OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because it's not as effective as it could be.
Why not?
Because it's not as effective as it could be.
Under President Obama:
1. We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950.
2. Taxes are lower for the middle class now than when he took office.
3. Politifact says that Obama's statement that "taxes are lower now for CEO's and hedge fund managers than at any time since the 1950's" is 'mostly true'.
4. The Dow Jones has more than doubled since its nadir a couple months after President Obama took office.
5. President Obama got 'Obamacare' passed - and it was a REPUBLICAN idea pushed by the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich until somebody with a (D) behind his name was able to get it passed.
6. President Obama will likely get immigration reform passed - and in a form that is much more conservative than Reagan's amnesty.
7. President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president.
8. Bush gave up on Osama bin Laden - President Obama didn't.
9. AND Obama was able to get almost all of the above done despite the fact that he's had to deal with the most obstructive Congress since the Civil War!
If only Barack Hussein Obama had an (R) behind his name, he'd be called the Second Coming of Reagan by our nation's Republicans!
The US News and World report article (Feb 11 2001) by Robert Schlesinger referees to another article in the NYT's Washington Monthy Section which refers to a USA Today's analysis which is an article May, 5, 2010 about tax year 2009
Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950 - USATODAY.com
and which tax rate is determined by the year previously which was Bush the Younger last year in office. Although if Obama had his way the taxes paid for the year 2009 would have been higher since when he did take office he tried to get them raised for that tax year during that tax year.
He was referring to pay roll taxes that is taxes that are not income taxes and since there were a tax holiday on those so yes that would be true. This doesn't mean that there were not taxes in other areas that the middle class did not have to pay though
Politifact said Obama was referring to hedge fund managers and they are taxed at the capital gains rate of 15% as opposed to the normal income tax rate of 35%. And that the top marginal tax rate was actually lower from 1998 to 1992 (Bush the Elder's time). This is why they said the statement is Mostly True.
The Nadar was July 1, 2010 for 9,686 and the high Feb 18, 2003 for 14,035. (14,035/9,686) = 1.449 which is not quite half as much it is NOT double.
Just because the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich were for it doesn't mean that it was a good idea.
No, Obama would settle for immigration reform if it means getting the sweeping amnesty that he desires. And even if the Repubs get what they want I do not doubt that Obama will drag his feet on the implementation of it.
Given how porous the border is I would expect a higher deportation rate.
I doubt that Bush gave up on finding Osama he did not get the intelligence and if he did there might have been complications in achieving his kill or capture in doing so.
His first two years he had a Democrat Congress. If you say they were obstructive I do not know what I could say to dissuade you.
This statement deserves no comment.
1. No, because Obama is closer to being a Keynesian, and with Keynesian economics, the government spends in times of economic hardship in order to kickstart the economy, and only starts to raise taxes and engage in fiscal frugality once the economy is better off.
2. And those taxes in "other areas" are? And how were those "other taxes" due to Obama's efforts?
3. Yes, and capital gains needs to be taxed at the same rate as everyone else's income. There zero reason that the interest on money in a bank can't be taxed at the same rate as the income of a worker at McDonald's.
4. WRONG! "Nadir" means "lowest point", and the Dow's lowest point during Obama's tenure was 6,469.95 on March 6, 2009 - less than two months after he took office...so YES, the Dow has more than doubled on Obama's watch.
5. It wasn't just them, guy - it was much of the Republican party, because the Individual Mandate was being offered as an alternative to Hillarycare. Just as with cap-and-trade, as soon as the Democrats say "okay, we can work with that - let's do it!" the Republicans throw a hissy fit and reject it in toto.
6. Paying a hefty fine and enduring a thirteen-year process of getting citizenship is hardly 'amnesty'. But I hope the Republicans continue to bitterly oppose it - because just as with the Supreme Court striking down the teeth of the Voting Rights Act today, all the more the minorities will stick with the Democratic party...because they know we actually do care about them. Of course, most hard-line conservatives will think that last phrase is completely false...but it's not. That's simply a sign of how little most conservatives understand what liberals are about.
7. Really? Even given the fact that for the past couple years we had more people going BACK to Mexico than were coming over to this side? Here's a clue, guy - when the economy is better here, more illegals will come. When the economy here sucks, more illegals will go back. So that makes it REAL simple - destroying America's economy is the single best way to solve our illegal immigration problem. Maybe that's why the Republicans are trying so hard to keep Obama from fixing the economy - they just want to keep more illegals from coming across the border! No, of course that's not it - but illegal immigration has always had far more to do with the economy than with whoever's in charge.
8. Did he give up all the way? Probably not - but it certainly wasn't his priority at the time, given the fact that he had to deal with his illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq...which he'd begun planning TEN DAYS after he took office in January, 2001, eight months before 9/11. Frankly, he and Cheney need to be sent to stand for war crimes trials at The Hague.
9. 'Scuse you, but Congress was in session only SEVENTY-TWO DAYS before Republican Scott Brown was elected senator from Massachusetts...and the Democrats lost their supermajority, and the Republicans began using the filibuster far more than at any other time in American history. Since that day, by any measure the Congress has been more obstructive than at any time since the Civil War, passing less legislation than even the "Do-Nothing" Congress that Truman had to deal with.
10. Because it's right.
Wrong. Because if the prisoner thinks that it's
an 'either-or', just like when he's being tortured (either give us intel or...!), he's gonna give you whatever comes to mind that he thinks might avoid that "or" event. He'll tell you a thousand things...and it's doggone hard trying to figure out the two or three important things he said among that thousand.
However, if you treat the prisoner as your friend and show them that no, you aren't the ogre that he's been told - and then he sees that no, he's not going to be tortured like all his buddies said, there's a part of him that begins to realize that hey, my guys were wrong, these guys aren't so bad...and THEN they start to open up with REAL intel, quality stuff, the stuff you really need to know.
THAT, sir, is what the WWII interrogators were trying to tell you. Show them that yeah, America really does try to wear the white hat and play by the rules even with our enemies...and sooner or later in their eyes we're standing on a moral pedestal again. But when we torture, they find out...and not only do we not get the intel we need, but it turns into the best damn recruiting tool we could give them.
George Washington was right.
So were the WWII interrogators.
Dubya and Cheney were flat wrong...and need to stand trial before The Hague for war crimes.
If you treat the prisoner as your friend and show them that no, you aren't the ogre that he's been told - and then he sees that no, he's not going to be tortured like all his buddies said, there's a part of him that begins to realize that hey, my guys were wrong, these guys aren't so bad...and THEN they start to open up with REAL intel, quality stuff, the stuff you really need to know.
BWAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA! :lamo
BWAAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA! :lamo
So the interrogators of Nazi WWII prisoners
who spoke up as a group against torture were wrong?
How do you think it could be more effective?
By allowing more effective means?
lol Obama is anything from a republican.
Seems like the WWII interrogators had a very good idea what "more effective means" were - and they said so less than ten years ago. No matter what you might think, your experience - which I'm not doubting - does not compare to theirs, and we never faced a threat in our wars in the Middle East that came close to comparing to the threat we all faced in WWII.
Ask most liberal political wonks and they'll tell you that Obama's obviously a center-right president and closer to the Republicans of Eisenhower's day (except for on social issues) than he is to being a real Democrat.
Seems like the WWII interrogators had a very good idea what "more effective means" were
- and they said so less than ten years ago. No matter what you might think, your experience - which I'm not doubting - does not compare to theirs, and we never faced a threat in our wars in the Middle East that came close to comparing to the threat we all faced in WWII.
What makes you think they disagree with me?
How do you come to that conclusion?
I don't understand: did you talk to all of them, or something? Or was this a small group of them?
Under President Obama:
1. We pay less of a percentage of our personal income in federal taxes since any time since 1950.
2. Taxes are lower for the middle class now than when he took office.
3. Politifact says that Obama's statement that "taxes are lower now for CEO's and hedge fund managers than at any time since the 1950's" is 'mostly true'.
4. The Dow Jones has more than doubled since its nadir a couple months after President Obama took office.
5. President Obama got 'Obamacare' passed - and it was a REPUBLICAN idea pushed by the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich until somebody with a (D) behind his name was able to get it passed.
6. President Obama will likely get immigration reform passed - and in a form that is much more conservative than Reagan's amnesty.
7. President Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president.
8. Bush gave up on Osama bin Laden - President Obama didn't.
9. AND Obama was able to get almost all of the above done despite the fact that he's had to deal with the most obstructive Congress since the Civil War!
If only Barack Hussein Obama had an (R) behind his name, he'd be called the Second Coming of Reagan by our nation's Republicans!
I really don't mean to sound like an a**. I strongly disagree with using slander to prove your point. But I am honestly concerned with the state of your mind right now. I think you've been watching a little too much television. Obama is in no way Republican(original republican, not this modern neo-conservative crap) nor is he a good president. None of this information is even remotely in any way true...and if it is that just means the previous presidents have been true communists because this information is as ridiculous as it is untrue.
This immigration reform bill is most definitely not conservative. This new immigration "Gang of 8" bill is a huge risk to our national security and economy. I agree we need immigration reform, but not in that way.
Taxes have tripled since Bush. Bush was a TERRIBLE president and Obama continued the Bush agenda.
And just an FYI Congress has been obstructive because Obama is trying to pass bills that take away our freedoms! I do agree with #10, unfortunately people believe in party platforms rather then true ideas.
Bottom line is: He is not a conservative, he is in line with neo-conservatives yes. But neo-conservatives are just Liberals who hide behind the Republican platform for money.
Do you support "enhanced interrogation" tactics? If you do, then they disagree with you.
You really didn't read the article, did you?
Why is that?
Was it because a liberal like me said it was proof against something you believed in, so you refused to look at it?
Guy, I try always to use credible references - I don't use fly-by-nigh blogs.
Try doing something different and read about the experiences of those who were doing the job you say you did, were doing it probably before you were born, and did it in a time where freedom was in far greater risk than it has been since the fall of the Soviet Union. For your edification, here's the first part of the article:
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University.
Okay? I know you don't want to think that what you were taught was wrong, but these weren't just simple Joes taken off the street and told to "get this guy to talk". If you'll read the article, you'll find some the things we learned...some of which we use even today.
No.
Because I don't care? Because you need to make your own argument? Most of all, because I know it wasn't all of them, at all, (obviously), and I don't appreciate you trying to pain it that way.
I voted for Obama twice and Kerry before him, so I doubt that's it.
Great.
I don't care. If we both know it was only one or two or three or twenty, why are you acting like it was all of them or something?
lol I'm not going to learn anything from a Washington Post article about this, but okay lol
from the very beginning, when he stood up behind a podium with a "Seal of the Office of the President-Elect", an office which does not exist... it should have been a wake-up call that we were in for a whole ****load of trouble with this Kenyan.
With Obama's agenda from day one, there is absolutely no way he can ever be confused with a Republican...a conservative...or even with being a good President. The past 4 1/2 years have proven that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?