dipshit), Beck (cry-on-cue televangelist), and propaganda Fox (Can you EVER just report?) that have right-of-centers like me with zero confidence in a party, a candidate, or any hope for this polarized f'n country.
Possible to focus on Constitution more than the Bible, Rs? SECULAR, remember? Kind of a big deal to our forefathers, even the Christians. Please reread.
(I'm on a rant-fest, apologies.)
If Trump picks Palin as his running mate, then even you will have to acknowledge the fix is in for Clinton...
-
If Trump picks Palin as him running mate, then even you will have to acknowledge the fix is in for Clinton wins.
Absolutely.
-
If Trump picks Palin as him running mate, then even you will have to acknowledge the fix is in for Clinton...
:D ;D
-
Anyone who votes for Sanders and truly understands him is a pure socialist, period. Sanders gave up the mic to BLM because he backed down, no questions about it. Weak. Afraid not to offend them.
-
scott brown floated as VP
rand paul most pro endles boom capitalism with no war of bunch
should pick carly or ben
I was amazed scott walekr so gone so fast kick ass pro capitalist from wisconson......establish ment hit?
-
Some believe McCain picked Palin to give Obama and easy win...Is Trump rubbing shoulders with Palin to help give Hillary the easy win?
If McCain picked Colin Powell he would have won easily. The palin choice obviously wasn't his. He never seemed to like her or be around her. She was forced into his campaign. Now the same people are fucking over trump.
-
If McCain picked Colin Powell he would have won easily. The palin choice obviously wasn't his. He never seemed to like her or be around her. She was forced into his campaign. Now the same people are fucking over trump.
I thought the RNC would at least want to win.
I guess it's true about the cabal at the top.
-
Scott walker was destroyed by trump. He and jeb were targets 1 and 2.
All to hand the presidency to Hilary.
-
If McCain picked Colin Powell he would have won easily. The palin choice obviously wasn't his. He never seemed to like her or be around her. She was forced into his campaign. Now the same people are fucking over trump.
They dumped her on McCain because his poll numbers were shit. Needed to gamble for a Hail Mary-type boost, which paid off for all of ONE appearance/debate, I forget.
Imagine Trump's people are gonna let him know here pretty soon she'll sink his campaign if he doesn't distance himself quick. Hell, she only connects with the already-decided halfwit rurals, anyway, but Trump's already got them locked down, so NOTHING good comes from this.
-
(https://dyncdn.me/posters2/1/1a72928eced9bc40570eff47e173571979509879.jpg)
-
They dumped her on McCain because his poll numbers were shit. Needed to gamble for a Hail Mary-type boost, which paid off for all of ONE appearance/debate, I forget.
Imagine Trump's people are gonna let him know here pretty soon she'll sink his campaign if he doesn't distance himself quick. Hell, she only connects with the already-decided halfwit rurals, anyway, but Trump's already got them locked down, so NOTHING good comes from this.
This reminds me of how Liberals only associate and speak among themselves. And since the main stream media is also Liberal, Liberals are stuck in their own Liberal world.
A prime example was when Nixon won. Everyone in New York were just flabbergasted. They couldn't believe it. They didn't think it would even be close. The reason they gave was, "I didn't know a single person that voted for Nixon."
No shit, Sherlock. Of course nobody voted for Nixon -- in New York.
Now, I'm not calling anybody here Liberal but it just goes to show how parochial people can be. This is a very anti-Palin board but the fact of the matter is that Palin has a huge and strong following. You think she only reinforced people that were already with Trump. Not a chance. Most people just assumed she was backing Cruz. Cruz himself admits that he wouldn't be a Senator if it wasn't for Palin.
Palin helps Trump a lot. People who were vacillating between Cruz and Trump aren't vacillating anymore anymore. And you think Trump's people will let him know it was a bad decision AFTER it was made? You think they are that dumb? You think Trump is that dumb?
You can think of Palin anyway you want. You can mock her and her supporters and call them names and claim how much smarter you are than they are. But the fact is that there are a lot of Palin supporters and unlike so many that like to put in their two cents, they actually vote.
-
If McCain picked Colin Powell he would have won easily. The palin choice obviously wasn't his. He never seemed to like her or be around her. She was forced into his campaign. Now the same people are fucking over trump.
I'm not convinced. McCain's campaign was very stale and bland up until Palin was brought in and injected some life into it.
Either way, Obama was always going to be a very difficult opponent for the Republicans to beat thanks no part to his youth and orating skills. Hillary doesn't have the appeal Obama did, the Republicans can take the election with the right candidate. I'd pick Rand Paul.
-
I'm not convinced. McCain's campaign was very stale and bland up until Palin was brought in and injected some life into it.
Either way, Obama was always going to be a very difficult opponent for the Republicans to beat thanks no part to his youth and orating skills. Hillary doesn't have the appeal Obama did, the Republicans can take the election with the right candidate. I'd pick Rand Paul.
100% true! It wasn't Palin that sunk McCain.
It was McCain that sunk McCain.
People have such short memories.
-
Either way, Obama was always going to be a very difficult opponent for the Republicans to beat thanks no part to his youth and orating skills to guilt-ridden white betas who felt they just had to put a Hebrew into the White House.
fixed
-
This reminds me of how Liberals only associate and speak among themselves. And since the main stream media is also Liberal, Liberals are stuck in their own Liberal world.
A prime example was when Nixon won. Everyone in New York were just flabbergasted. They couldn't believe it. They didn't think it would even be close. The reason they gave was, "I didn't know a single person that voted for Nixon."
No shit, Sherlock. Of course nobody voted for Nixon -- in New York.
Now, I'm not calling anybody here Liberal but it just goes to show how parochial people can be. This is a very anti-Palin board but the fact of the matter is that Palin has a huge and strong following. You think she only reinforced people that were already with Trump. Not a chance. Most people just assumed she was backing Cruz. Cruz himself admits that he wouldn't be a Senator if it wasn't for Palin.
Palin helps Trump a lot. People who were vacillating between Cruz and Trump aren't vacillating anymore anymore. And you think Trump's people will let him know it was a bad decision AFTER it was made? You think they are that dumb? You think Trump is that dumb?
You can think of Palin anyway you want. You can mock her and her supporters and call them names and claim how much smarter you are than they are. But the fact is that there are a lot of Palin supporters and unlike so many that like to put in their two cents, they actually vote.
And you're likewise free to defend and support her all you want. Regarding Trump and his people, though, yeah; after seeing her embarrassingly over-the-top Oklahoma lunacy, I'm betting they're now SERIOUSLY rethinking her role in his campaign, as they certainly should be.
Anecdotal, but I had two longtime avid Palin supporters text me within minutes after her speech, both with messages to the effect of "Dude, you were right, she's a complete fucking idiot." And then when Fox commentators start piling on, even laughing through their critiques, seems pretty obvious she's no longer anyone's campaign asset, except Hillary's at this point.
As far as "claim(ing) how much smarter" I am," while I never specifically stated such, I got no problem at all embracing your summary. Anyone who witnessed that circus of ignorance feeling anything but embarrassment, shame, and an unspeakable assault on common sense/intelligence is an opponent I'm fairly certain I'd likely outwit on Jeopardy. Imagine I might even best 'em in a standard spelling bee as well.
Never been one to specifically boast of, or proclaim, any degree of academic or intellectual superiority over anyone here (that I can readily recall), and I'm really quite uncomfortable with the idea. But if you're gonna get cute with snarky comparisons to blatantly obvious morons, I feel a response, this time, was perfectly in order.
Furthermore, differences aside, you seem like a rather informed, intelligent man. However, if you can't see through Palin's painfully transparent, phony, self-serving, patriotic rah rah, you're simply allowing her pandering (wannabe Reagen-esque) American pride rhetoric interfere with your capacity for critical thought.
Nothing at all about Trump or Cruz, just Palin: You seriously can't see/admit that 1) she's as dumb as a f'n rock, and 2) you're being willingly played by the most televangelistic charlatan this side of Glenn Beck?
If it's simply a matter of God, guns, and her America-loving 'kick everyone's ass' patriotism (her supporters' go-to defense, especially after eight years of this dope's questionable loyalties), I'll at least understand your willingness to ignore the rest.
-
And you're likewise free to defend and support her all you want. Regarding Trump and his people, though, yeah; after seeing her embarrassingly over-the-top Oklahoma lunacy, I'm betting they're now SERIOUSLY rethinking her role in his campaign, as they certainly should be.
Anecdotal, but I had two longtime avid Palin supporters text me within minutes after her speech, both with messages to the effect of "Dude, you were right, she's a complete fucking idiot." And then when Fox commentators start piling on, even laughing through their critiques, seems pretty obvious she's no longer anyone's campaign asset, except Hillary's at this point.
As far as "claim(ing) how much smarter" I am," while I never specifically stated such, I got no problem at all embracing your summary. Anyone who witnessed that circus of ignorance feeling anything but embarrassment, shame, and an unspeakable assault on common sense/intelligence is an opponent I'm fairly certain I'd likely outwit on Jeopardy. Imagine I might even best 'em in a standard spelling bee as well.
Never been one to specifically boast of, or proclaim, any degree of academic or intellectual superiority over anyone here (that I can readily recall), and I'm really quite uncomfortable with the idea. But if you're gonna get cute with snarky comparisons to blatantly obvious morons, I feel a response, this time, was perfectly in order.
Furthermore, differences aside, you seem like a rather informed, intelligent man. However, if you can't see through Palin's painfully transparent, phony, self-serving, patriotic rah rah, you're simply allowing her pandering (wannabe Reagen-esque) American pride rhetoric interfere with your capacity for critical thought.
Nothing at all about Trump or Cruz, just Palin: You seriously can't see/admit that 1) she's as dumb as a f'n rock, and 2) you're being willingly played by the most televangelistic charlatan this side of Glenn Beck?
If it's simply a matter of God, guns, and her America-loving 'kick everyone's ass' patriotism (her supporters' go-to defense, especially after eight years of this dope's questionable loyalties), I'll at least understand your willingness to ignore the rest.
I watch Fox. I'm watching Fox right now. I don't and didn't see any laughing through their critiques. And, notwithstanding your two friend's text, any of the candidates would welcome her endorsement whether they like her our not. Again, the issue is not what you or I think of her, it's the fact that she has a huge following. I'm sure Ted Cruz, who I am supporting, would have appreciated her endorsement considering he believed he would not have been a Senator today if it wasn't for her.
And you don't get to be a Governor, a V.P. candidate, a millionaire by being a dummy.
But it's no big issue to me. Underestimating an opponent is a classic and most common mistake. Though I'm a Cruz supporter, it would be interesting and really shake things up in this world if Trump became the President. How he would stack up against leaders from Russia, China, Iran and other seasoned, no nonsense world leaders. It certainly can't be any worse than Obama.
-
fixed
Well, there was that aspect too. But even if Obama was white, I guarantee he would still have won by a landslide. The overall population is always going to vote for the fresher, well spoken and charismatic option (which Obama was). 8 previous years of Republican rule was also going to assist the Democrats in 2008.
I'm no fan of Obama, but the Republicans seem to be their own worst enemy at the moment. They are becoming a parody of themselves. Going down the Libertarian and Constitutionalist route is what they should be aiming for - instead, they seem to want to go the other way.
-
God help us if it's Sanders vs. Trump. It's either take away all earnings and give it to the poor or take away all earnings and give it to the Super rich. America is fucked
-
Pellius, agree. Cruz is probably the smartest and best of the bunch. I think Rubio has a lot of potential but his tax plan sucks and his work on the gang of 8 will not go over well with conservatives.
-
They dumped her on McCain because his poll numbers were shit. Needed to gamble for a Hail Mary-type boost, which paid off for all of ONE appearance/debate, I forget.
Imagine Trump's people are gonna let him know here pretty soon she'll sink his campaign if he doesn't distance himself quick. Hell, she only connects with the already-decided halfwit rurals, anyway, but Trump's already got them locked down, so NOTHING good comes from this.
Mccain actually led obama RIGHT BEFORE he chose Palin. He had some momentum going. It was July/Aug, he did pass obama a few times. From sept 15th on (as the palin pick had 2 weeks to sink in and affect polling), he dropped and nevre return.
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503357.1453313598!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/cards21n-2-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503356.1453313597!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-1-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503358.1453313599!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-3-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503351.1453313592!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-8-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503352.1453313593!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-7-web.jpg)
-
Mccain actually led obama RIGHT BEFORE he chose Palin. He had some momentum going. It was July/Aug, he did pass obama a few times. From sept 15th on (as the palin pick had 2 weeks to sink in and affect polling), he dropped and nevre return.
Yep. It was his questionable pick for Palin that sunk his campaign. If he picked a black running mate he would have slaughtered Obama in the general election. Obama won because he dominated the non-white votes which now are the majority in the USA
-
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503357.1453313598!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_400/cards21n-2-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503356.1453313597!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-1-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503358.1453313599!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-3-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503351.1453313592!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-8-web.jpg)
(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2503352.1453313593!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_307/cards21n-7-web.jpg)
Excellent.
-
Funny
-
God help us if it's Sanders vs. Trump. It's either take away all earnings and give it to the poor or take away all earnings and give it to the Super rich. America is fucked
Didn't I tell you to STFU earlier in this thread. You're a retard. You know shit about politics, how this country works, how laws are made.
I know you don't have a clue why we have an electoral college or even what it is.
"Take away earnings and give it to the Super Rich" oh, fucking brother.
Why don't you tell us how that will work?
-
I watch Fox. I'm watching Fox right now. I don't and didn't see any laughing through their critiques. And, notwithstanding your two friend's text, any of the candidates would welcome her endorsement whether they like her our not. Again, the issue is not what you or I think of her, it's the fact that she has a huge following. I'm sure Ted Cruz, who I am supporting, would have appreciated her endorsement considering he believed he would not have been a Senator today if it wasn't for her.
And you don't get to be a Governor, a V.P. candidate, a millionaire by being a dummy.
But it's no big issue to me. Underestimating an opponent is a classic and most common mistake. Though I'm a Cruz supporter, it would be interesting and really shake things up in this world if Trump became the President. How he would stack up against leaders from Russia, China, Iran and other seasoned, no nonsense world leaders. It certainly can't be any worse than Obama.
I like Cruz too, mostly. Certainly admire his strength and character, and I imagine we wouldn't be watching some wannabe big league sandcrabs capturing American sailors under a Cruz presidency (much less having to hear our leaders thank these punks afterward for their wonderful hospitality).
Trump's a little too unpredictable and impulsive for my taste, but yeah, if we're just talking R vs. D, that's an unfortunate no-brainer for me. The last sensible Democratic brain ended up on the trunk of a Lincoln in Dallas (fifty-plus years now, c'mon).
And, dude, America is filled with millionaire dummies. NBA/NFL, ever watch some of these post-game interviews? Ever hear "Money" Mayweather try to read a thirty-second radio spot? Familiar with the Kardashians?
I realize your point was mainly the governor thing. But it's Alaska, friend, practically Russia (I've heard). When the state's entire electorate is 83 igloo-dwelling Inuits - all offended by "Eskimo" - you promise 'em some free parkas and new pair of mittens, and then accuse your opponent of using the E-word in private.
Who they gonna believe? The smokin' hot giftgiver, or the Grizzly Adams-looking "racist" snowplow operator/aspiring politician, who may or may not have reeked of weed and bourbon? C'mon, that don't take smarts, guy.
(My shit's getting way too wordy here lately, by the way. I'd scroll right past my blowhard nonsense if I were me.)
-
Didn't I tell you to STFU earlier in this thread. You're a retard. You know shit about politics, how this country works, how laws are made.
I know you don't have a clue why we have an electoral college or even what it is.
"Take away earnings and give it to the Super Rick" oh, fucking brother.
Why don't you tell us how that will work?
::)
-
Mccain actually led obama RIGHT BEFORE he chose Palin. He had some momentum going. It was July/Aug, he did pass obama a few times. From sept 15th on (as the palin pick had 2 weeks to sink in and affect polling), he dropped and nevre return.
What? Where do you get this? It wasn't that long ago. We were there. Remember? Palin invigorated McCain's campaign. It was all the buzz. Even here of GetBig. It pushed him ahead of Obama.
"At the time of the choice (this was before the economic crisis, not after; though we were in recession at the time), there was a perception that the campaign was on a slow walk toward defeat, and needed something different to shake up the dynamic of the race."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26604717/ns/politics-decision_08/t/mccain-moves-ahead-obama-new-poll/
-
BTW, notice the bump in the polls in Trump's favor after the Palin endorsement.
-
Yep. It was his questionable pick for Palin that sunk his campaign. If he picked a black running mate he would have slaughtered Obama in the general election. Obama won because he dominated the non-white votes which now are the majority in the USA
Non White vote is now the majority? Since when? True it's gone down in the last 30 years from 85% to 74% but last time I checked 74% is still the majority.
We're do you get this stuff?
Explain to me again how Trump will take more of our "earnings" and give it to the "super rich".
Tell me again how Cruz is a terrible debater because of his "droning" voice.
-
I like Cruz too, mostly. Certainly admire his strength and character, and I imagine we wouldn't be watching some wannabe big league sandcrabs capturing American sailors under a Cruz presidency (much less having to hear our leaders thank these punks afterward for their wonderful hospitality).
Trump's a little too unpredictable and impulsive for my taste, but yeah, if we're just talking R vs. D, that's an unfortunate no-brainer for me. The last sensible Democratic brain ended up on the trunk of a Lincoln in Dallas (fifty-plus years now, c'mon).
And, dude, America is filled with millionaire dummies. NBA/NFL, ever watch some of these post-game interviews? Ever hear "Money" Mayweather try to read a thirty-second radio spot? Familiar with the Kardashians?
I realize your point was mainly the governor thing. But it's Alaska, friend, practically Russia (I've heard). When the state's entire electorate is 83 igloo-dwelling Inuits - all offended by "Eskimo" - you promise 'em some free parkas and new pair of mittens, and then accuse your opponent of using the E-word in private.
Who they gonna believe? The smokin' hot giftgiver, or the Grizzly Adams-looking "racist" snowplow operator/aspiring politician, who may or may not have reeked of weed and bourbon? C'mon, that don't take smarts, guy.
(My shit's getting way too wordy here lately, by the way. I'd scroll right past my blowhard nonsense if I were me.)
Palin, despite some creeping frumpiness, is still doable.
That counts for something. ;D
-
I like Cruz too, mostly. Certainly admire his strength and character, and I imagine we wouldn't be watching some wannabe big league sandcrabs capturing American sailors under a Cruz presidency (much less having to hear our leaders thank these punks afterward for their wonderful hospitality).
Trump's a little too unpredictable and impulsive for my taste, but yeah, if we're just talking R vs. D, that's an unfortunate no-brainer for me. The last sensible Democratic brain ended up on the trunk of a Lincoln in Dallas (fifty-plus years now, c'mon).
And, dude, America is filled with millionaire dummies. NBA/NFL, ever watch some of these post-game interviews? Ever hear "Money" Mayweather try to read a thirty-second radio spot? Familiar with the Kardashians?
I realize your point was mainly the governor thing. But it's Alaska, friend, practically Russia (I've heard). When the state's entire electorate is 83 igloo-dwelling Inuits - all offended by "Eskimo" - you promise 'em some free parkas and new pair of mittens, and then accuse your opponent of using the E-word in private.
Who they gonna believe? The smokin' hot giftgiver, or the Grizzly Adams-looking "racist" snowplow operator/aspiring politician, who may or may not have reeked of weed and bourbon? C'mon, that don't take smarts, guy.
(My shit's getting way too wordy here lately, by the way. I'd scroll right past my blowhard nonsense if I were me.)
Ain't that the truth.
-
I don't find myself defending Donald Trump much in debates but to say he is going to take our money and give it to the super rich is incorrect and unfounded, completely. He actually talked about taxing hedge fund managers and wall street folks more. Trump's tax plan would exempt people making under 40 or 50k salary from any federal taxation. So, the truth is he would benefit the poor and lower middle class as far as federal taxation. He would trim all federal tax rates but still has a progressive tax system. His plan is infinitely better than Sanders (fucking lunatic socialist that yells constantly) and Clinton.
I'd favor Rubio if he altered his federal tax plan and decreased his 35% federal rate which hits some of the middle class....hard to get past that for me as a working professional mid career but he has the demeanor to be president and would likely bring people together more than others.
-
What? Where do you get this? It wasn't that long ago. We were there. Remember? Palin invigorated McCain's campaign. It was all the buzz. Even here of GetBig. It pushed him ahead of Obama.
"At the time of the choice (this was before the economic crisis, not after; though we were in recession at the time), there was a perception that the campaign was on a slow walk toward defeat, and needed something different to shake up the dynamic of the race."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26604717/ns/politics-decision_08/t/mccain-moves-ahead-obama-new-poll/
I'll bump it on the political board. It was shocking to myself as well, mccain did lead obama during the summer for a bit.
-
Bernie Sanders. Best candidate by far and best in a long, long time.
I can't support him, but, at least he's authentic.
Right now, I'm voting for Rubio in the primary.
The dems lost me when they sided against law enforcement as their default position.
-
Fucked up election. All of these candidates suck big time.
-
Fucked up election. All of these candidates suck big time.
This is the absolute truth. Maybe the job of President is so "fucked up" that no one who has a least half a brain wants it. This would explain why all these candidates seem like a bunch of nitwits and liars.
-
I can't support him, but, at least he's authentic.
Right now, I'm voting for Rubio in the primary.
The dems lost me when they sided against law enforcement as their default position.
Agree with all. Democrats used to be the party of working people. They are now the party of college progressive liberals and over-reaching government.
-
Agree with all. Democrats used to be the party of working people. They are now the party of college progressive liberals and over-reaching government.
Isn't that really both of them?
I mean, Democrats over-reach in one area, Republicans in another... Then they both overreach in entirely different areas.
They are both shit.
-
Bernie Sanders certainly represents working people.
-
enjoy your tea party chit chats while you can fellas,
has anyone noticed the complete chaos and devastation playing out within the GOP?
what a mess
-
Bernie Sanders certainly represents working people.
yes he do, seems to be an very authentic character and has genuine passion for his cause. howver I believe that the powers that be will never allow him to be president