Obama "guarantees" justice department will not protect Clinton!?

[Guest]

I know hw was responding to a question but why the emphasis on "guarantee" that they will not protect her?

I would have expected him to say something more lawyerly like he would support what ever the findings of the FBI and the justice system dictate.

And in the lawyerly terminology if someone else in his administration does in fact protect her somehow......he has deniability.

I have no confidence and do not trust anything from him or his administration. They all earned that!!!

Obama: I 'guarantee' Justice Dept. won’t protect Hillary - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-justice-221770#ixzz45Qr95VUx)

[Guest]

I seem to also recall him 'guaranteeing' that if we like your doctor and health care provider that we could keep them. How did that work out?

[Guest]

I know hw was responding to a question but why the emphasis on "guarantee" that they will not protect her?

I would have expected him to say something more lawyerly like he would support what ever the findings of the FBI and the justice system dictate.

And in the lawyerly terminology if someone else in his administration does in fact protect her somehow......he has deniability.

I have no confidence and do not trust anything from him or his administration. They all earned that!!!

Obama: I 'guarantee' Justice Dept. won’t protect Hillary - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-justice-221770#ixzz45Qr95VUx)

Obama also said that Clinton's personal email use "has not jeopardized America’s national security," even though they contained classified information. "Now, what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes," Obama said.

The president also noted that not all "classified" material is created equal.

"There’s classified, and then there’s classified," Obama said. "There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source."

That is an admission of guilt and punishable as a criminal violation of federal law. It does not matter if she claims carelessness, that's not a valid excuse or defense.

Is Obama really that stupid or does he think that Americans are stupid? Open source information is NOT classified. Classified information is based on source or timeliness of intelligence information. You may get the same information as classified from an open source, but that does not make that information classified. AND he should know that. Otherwise, he should not be in that position. We already know he is a liar, but he really shouldn't reinforce that finding, by further lies.

He says that there was no violation of national security when he knows that there was a hacker that had the information related to Ambassador's travel itinerary. Classified information. If that is how the terrorists knew where and when he was going to be, and they were able to assault and kill him, then I would consider that a violation.

Talk about a corrupt administration. They make Nixon look like a boy scout.

[Guest]

Obama also said that Clinton's personal email use "has not jeopardized America’s national security," even though they contained classified information. "Now, what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes," Obama said.

The president also noted that not all "classified" material is created equal.

"There’s classified, and then there’s classified," Obama said. "There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source."

That is an admission of guilt and punishable as a criminal violation of federal law. It does not matter if she claims carelessness, that's not a valid excuse or defense.

Is Obama really that stupid or does he think that Americans are stupid? Open source information is NOT classified. Classified information is based on source or timeliness of intelligence information. You may get the same information as classified from an open source, but that does not make that information classified. AND he should know that. Otherwise, he should not be in that position. We already know he is a liar, but he really shouldn't reinforce that finding, by further lies.

He says that there was no violation of national security when he knows that there was a hacker that had the information related to Ambassador's travel itinerary. Classified information. If that is how the terrorists knew where and when he was going to be, and they were able to assault and kill him, then I would consider that a violation.

Talk about a corrupt administration. They make Nixon look like a boy scout.

All politicians alternate initals are....CYA.

[Guest]

Obama also said that Clinton's personal email use "has not jeopardized America’s national security," even though they contained classified information. "Now, what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing e-mails, that she has owned, and she recognizes," Obama said.

The president also noted that not all "classified" material is created equal.

"There’s classified, and then there’s classified," Obama said. "There’s stuff that is really top-secret, top-secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source."

That is an admission of guilt and punishable as a criminal violation of federal law. It does not matter if she claims carelessness, that's not a valid excuse or defense.

Is Obama really that stupid or does he think that Americans are stupid? Open source information is NOT classified. Classified information is based on source or timeliness of intelligence information. You may get the same information as classified from an open source, but that does not make that information classified. AND he should know that. Otherwise, he should not be in that position. We already know he is a liar, but he really shouldn't reinforce that finding, by further lies.

He says that there was no violation of national security when he knows that there was a hacker that had the information related to Ambassador's travel itinerary. Classified information. If that is how the terrorists knew where and when he was going to be, and they were able to assault and kill him, then I would consider that a violation.

Talk about a corrupt administration. They make Nixon look like a boy scout.

Zounds! The Gang of Three :loco: is talking to themselves again! You can tell by their constant blithering blather. :a20:

[Guest]

Zounds! The Gang of Three :loco: is talking to themselves again! You can tell by their constant blithering blather. :a20:

There very well might be only three of us on here now. Better than one Sybil the multi-blathering idiot liberal that talks to HIMSELF.

You are very good at one line disparaging, but why not join the fun with some substantial commentary? It might do you good to think outside the troll box.

[Guest]

There very well might be only three of us on here now. Better than one Sybil the multi-blathering idiot liberal that talks to HIMSELF.

You are very good at one line disparaging, but why not join the fun with some substantial commentary? It might do you good to think outside the troll box.I wish someone else will speak up. Everything this person reads he thinks is me.
Unless this a one your tricks.

For the record I did like some of Sybil's personalities. The ones in italics are the ones I would have dated in the good old days. Yowzer

Sybil Isabel Dorsett (1923), the main personality
Victoria Antoinette Scharleau (1926), nicknamed Vicky, self-assured and sophisticated young French girl
Peggy Lou Baldwin (1926), assertive, enthusiastic, and often angry
Peggy Ann Baldwin (1926), a counterpart of Peggy Lou but more fearful than angry
Mary Lucinda Saunders Dorsett (1933), a thoughtful, contemplative, and maternal homebody
Marcia Lynn Dorsett (1927), an extremely emotional writer and painter
Vanessa Gail Dorsett (1935), intensely dramatic is the musical one of them and fun loving.
Mike Dorsett (1928), one of Sybil's two male selves, a builder and a carpenter [I would have hired him]
Sid Dorsett (1928), the second of Sybil's two male selves, a carpenter and a general handyman. Sid took his name from Sybil's initials (Sybil Isabelle Dorsett),
Nancy Lou Ann Baldwin (date undetermined), interested in politics as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and intensely afraid of Roman Catholics [this would have never worked out]
Sybil Ann Dorsett (1928), listless to the point of neurasthenia
Ruthie Dorsett (date undetermined), a baby and one of the less developed selves
Clara Dorsett (date undetermined), intensely religious and highly critical of Sybil
Helen Dorsett (1929), intensely afraid but determined to achieve fulfillment
Marjorie Dorsett (1928), serene, vivacious, and quick to laugh
The Blonde (1946), a nameless perpetual teenager with an optimistic outlook

[Guest]

"guarantee" that they will not protect her?

He is saying she is not going to be prosecuted. If you are not going to be prosecuted, you don't need protection.

Nobody can beat Hillary, it is mathematically impossible. The 52% on gov assistance are voting for no cuts in their checks. They don't care how many emails she destroyed or how many top secret documents she handled improperly. They are idiots themselves, they would probably screw up to if they had a job...they don't want to go to work. They can identify with her being a **** up!

When this country goes bankrupt, you will have wished you followed my advise: STOCK UP ON AMMO!!

[Guest]

Obama proves time and time again his poor judgement.
Specifically being presidential and keeping his mouth shut.

And now that he is a lame duck and no election for him to lose he could care less.

Since when does a president make a judgement on public information?

January 2017 cannot get here fast enough.

[Guest]

Since when does a president make a judgement on public information?
Yes, I think it's unpresidented.

[Guest]

He is saying she is not going to be prosecuted. If you are not going to be prosecuted, you don't need protection.

Nobody can beat Hillary, it is mathematically impossible. The 52% on gov assistance are voting for no cuts in their checks.

When this country goes bankrupt, you will have wished you followed my advise: STOCK UP ON AMMO!!



Oh, by the way, your advise on stocking up on ammo is the kind of thing that is being looked for by the NSA and other Federal surveillance agencies.

If you sound like a clear and present danger (and you is getting mighty close), the knock on your door may be someone inviting you for a chat.

[Guest]

Oh, by the way, your advise on stocking up on ammo is the kind of thing that is being looked for by the NSA and other Federal surveillance agencies.

If you sound like a clear and present danger (and you is getting mighty close), the knock on your door may be someone inviting you for a chat.

Please define how I am "getting mighty close"

I am no danger, just like to be prepared to defend myself. As an American, I do still have the right to bear arms don't I?

[Guest]

Stock up on ammo!

[Guest]

He is saying she is not going to be prosecuted. If you are not going to be prosecuted, you don't need protection.

Nobody can beat Hillary, it is mathematically impossible. The 52% on gov assistance are voting for no cuts in their checks. They don't care how many emails she destroyed or how many top secret documents she handled improperly. They are idiots themselves, they would probably screw up to if they had a job...they don't want to go to work. They can identify with her being a **** up!

When this country goes bankrupt, you will have wished you followed my advise: STOCK UP ON AMMO!!


When the country goes bankrupt? 19 trillion? What call that? New flash, we are already bankrupt! As far as Hillary, the fed gov. Full of liberal democrat in charge will plenty of scratch my back I'll scratch yours management. She will never be charged by the liberal controlled justice system. They don't eat their own.

[Guest]

He is saying she is not going to be prosecuted. If you are not going to be prosecuted, you don't need protection.

Nobody can beat Hillary, it is mathematically impossible. The 52% on gov assistance are voting for no cuts in their checks. They don't care how many emails she destroyed or how many top secret documents she handled improperly. They are idiots themselves, they would probably screw up to if they had a job...they don't want to go to work. They can identify with her being a **** up!

When this country goes bankrupt, you will have wished you followed my advise: STOCK UP ON AMMO!!

You have no idea how stupid you sound, when you make a post like this. You throw out percentages, but have no idea who is included in the 52%.

Warren Buffet receives social security checks monthly. Do you really think that he will be voting for Hillary, because he is on the government dole?

People receiving social security, and Medicare are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. They are included in the 52%.
7 Facts About Government Benefits and Who Gets Them - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/7-facts-about-government-benefits-and-who-gets-them/266428/)

Families receiving welfare checks as their only income is around 2.5 million. That is less than 1% of the total population.

[Guest]

And what do you imagine the ammo is for? Who scares you?

[Guest]

You have no idea how stupid you sound, when you make a post like this. You throw out percentages, but have no idea who is included in the 52%.

Warren Buffet receives social security checks monthly. Do you really think that he will be voting for Hillary, because he is on the government dole?

People receiving social security, and Medicare are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. They are included in the 52%.
7 Facts About Government Benefits and Who Gets Them - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/7-facts-about-government-benefits-and-who-gets-them/266428/)

Families receiving welfare checks as their only income is around 2.5 million. That is less than 1% of the total population.

Warren Buffet will vote for Hillary because she opposes the Keystone Pipeline. By doing so she will ensure that his railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe will continue to transport the oil by rail, therby, continuing to line good old Warren's pockets.

[Guest]

Warren Buffet will vote for Hillary because she opposes the Keystone Pipeline. By doing so she will ensure that his railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe will continue to transport the oil by rail, therby, continuing to line good old Warren's pockets.

Good point. Hillary will get Hollywood's votes also, AFTER they realize that Bernie is not really in the game, just more show business. Bernie was never really in the game. Democrats wouldn't even allow Bernie in the nomination process if they had planned a fair election process. All those democrat votes were just for show. The DNC has already made their choice way before Bernie entered the fray. Hillary will be coronated if she is not incarcerated.

[Guest]

Warren Buffet will vote for Hillary because she opposes the Keystone Pipeline. By doing so she will ensure that his railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe will continue to transport the oil by rail, therby, continuing to line good old Warren's pockets.
Buffet's doing the right thing. I wonder if we can get the rest of the 1/10 of 1%'rs to have a social conscience?


"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, is making an unprecedented donation to the foundation run by the world's richest man, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.

Buffett, 75, the CEO of the Omaha, Neb.-based company Berkshire Hathaway, is worth $44 billion, according to Fortune magazine.

Fortune reports that Buffett will donate 85 percent of his fortune amassed from stock in the Berkshire Hathaway company to five foundations.

The donations, which will come from Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway shares, would amount to about $37 billion, based on current values.

Five-sixths of the money reportedly will go to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which specializes in finding cures for diseases that plague impoverished nations."

That still leaves him a few billion so his ancestors will never need to work. Isn't that enough? Enough so that your family can be as wealthy as a royal family never needing to work. How healthy will that be for them?

[Guest]

Buffet's doing the right thing. I wonder if we can get the rest of the 1/10 of 1%'rs to have a social conscience? ...How healthy will that be for them?

Warren Buffett is far from sainthood.

Warren Buffett is a businessman with very little social conscience. Consider his opposition to that pipeline for his own financial gain. Don't believe for a moment he gives a **** about ecology and wetlands, because if he did he would clean up Burlington Northern's emissions with some of the 37 billion he is planning to give away.

Buffett never passes up a farm subsidy or a wind energy subsidy, when he has amassed so much wealth already, only so he can take the money and give it to others in his name (bit of a philanthropist ego)? He could just not apply for the subsidies reducing the countries debt, he could just not take the tax deductions for the charity donations reducing the countries debt.

He is definitely voting for Hillary. He is fine with the idea of giving away someone else's money as Hillary is not planning on giving away much of her and Bill's wealth, just other people's money (that they do not know, or like).

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

Please define how I am "getting mighty close"

I am no danger, just like to be prepared to defend myself. As an American, I do still have the right to bear arms don't I?

You don't have to get defensive with me. Just a friendly tip to prepare yourself for the inevitable knock on the door - or battering ram. Quien no sabe?

[Guest]

You throw out percentages, but have no idea who is included in the 52%....Families receiving welfare checks as their only income is around 2.5 million. That is less than 1% of the total population.

Yes I am aware that SS recipients is included in the 52% and those checks will stop coming when Hillary bankrupts the country too. Social Security Disability claims escalated during the recession...

The key word in your 1% claim is "only", so they work 20 hours in a year and now welfare is not their only source of income...

If you think that 52% is nothing to be concerned with, just go about your day.

But I am STOCKING UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

You don't have to get defensive with me. Just a friendly tip to prepare yourself for the inevitable knock on the door - or battering ram. Quien no sabe?

Not defensive at all, I just asked you to define "mighty close" as you seem to know what the criteria is for NSA to batter down a person's door because they typed and advised to STOCK UP ON AMMO on a forum. Do you believe I have the right to prepare to defend myself, to bear arms?

If they knock on my door I will answer, for I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide (not like I emailed classified government documents on my IPhone or anything).

[Guest]

You don't have to get defensive with me. Just a friendly tip to prepare yourself for the inevitable knock on the door - or battering ram. Quien no sabe?

He hasn't said anything on here that warrants a knock on the door. Scare tactics only work on liberal sissies that need a gov nanny to protect them. PC is not yet law, so the 1st Amendment is still valid.

[Guest]

You don't have to get defensive with me. Just a friendly tip to prepare yourself for the inevitable knock on the door - or battering ram. Quien no sabe?

So, that's the nation we've become? Are you happy about that? So little could get your door broken down?

[Guest]

Warren Buffet will vote for Hillary because she opposes the Keystone Pipeline. By doing so she will ensure that his railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe will continue to transport the oil by rail, therby, continuing to line good old Warren's pockets.

Mr. Ammo's quote was 52% of the people will vote for Hillary, because they are on government dole. He is saying Buffet will vote for Hillary, because he is receiving social security checks from the government, and doesn't want to lose the money. And you think that is a sane comment? You danced away from his comment, and gave an alternative reason why Buffet will vote for Hillary.

A majority of people receiving social security, and Medicare checks vote Republican. I have say this a number of times, "figures lie, and liars figure".

When you don't get into the detail that makes up the numbers, you will be misled. Take a look at the person that is throwing out the numbers. Do they have political agenda? In this political climate, every candidate, and news outlet has a political agenda. You can't believe a damn thing any Republican, Democrat, or news outlet has to say.

55% of people said that they received money from a government program in their lifetime. 45% said they never received anything for the government. I was in the 45% until I retired, and start receiving SS, and Medicare. Many of the 55% received checks for a short period of time.

52% of the 55% are still receiving money. That doesn't make any sense. Unemployed people received government checks, and probably food stamps, when they were unemployed. As soon as they got a job, those benefits probably disappeared.

[Guest]

You don't have to get defensive with me. Just a friendly tip to prepare yourself for the inevitable knock on the door - or battering ram. Quien no sabe?

It must be very stressful being a liberal, living in a world of fear and paranoia.

[Guest]

Yes I am aware that SS recipients is included in the 52% and those checks will stop coming when Hillary bankrupts the country too. Social Security Disability claims escalated during the recession...

The key word in your 1% claim is "only", so they work 20 hours in a year and now welfare is not their only source of income...

If you think that 52% is nothing to be concerned with, just go about your day.

But I am STOCKING UP ON AMMO!

What programs are Hillary going to institute, that will bankrupt the country? The Republicans in Congress won't do anything to stop these programs! Come on man! You continue to make statements of fact, that are just plain nonsense.

A person works 20 hours a year, so they aren't included in the 1%. People had a yard sale, and made $10., so welfare isn't their only source of income. So, they aren't included in the 1%.

The 52% is exaggerated to fit someone's political agenda. What I am concerned about is the parties are so far apart that nothing is getting done. The country is not going to go bankrupt. Get my man Kasich in there, and things will get better. The parties will begin to talk to each other. Compromise will no longer be a swear word.

[Guest]

It must be very stressful being a liberal, living in a world of fear and paranoia.
And why do you need the ammo? Who do you suppose will attack you?

[Guest]

I have read all of the posts on this thread and in my view perhaps one of the most important aspects of why a president and a law professor allegedly well schooled in the US Constitution took it upon himself to publicly speak out about an investigation underway in one of the his federal agencies.

He is signaling to the FBI that he does not want Hillary prosecuted meaning his Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary irrespective of the FBI's supporting evidence and conclusion.

His pattern of saying one thing and acting in the opposite manner is replete with examples from before 2008 and to present day.

If you look at his foreign and economic policies he is so wrapped up in his ideology that he rather fail then admit he is wrong.

From President Clinton to present day has provided an open window as to why a presidential candidate must have military service listed on their resume' Because Clinton, Bush and Obama have failed miserably along these lines and it is costing us dearly.

Finally let me say that when growing up the threat of communist take over of America was evident and addressed.

Who would have ever believed that a strong possibility of a communist take over is in the making by way of the American Democrat Party. And like Hillary many Americans simply resemble bubble heads bubbling at the communist propaganda being spewed by Hillary and Sanders.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I have read all of the posts on this thread and in my view perhaps one of the most important aspects of why a president and a law professor allegedly well schooled in the US Constitution took it upon himself to publicly speak out about an investigation underway in one of the his federal agencies.

He is signaling to the FBI that he does not want Hillary prosecuted meaning his Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary irrespective of the FBI's supporting evidence and conclusion.

His pattern of saying one thing and acting in the opposite manner is replete with examples from before 2008 and to present day.

If you look at his foreign and economic policies he is so wrapped up in his ideology that he rather fail then admit he is wrong.

From President Clinton to present day has provided an open window as to why a presidential candidate must have military service listed on their resume' Because Clinton, Bush and Obama have failed miserably along these lines and it is costing us dearly.

Finally let me say that when growing up the threat of communist take over of America was evident and addressed.

Who would have ever believed that a strong possibility of a communist take over is in the making by way of the American Democrat Party. And like Hillary many Americans simply resemble bubble heads bubbling at the communist propaganda being spewed by Hillary and Sanders.

Personal Best Regards:
McCarthy era?

[Guest]

And why do you need the ammo? Who do you suppose will attack you?

I never said that I needed to stock up on any ammo. But, if I felt a need to purchase some, I wouldn't be paranoid and live in fear that some government agency would raid my home. It must be difficult living with a persecution complex.

[Guest]

Mr. Ammo's quote was 52% of the people will vote for Hillary, because they are on government dole. He is saying Buffet will vote for Hillary, because he is receiving social security checks from the government, and doesn't want to lose the money.
See post #20, and if you don't think they are voting for Hillary for the Government Assistance she has promised, you must think they are voting for her because of her stellar job as Sec of State...HA!

A majority of people receiving social security, and Medicare checks vote Republican. I have say this a number of times, "figures lie, and liars figure".

When you don't get into the detail that makes up the numbers, you will be misled. Take a look at the person that is throwing out the numbers. Do they have political agenda? In this political climate, every candidate, and news outlet has a political agenda. You can't believe a damn thing any Republican, Democrat, or news outlet has to say.

Absolutely you have an agenda when you throw out the numbers you do!


55% of people said that they received money from a government program in their lifetime. 45% said they never received anything for the government. I was in the 45% until I retired, and start receiving SS, and Medicare. Many of the 55% received checks for a short period of time.

52% of the 55% are still receiving money. That doesn't make any sense. Unemployed people received government checks, and probably food stamps, when they were unemployed. As soon as they got a job, those benefits probably disappeared.

Lot of numbers there, and then it all comes down to "as soon as they get a job"...Why would they want to do that???

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

Go back to Idaho.

[Guest]

I never said that I needed to stock up on any ammo. But, if I felt a need to purchase some, I wouldn't be paranoid and live in fear that some government agency would raid my home. It must be difficult living with a persecution complex.That doesn't answer my question.

[Guest]

And what do you imagine the ammo is for? Who scares you?

Those people that have gained a sense of entitlement from the handouts they have been given for generations might get desperate when the country is broke and unable to extend the debt any further. I am not scared of anyone in particular, but prefer to be ready if needed (rather than to be sorry and suckin hind tit).

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

I have read all of the posts on this thread and in my view perhaps one of the most important aspects of why a president and a law professor allegedly well schooled in the US Constitution took it upon himself to publicly speak out about an investigation underway in one of the his federal agencies.

He is signaling to the FBI that he does not want Hillary prosecuted meaning his Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary irrespective of the FBI's supporting evidence and conclusion.

His pattern of saying one thing and acting in the opposite manner is replete with examples from before 2008 and to present day.

If you look at his foreign and economic policies he is so wrapped up in his ideology that he rather fail then admit he is wrong.

From President Clinton to present day has provided an open window as to why a presidential candidate must have military service listed on their resume' Because Clinton, Bush and Obama have failed miserably along these lines and it is costing us dearly.

Finally let me say that when growing up the threat of communist take over of America was evident and addressed.

Who would have ever believed that a strong possibility of a communist take over is in the making by way of the American Democrat Party. And like Hillary many Americans simply resemble bubble heads bubbling at the communist propaganda being spewed by Hillary and Sanders.

Personal Best Regards:

You REALLY think that HE is the guy running the free world? The nation? Even the White House? Hell no. He's a talking head like they've all been for a long long time. Others SET the policy, sure, he agrees with it...most of it...and can therefore seem enthusiastic. He just may be gay, that's why he's so enthusiastically pushed for gay issues. He's an actor. The .gov spokesperson.

Who is president, who gets elected, just changes some of the names of the corporations making money off the taxpayer. Social issues are the only real difference between the D and R party. The money keeps being spent. They live like Gods and you pay for it by giving them half of your labor.

About half the cost of everything is taxes. Think about it. The mining operation and equipment, the land, the ore, the fuel used, is all taxed. The railroad who ships the ore to the steel mill is taxed, the business, the train, the operators, fuel. The steel mill is taxed, the equipment, workers, corporation that owns it. The manufacturer who works the metal into a product is taxed, his equipment, his workers. The truckers were taxed who moved everything around, their truck was taxed, the fuel, their company. The store who sold it was taxed, the building, the business itself, the merchandise when bought. Each pays about 10% the cost of the item in taxes, 10% gets added to the price in the chain because of taxes.

We pay enough in taxes, AND they borrow $1 trillion every year, they live like royalty. They don't LEAD us, they DECEIVE us. And we're so stupid we "elect" them again and again, to rob us. Because they've convinced us, the "other guy" is even worse.

Ignorant rabble, the lot of you. All the Ds and Rs. You vote for "the lesser of two evils" and then complain when you're taken advantage of? Duh! STOP voting for ANY D or R, if we can stick together, we can win. Otherwise, it'll be meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Same as it ever was. Nothing good will happen.

[Guest]

I have read all of the posts on this thread and in my view perhaps one of the most important aspects of why a president and a law professor allegedly well schooled in the US Constitution took it upon himself to publicly speak out about an investigation underway in one of the his federal agencies.

He is signaling to the FBI that he does not want Hillary prosecuted meaning his Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary irrespective of the FBI's supporting evidence and conclusion.

His pattern of saying one thing and acting in the opposite manner is replete with examples from before 2008 and to present day.

If you look at his foreign and economic policies he is so wrapped up in his ideology that he rather fail then admit he is wrong.

From President Clinton to present day has provided an open window as to why a presidential candidate must have military service listed on their resume' Because Clinton, Bush and Obama have failed miserably along these lines and it is costing us dearly.

Finally let me say that when growing up the threat of communist take over of America was evident and addressed.

Who would have ever believed that a strong possibility of a communist take over is in the making by way of the American Democrat Party. And like Hillary many Americans simply resemble bubble heads bubbling at the communist propaganda being spewed by Hillary and Sanders.

Personal Best Regards:

Obama has admitted that he was wrong in Libya.
Obama Admits Haphazard U.S. Intervention in Libya 'Worst Mistake' of His Presidency - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/11/obama-admits-haphazard-us-intervention-i)

What Obama is saying is you have to have a plan for the day after.
You might not need military experience, but you better have a plan for your military intervention after it is started.

The idea that any president could have the power to make this country a communist country is beyond stupid. To try to convince a Republican with this type of thinking is a waste of time, because they have cement between their ears.

[Guest]

You REALLY think that HE is the guy running the free world? The nation? Even the White House? Hell no. He's a talking head like they've all been for a long long time. Others SET the policy, sure, he agrees with it...most of it...and can therefore seem enthusiastic. He just may be gay, that's why he's so enthusiastically pushed for gay issues. He's an actor. The .gov spokesperson.

Who is president, who gets elected, just changes some of the names of the corporations making money off the taxpayer. Social issues are the only real difference between the D and R party. The money keeps being spent. They live like Gods and you pay for it by giving them half of your labor.

About half the cost of everything is taxes. Think about it. The mining operation and equipment, the land, the ore, the fuel used, is all taxed. The railroad who ships the ore to the steel mill is taxed, the business, the train, the operators, fuel. The steel mill is taxed, the equipment, workers, corporation that owns it. The manufacturer who works the metal into a product is taxed, his equipment, his workers. The truckers were taxed who moved everything around, their truck was taxed, the fuel, their company. The store who sold it was taxed, the building, the business itself, the merchandise when bought. Each pays about 10% the cost of the item in taxes, 10% gets added to the price in the chain because of taxes.

We pay enough in taxes, AND they borrow $1 trillion every year, they live like royalty. They don't LEAD us, they DECEIVE us. And we're so stupid we "elect" them again and again, to rob us. Because they've convinced us, the "other guy" is even worse.

Ignorant rabble, the lot of you. All the Ds and Rs. You vote for "the lesser of two evils" and then complain when you're taken advantage of? Duh! STOP voting for ANY D or R, if we can stick together, we can win. Otherwise, it'll be meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Same as it ever was. Nothing good will happen.

No, one half of everything isn't taxes.
How do US taxes compare internationally? | Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)

Right now, you have dueling banjos. Republicans want to cut social programs. Democrat want to reform the tax code to pay for social programs. In plain English, they want to increase taxes to pay for social programs. No one is budging. So, we are on road to nowhere.

Stick together and do what? not vote! What the hell does that accomplish?
Vote for a Tea Party person, or whatever they are calling themselves now. People that do not want to govern, and just want to make a lot of unless noise. That will certainly turn the country around.

[Guest]

How do US taxes compare internationally? | Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally)

That's great link.
Where did the middle class go?
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html)

[Guest]

I have read all of the posts on this thread and in my view perhaps one of the most important aspects of why a president and a law professor allegedly well schooled in the US Constitution took it upon himself to publicly speak out about an investigation underway in one of the his federal agencies.

He is signaling to the FBI that he does not want Hillary prosecuted meaning his Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary irrespective of the FBI's supporting evidence and conclusion.

His pattern of saying one thing and acting in the opposite manner is replete with examples from before 2008 and to present day.

If you look at his foreign and economic policies he is so wrapped up in his ideology that he rather fail then admit he is wrong.

From President Clinton to present day has provided an open window as to why a presidential candidate must have military service listed on their resume' Because Clinton, Bush and Obama have failed miserably along these lines and it is costing us dearly.

Finally let me say that when growing up the threat of communist take over of America was evident and addressed.

Who would have ever believed that a strong possibility of a communist take over is in the making by way of the American Democrat Party. And like Hillary many Americans simply resemble bubble heads bubbling at the communist propaganda being spewed by Hillary and Sanders.

Personal Best Regards:

Mr. PBR has been in a tizzy for the past eight years because a Black man has been President. Just imagine his inevitable tizzy when a WOMAN is elected President in 2016! :a20:

[Guest]

Obama has admitted that he was wrong in Libya.
Obama Admits Haphazard U.S. Intervention in Libya 'Worst Mistake' of His Presidency - Hit & Run : Reason.com (http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/11/obama-admits-haphazard-us-intervention-i)

What Obama is saying is you have to have a plan for the day after.
You might not need military experience, but you better have a plan for your military intervention after it is started.

The idea that any president could have the power to make this country a communist country is beyond stupid. To try to convince a Republican with this type of thinking is a waste of time, because they have cement between their ears.

Probably better than liberals with cement in their butts and can't get off of them to do some work. Obama is an inept amateur, period.

[Guest]

Mr. PBR has been in a tizzy for the past eight years because a Black man has been President. Just imagine his inevitable tizzy when a WOMAN is elected President in 2016! :a20:

I doubt that. He doesn't seem like the type. However, you are the one that keeps bringing up Obama's half black color, using it as an excuse for him being inept. It must be tiring to have to use the race card so much. You do know that Obie is half white, don't you? Does that mean, he is only half wrong? Or maybe just half inept?

[Guest]

I doubt that. He doesn't seem like the type. However, you are the one that keeps bringing up Obama's half black color, using it as an excuse for him being inept. It must be tiring to have to use the race card so much. You do know that Obie is half white, don't you? Does that mean, he is only half wrong? Or maybe just half inept?

Yes, Mr. PBR does seem that type!

I think Pres. Obama is a very good President. Sure is a lot than Crapweasel Bush - who is all white. :a20: Heck of a lot better than Romney would have been, too.

Isn't it time to get your white sheet and hood ready for your Villages Tea Party meeting? :a20:

[Guest]

Yes, Mr. PBR does seem that type!

I think Pres. Obama is a very good President. Sure is a lot than Crapweasel Bush - who is all white. :a20: Heck of a lot better than Romney would have been, too.

Isn't it time to get your white sheet and hood ready for your Villages Tea Party meeting? :a20:

You caught me again in your bait trap. Congrats. Obama is a scumbag loser and Hillary is just as bad if not worst. Do you think maybe Hillary is bad because she is white? Oh, I forgot her excuse is being a female. You can go crawl back into your hole now. You mom will be coming home from work soon, so you better go make your bed before she sees that you haven't done anything today but play with the old people on the Internet.

[Guest]

That's great link.
Where did the middle class go?
Goodbye Middle Class: 51 Percent Of All American Workers Make Less Than 30,000 Dollars A Year Washington's Blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html)

I don't doubt the numbers. It appears that there is an assumption that families contain only one worker, which isn't the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

There are many families in the country that are living pay check to pay check. You keep on hearing that these people are the takers, and are a problem that has to be corrected. I am not sure, but I think Ted Cruz is in favor of a flat tax. A flat tax would increase federal income tax on these families. Trump's tax plans are from a dream world. Sanders wants to increase taxes probably on everybody. Given that Hillary is a Democrat, she is probably for tax reform, which probably increase taxes on everybody.

Romney started this 47% nonsense that will not go away. Someone has to be the reason the country debt is increasing every year. So, the crime the 47% are guilty of is not making enough money to live on. So, send them to rehab, and they will come out making enough money to live on. That is a win/win situation.

[Guest]

You caught me again in your bait trap. Congrats. Obama is a scumbag loser and Hillary is just as bad if not worst. Do you think maybe Hillary is bad because she is white? Oh, I forgot her excuse is being a female. You can go crawl back into your hole now. You mom will be coming home from work soon, so you better go make your bed before she sees that you haven't done anything today but play with the old people on the Internet.

You have been told over and over that your heyday has come and gone. Progressives have now got the majority of the voting blocs. It definitely be you that better crawl back in your hole.

We gots the votes to run the Regressive Republican machine and their loser minions to the side of the road like yesterdayz roadkill.

HILLARY wins! The USA wins.

[Guest]

So, send them to rehab, and they will come out making enough money to live on. That is a win/win situation.

Have you no friends that have a "Poor Steve" or "Poor John"? Those are the names they start every sentence about them with, it is almost like that "Poor" is part of the name on the birth certificate. Most have been a screw up since day one and most of those sentences refer to occasions about DUIs and other abuse and legal problems. The parent of "Poor Steve" has excuses after excuse about it being someone else's fault, like "Poor Steve got hooked on drugs cause he dated that one girl" or "Poor Steve got in a car accident last night, he was coming home from the bar and some guy stopped too quick in front of him".

Well, the reason I asked is; those people usually send "Poor Steve" to rehab a couple times and a lot of times they realize he is unfix-able. This is after they have spent 20K or more on a couple stints at rehab centers (average cost is 10-20K).

That leads me to; who can afford to pay 10 -20K for each of these "Poor Steve"s we have in this country? And then they have a relapse and then spend another 10-20K?

STOCK UP ON AMMO!

[Guest]

Have you no friends that have a "Poor Steve" or "Poor John"? Those are the names they start every sentence about them with, it is almost like that "Poor" is part of the name on the birth certificate. Most have been a screw up since day one and most of those sentences refer to occasions about DUIs and other abuse and legal problems. The parent of "Poor Steve" has excuses after excuse about it being someone else's fault, like "Poor Steve got hooked on drugs cause he dated that one girl" or "Poor Steve got in a car accident last night, he was coming home from the bar and some guy stopped too quick in front of him".

Well, the reason I asked is; those people usually send "Poor Steve" to rehab a couple times and a lot of times they realize he is unfix-able. This is after they have spent 20K or more on a couple stints at rehab centers (average cost is 10-20K).

That leads me to; who can afford to pay 10 -20K for each of these "Poor Steve"s we have in this country? And then they have a relapse and then spend another 10-20K?

STOCK UP ON AMMO!


Rehab for people not paying taxes is not the same as rehab for people addicted to drugs. People that aren't paying federal income taxes are making next to nothing. So, the cure is a better job. Rehab is a two year associate's degree, or training for a job in the trades. Education is rehab. A better job is more addicting than making peanuts. So, you are not likely to fall back into the 47% category.

People receiving social security are part of the 47%. Receiving SS checks is a disease that is not curable. So, we will not be sent to rehab.

[Guest]

Rehab for people not paying taxes is not the same as rehab for people addicted to drugs. People that aren't paying federal income taxes are making next to nothing. So, the cure is a better job. Rehab is a two year associate's degree, or training for a job in the trades. Education is rehab. A better job is more addicting than making peanuts. So, you are not likely to fall back into the 47% category.

People receiving social security are part of the 47%. Receiving SS checks is a disease that is not curable. So, we will not be sent to rehab.

Are kids yours or mine entitled to a free college education or to have the loans paid off. We bailed out the banks so the billionaires didn't need to, we need them to bail out the kids while they are young enough to get rich and feed the system with more taxes. It's a hand up not a hand out.

Why did tuition go up so much? We let it.
Years of Cuts Threaten to Put College Out of Reach for More Students | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/years-of-cuts-threaten-to-put-college-out-of-reach-for-more-students)

[Guest]

Rehab for people not paying taxes is not the same as rehab for people addicted to drugs. People that aren't paying federal income taxes are making next to nothing. So, the cure is a better job. Rehab is a two year associate's degree, or training for a job in the trades. Education is rehab. A better job is more addicting than making peanuts. So, you are not likely to fall back into the 47% category.

People receiving social security are part of the 47%. Receiving SS checks is a disease that is not curable. So, we will not be sent to rehab.

People making $50k per year with a wife and two children are paying no taxes. Is that next to nothing? That fits within the middle class scope.

People receiving social security are not ALL part of the 47%. Everyone that has worked a job and has retired is allowed SS.

I have no comment on your rehab idea, just correcting some of your comment. I agree that if a person has a good job they are less likely to be in the 47% category, but there are a lot of good jobs within that 47% category, and that is the problem. Those folks should be paying income taxes also. Everyone should pay income taxes, if anyone pays them. Or go to a "fair tax" system. I do not believe that everyone should be wealthy or even necessarily be middle class. I believe it is up to that person and his/her motivation and ability. That is what is great about America. Everyone is NOT equal, but given equal opportunity. Some homeless prefer to be homeless. They do not wish the burden of paying bills or having any responsibility. That is up to them, and not to us to make them "better." It would be nice to have programs that would allow them to get off the street if they wish and clean up, eat and assist them with employment if they wish. Otherwise, you can't force them to work or get off the streets.

The gov should only assist those that are handicapped in some manner, and that includes the aged that can't do for themselves. The lazy and unmotivated should not benefit from the earners.

[Guest]

The gov should only assist those that are handicapped in some manner, and that includes the aged that can't do for themselves. The lazy and unmotivated should not benefit from the earners.
You have been paying them for years. How would you change the system?

[Guest]

You have been paying them for years. How would you change the system?

You cut them off, they revolt, you shoot them.

If more of them survive than you, they win and create a new government of liars and thieves.

If you win, the whole "poor and unemployment" problem is solved. Life goes on.

That's how it's always been done.

[Guest]

You cut them off, they revolt, you shoot them.

If more of them survive than you, they win and create a new government of liars and thieves.

If you win, the whole "poor and unemployment" problem is solved. Life goes on.

That's how it's always been done.
Where has it been done?

[Guest]

Where has it been done?

You're kidding...right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Pick one...

[Guest]

You're kidding...right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Pick one...
Here's the newest 10 in your link. This is what you wish for yourself and your family? These countries are more the size of states, so do the math.

2015 PKK rebellion
Civilian impact[edit]
According to Turkish Human Rights Foundation, there have been 52 intermittent curfews in seven predominantly Kurdish towns where 1.3 million people live, sometimes lasting as long as 14 days. The organization puts the civilian death toll since the summer of 2015 at 124.[230] The situation in the South-East has little coverage in the Turkish media. The authorities have enforced a blockade over the region and have shut down both cell phone coverage and the internet. Hundreds of houses, dozens of schools and official buildings have been damaged by artillery and gun fire from militants,[231] and civilians have been allegedly fired at. Turkish Forces have used measures like tank fire to clear out bomb-trapped barricades which lead to damage of residential buildings.[232] It is estimated that more than 200,000 people have been displaced. According to the HRW, civilian death toll is around 100. Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association accuses Turkish Armed Forces and Gendarmerie of targeting civilians under the pretext of fighting terrorism.[233] Many residents in the southeastern cities have been trapped without food or electricity as clashes between Kurdish militants and Turkish security forces have intensified. In December 2015, town of Cizre, was under curfew for more than two weeks, with mounting civilian casualties. According to a teacher from the district of Silopi, the tanks fire all day and people have nowhere left to hide and they are dying in their own homes.[234]


Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010, also known as the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, began in April 2010 with the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev in the capital Bishkek. It was followed by increased ethnic tension involving Kyrgyz people and Uzbeks in the south of the country, which escalated in June 2010. The violence ultimately led to the consolidation of a new parliamentary system in Kyrgyzstan.
During the general mayhem, exiles from the Uzbek minority claim they were assaulted and driven to Uzbekistan, with some 400,000 Kyrgyzstani citizens becoming internally displaced.[1] Victims interviewed by media and aid workers testify to mass killing, gang rape and torture.[2] Then-head of the Interim government Roza Otunbayeva indicated that the death toll is tenfold higher than was previously reported, which brings the number of the dead to 2,000 people.

Tunisian Revolution
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
Libyan Civil War (2011)
Yemeni Revolution
2013-current Rojava Revolution
2014 Ukrainian Revolution
Abkhazian Revolution
2014 Burkinabé uprising
See also[edit]

[Guest]

Here's the newest 10 in your link. This is what you wish for yourself and your family? These countries are more the size of states, so do the math.

2015 PKK rebellion
Civilian impact[edit]
According to Turkish Human Rights Foundation, there have been 52 intermittent curfews in seven predominantly Kurdish towns where 1.3 million people live, sometimes lasting as long as 14 days. The organization puts the civilian death toll since the summer of 2015 at 124.[230] The situation in the South-East has little coverage in the Turkish media. The authorities have enforced a blockade over the region and have shut down both cell phone coverage and the internet. Hundreds of houses, dozens of schools and official buildings have been damaged by artillery and gun fire from militants,[231] and civilians have been allegedly fired at. Turkish Forces have used measures like tank fire to clear out bomb-trapped barricades which lead to damage of residential buildings.[232] It is estimated that more than 200,000 people have been displaced. According to the HRW, civilian death toll is around 100. Diyarbakir branch of the Human Rights Association accuses Turkish Armed Forces and Gendarmerie of targeting civilians under the pretext of fighting terrorism.[233] Many residents in the southeastern cities have been trapped without food or electricity as clashes between Kurdish militants and Turkish security forces have intensified. In December 2015, town of Cizre, was under curfew for more than two weeks, with mounting civilian casualties. According to a teacher from the district of Silopi, the tanks fire all day and people have nowhere left to hide and they are dying in their own homes.[234]


Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010, also known as the Second Kyrgyz Revolution, began in April 2010 with the ousting of Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev in the capital Bishkek. It was followed by increased ethnic tension involving Kyrgyz people and Uzbeks in the south of the country, which escalated in June 2010. The violence ultimately led to the consolidation of a new parliamentary system in Kyrgyzstan.
During the general mayhem, exiles from the Uzbek minority claim they were assaulted and driven to Uzbekistan, with some 400,000 Kyrgyzstani citizens becoming internally displaced.[1] Victims interviewed by media and aid workers testify to mass killing, gang rape and torture.[2] Then-head of the Interim government Roza Otunbayeva indicated that the death toll is tenfold higher than was previously reported, which brings the number of the dead to 2,000 people.

Tunisian Revolution
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
Libyan Civil War (2011)
Yemeni Revolution
2013-current Rojava Revolution
2014 Ukrainian Revolution
Abkhazian Revolution
2014 Burkinabé uprising
See also[edit]

All Muslim...and they want to brink in more and more of them...

It's not what "I" want, you asked what to do with the problem, I told you how it's always been taken care of...revolution.

It'll happen here, we're past the point of no return, more "minority" babies are being born than white, already kindergarten registrations are more "minority" than white. The next "migrant baby boom" will sweep through and change everything. We won't make it as a nation another 30 years. Nothing any of us will recognize anyway. We'll be 3rd world by then, they'll have won the "equality" war. Watch the movie "Idiocracy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk to see our future as we dumb down farther and farther. They're breeding us into oblivion.

[Guest]

You have been paying them for years. How would you change the system?

You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system. Well, I am not the politician and I am not a half-white president that gets away with creating law with an E.O. BUT, one possible suggestion is to make every person that is not handicapped or over a certain age, WORK for their welfare. A simple process of putting women to work in filing rooms, coping forms using copy machines, running errands, babysitting for gov workers at a child care center (supervised of course) or janitorial work. DO not pay them any more than their welfare check and they will be rushing out to seek employment. Men can do laborer work for the state, collect trash and garbage off the highways and other physical labor. ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check. That would eliminate a lot, right there.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it. Since Obama took office there is a record number of food stamp recipients right NOW.

We should take care of the handicapped and the old, if they are unable to support themselves.

Now, the liberals will pipe in and say, that's impossible. That's just as impossible as building a wall at the border. That's toooo harddddd!

BS!

[Guest]

You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.
BS! Show me where I said that you were in a restrictive category?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1212137]You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system.

ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it.QUOTE]

You have some great ideas!

The idea of mandatory drug testing for welfare recepients MUST include ALL recepients of Social Security checks, veteran benefits, and Medicare benefits!

The idea of food stamps being only for low quality basic foods is too liberal. Why not make it so the food stamps would only be good for meat, fish, and dairy products past their selling date and fruits and veggies that are bruised, wilted or spoiled? The canned foods eligible for food stamps would be those dented, bulging tops, and missing labels.

Thanks for your great ideas. I am sure Cruz or Trump would be glad to sign Exective Orders to bring them to fruition on their first day in office.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1212137]You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system.

ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it.QUOTE]

You have some great ideas!

The idea of mandatory drug testing for welfare recepients MUST include ALL recepients of Social Security checks, veteran benefits, and Medicare benefits!

The idea of food stamps being only for low quality basic foods is too liberal. Why not make it so the food stamps would only be good for meat, fish, and dairy products past their selling date and fruits and veggies that are bruised, wilted or spoiled? The canned foods eligible for food stamps would be those dented, bulging tops, and missing labels.

Thanks for your great ideas. I am sure Cruz or Trump would be glad to sign Exective Orders to bring them to fruition on their first day in office.

Why would you have folks that receive money DUE to them, be required for drug testing? Do you wish to punish them for some reason? Perhaps because they earned their benefits? People on welfare should be drug tested to see if they are attempting to better themselves and not just attempting to live off of others. It's not punishment, it's qualifying. There is a big difference, but apparently you liberals see it to be the same. You believe that the gov should support you, where as most of us believe that the gov should ONLY protect us when we can't protect ourselves.

After starting this response, I realized that you are just being an @ssh*le and not really attempting to have a discussion. You are just our pet troll, that gets his jollies poking those that are better than himself. You can go play now, you got your attention. Go turn on your cable cartoon network.

[Guest]

You are replying to me. On another thread, you would be accused of "cubbyholing." This is usually reserved for liberals and they do not allow conservatives that privilege.

However, you asked how I would change the system. Well, I am not the politician and I am not a half-white president that gets away with creating law with an E.O. BUT, one possible suggestion is to make every person that is not handicapped or over a certain age, WORK for their welfare. A simple process of putting women to work in filing rooms, coping forms using copy machines, running errands, babysitting for gov workers at a child care center (supervised of course) or janitorial work. DO not pay them any more than their welfare check and they will be rushing out to seek employment. Men can do laborer work for the state, collect trash and garbage off the highways and other physical labor. ALL recipients of welfare should undergo drug testing before receiving their check. That would eliminate a lot, right there.

Food stamps should only be used for items marked eligible for purchase using food stamps. Not brand named items, not high quality foods. Basics only. That information should be included on the barcode and the register could filter those items out.

Making it more difficult to obtain welfare when that person is perfectly capable to work is the right way to do it. Since Obama took office there is a record number of food stamp recipients right NOW.

We should take care of the handicapped and the old, if they are unable to support themselves.

Now, the liberals will pipe in and say, that's impossible. That's just as impossible as building a wall at the border. That's toooo harddddd!

BS!

MAKING someone work is slavery. That's why you don't have to work. The blacks wouldn't stand for it...get it? Stand for it, they're lazy and sit on their ass all day... Anyway, nope, you can't MAKE someone work the fields.

I've seen the welfare queen, fancy clothes, jewelry, well coifed, manicured, buying t-bone steaks, Coke, and Ben and Jerry's ice cream. I was behind her and saw her pull out the foodstamps. (Now it's a credit card for less "stigma") Then saw her getting into a Mercedes SUV. Where is the 1-800 fraud number and what would happen to her anyway?

They give away welfare to keep the masses quiet and reasonably content. Bread and circus. Food and entertainment. You'd be surprised how effective it is... Obesity, overeating, and TV go hand and hand.

You don't work in the garden, you don't eat...simple as that.

[Guest]

Hillary said "I did NOT transmit or receive any emails that were MARKED classified."

Obama said" I guarantee that the justice department will not PROTECT Clinton."

Hillary transmitted and received classified information, but it wasn't marked. Still a felony, but technically she isn't lying when she says it "wasn't MARKED classified."

Obama's Justice Dept won't protect Hillary, but it won't prosecute her either. Technically they are not protecting her if they are not pursuing a conviction. If no one is charging her, then there is nothing to protect her from.

Double speak from the best liars America has to offer.

[Guest]

Hillary said "I did NOT transmit or receive any emails that were MARKED classified."

Obama said" I guarantee that the justice department will not PROTECT Clinton."

Hillary transmitted and received classified information, but it wasn't marked. Still a felony, but technically she isn't lying when she says it "wasn't MARKED classified."

Obama's Justice Dept won't protect Hillary, but it won't prosecute her either. Technically they are not protecting her if they are not pursuing a conviction. If no one is charging her, then there is nothing to protect her from.

Double speak from the best liars America has to offer.

And when the repubs are in charge, they do the same crap.

Both parties are corrupt, stop voting for either.

[Guest]

And when the repubs are in charge, they do the same crap.

Both parties are corrupt, stop voting for either.

You know, I believe you are right. After this, I am never going to vote again. That will fix them. They'll definitely remember me when I don't vote for them.

Naw, just kidding.

[Guest]

You know, I believe you are right. After this, I am never going to vote again. That will fix them. They'll definitely remember me when I don't vote for them.

Naw, just kidding.

Vote, but vote for someone you might actually WANT to win. I know it's a novel idea to not vote for the lesser of two evils. But you CAN do it. Pick the Libertarian who wants everyone to live and let live.

We have 2 votes now. Anyone else ready to stop the madness in DC? Anyone else tired of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? HALF the cost of the things you buy is tax. Tax gets added to tax along the supply chain, almost 10% each time it passes hands. Taxes add up quickly. Taxes is the government stealing from you and giving it to their contributors.

[Guest]

And when the repubs are in charge, they do the same crap.

Both parties are corrupt, stop voting for either.

Yeah but nobody...NOBODY...N-O-B-O-D-Y does it as frequently and continuously as Clinton.
She lives the lies and can switch hats and faces faster than any other human known to mankind.

[Guest]

After starting this response, I realized that you are just being an @ssh*le and not really attempting to have a discussion. You are just our pet troll, that gets his jollies poking those that are better than himself. You can go play now, you got your attention. Go turn on your cable cartoon network.[/QUOTE]

I really got a chortle out of this reply! He fell face first :loco:into a trap set for the Wackadoodle Gang of Three and spent time trying to vindicate himself!

Mr. Wackadoodle, :loco:get a life away from the political forum. Go play some golf, take a line dancing lesson, or just drink yourself into oblivion but stay away from anything that requires you to have brain power. That goes for the entire Gang of Three!!:loco: :a20: :a20:

[Guest]

After starting this response, I realized that you are just being an @ssh*le and not really attempting to have a discussion. You are just our pet troll, that gets his jollies poking those that are better than himself. You can go play now, you got your attention. Go turn on your cable cartoon network.

I really got a chortle out of this reply! He fell face first :loco:into a trap set for the Wackadoodle Gang of Three and spent time trying to vindicate himself!

Mr. Wackadoodle, :loco:get a life away from the political forum. Go play some golf, take a line dancing lesson, or just drink yourself into oblivion but stay away from anything that requires you to have brain power. That goes for the entire Gang of Three!!:loco: :a20: :a20:[/QUOTE]

Still trying to figure out who the "gang of three" is that you refer to. I do realize that there are only one or two liberals on here, one being a troll. Are you suggesting that there are only three conservative posters on here? There would not be much reason to have a political forum if only three made comments. Although, if they wish to have a political conversation, it doesn't help much if there is a liberal troll interrupting and diverting the subject.
If you are the troll that sets traps, it's a shame that you get your jollies from ill-mannered interrupting of conversations. But, I have noticed that liberals have a tendency to have little regard for disciplining their children and often fail to instill manners, leaving their children to run amok making a nuisance of themselves.

[Guest]

Although, if they wish to have a political conversation, it doesn't help much if there is a liberal troll interrupting and diverting the subject. .

How can you interrupt? I skip the posts that are too long to read especially if there is no support, no links or I find it offensive. Doesn't everyone?

When you interrupt a vocal conversation the others talking have to stop or you talk over you. That's hardly the case with posts. Who reads all their email?

Obama "guarantees" justice department will not protect Clinton!?

This is the subject of this thread.
Your post diverted the conversation, didn't it. I don't get it. Why didn't you start a new thread?

[Guest]

I really got a chortle out of this reply! He fell face first :loco:into a trap set for the Wackadoodle Gang of Three and spent time trying to vindicate himself!

Mr. Wackadoodle, :loco:get a life away from the political forum. Go play some golf, take a line dancing lesson, or just drink yourself into oblivion but stay away from anything that requires you to have brain power. That goes for the entire Gang of Three!!:loco: :a20: :a20:

Still trying to figure out who the "gang of three" is that you refer to. Are you suggesting that there are only three conservative posters on here? There would not be much reason to have a political forum if only three made comments. Although, if they wish to have a political conversation.
If you are the troll that sets traps, it's a shame that you get your jollies from ill-mannered interrupting of conversations. [/QUOTE]

Political conversations? Puleeze, give me a break! It is just name calling of the President by the Gang of Three :loco:and answering themselves with their one liners.

[Guest]

I know hw was responding to a question but why the emphasis on "guarantee" that they will not protect her?

I would have expected him to say something more lawyerly like he would support what ever the findings of the FBI and the justice system dictate.

And in the lawyerly terminology if someone else in his administration does in fact protect her somehow......he has deniability.

I have no confidence and do not trust anything from him or his administration. They all earned that!!!

Obama: I 'guarantee' Justice Dept. won’t protect Hillary - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-justice-221770#ixzz45Qr95VUx)

Always remember:

- Who has her and the Justice Dept. on puppet strings and can make her dangle awhile and then feed some more dirt to make her squirm;

- Who can pardon her next January (to keep her quiet about his dirty laundry) after he serves her up to an indictment so Biden-Warren can be parachuted in instead of Bernie. Bernie never joined their party (oops) their club, until he declared his run for the office now, and he is being reminded of this every day with the stacked super-delegate count against him. They will not allow him--an outsider--to take over their club. The RNC is doing the same thing, using Cruz as a doorstop to keep the door open to a brokered convention and putting Kasich in.

[Guest]

Always remember:

- Who has her and the Justice Dept. on puppet strings and can make her dangle awhile and then feed some more dirt to make her squirm;

- Who can pardon her next January (to keep her quiet about his dirty laundry) after he serves her up to an indictment so Biden-Warren can be parachuted in instead of Bernie. Bernie never joined their party (oops) their club, until he declared his run for the office now, and he is being reminded of this every day with the stacked super-delegate count against him. They will not allow him--an outsider--to take over their club. The RNC is doing the same thing, using Cruz as a doorstop to keep the door open to a brokered convention and putting Kasich in.That would be something. Is it exactly the same backers paying both parties the same amount?

Is that information kept confidential?

[Guest]

Always remember:

- Who has her and the Justice Dept. on puppet strings and can make her dangle awhile and then feed some more dirt to make her squirm;

- Who can pardon her next January (to keep her quiet about his dirty laundry) after he serves her up to an indictment so Biden-Warren can be parachuted in instead of Bernie. Bernie never joined their party (oops) their club, until he declared his run for the office now, and he is being reminded of this every day with the stacked super-delegate count against him. They will not allow him--an outsider--to take over their club. The RNC is doing the same thing, using Cruz as a doorstop to keep the door open to a brokered convention and putting Kasich in.

Quite the imagination. And it sounds plausible. Let me suggest a bit more, based on my imagination. Bernie has just picked up the endorsement of Occupy Wall St, miscreants. Bernie has a large voter base, but is already slated to lose the nomination. Hillary has bought and paid for her super delegates, so she is a winner. BUT, think of this new perspective. Hillary faces off against ________ (fill in the blank) and finds out that Bernies folks are really ****ed off. She loses a large voter base because Bernie is no longer in the picture. On top of that, she doesn't have the majority of the Independents. Hillary loses.

[Guest]

Quite the imagination. And it sounds plausible. Let me suggest a bit more, based on my imagination. Bernie has just picked up the endorsement of Occupy Wall St, miscreants. Bernie has a large voter base, but is already slated to lose the nomination. Hillary has bought and paid for her super delegates, so she is a winner. BUT, think of this new perspective. Hillary faces off against ________ (fill in the blank) and finds out that Bernies folks are really ****ed off. She loses a large voter base because Bernie is no longer in the picture. On top of that, she doesn't have the majority of the Independents. Hillary loses.Possible--but asking Sanders base, a collection of young people and intellectuals to make an angry vote for a republican is not likely. If they didn't read, comprehend and know what was in the country's best interest they wouldn't be his his base.

[Guest]

Possible--but asking Sanders base, a collection of young people and intellectuals to make an angry vote for a republican is not likely. If they didn't read, comprehend and know what was in the country's best interest they wouldn't be his his base.

I don't think that I said that Bernies people would vote for a Republican. But, I do suggest that they won't turn out to vote. The Dems are already suffering at least a 20% decrease in voter turnout in the primaries, with the Republicans gaining at least 50% gain in voter turn out in most of the state primaries.

[Guest]

I don't think that I said that Bernies people would vote for a Republican. But, I do suggest that they won't turn out to vote. The Dems are already suffering at least a 20% decrease in voter turnout in the primaries, with the Republicans gaining at least 50% gain in voter turn out in most of the state primaries.good point

[Guest]

That would be something. Is it exactly the same backers paying both parties the same amount?

Is that information kept confidential?

I'm not sure, but here is a link showing the two parties' income of over $300 million each for 2016, and this is tax exempt income I'm pretty sure-- an IRS 527 organization I think I read elsewhere.

The watchdog group at this link notes this is not the donations the CANDIDATES get from donors. This is the parties' donation income.

See:

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

[Guest]

I'm not sure, but here is a link showing the two parties' income of over $300 million each for 2016, and this is tax exempt income I'm pretty sure-- an IRS 527 organization I think I read elsewhere.

The watchdog group at this link notes this is not the donations the CANDIDATES get from donors. This is the parties' donation income.

See:

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/
Thank-you for the link.

Maybe I didn't word the question in the way I meant it.

There is speculation that Wall Street Lobbyists have so much money that they can afford to support all candidates for both parties.

I looked at the watchdog list and could not pick out the donors that would support this accusation.

[Guest]

I'm not sure, but here is a link showing the two parties' income of over $300 million each for 2016, and this is tax exempt income I'm pretty sure-- an IRS 527 organization I think I read elsewhere.

The watchdog group at this link notes this is not the donations the CANDIDATES get from donors. This is the parties' donation income.

See:

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Open secrets is a contradiction of terms. If the numbers are known, then what is the secret? The funds the parties receive is small in comparison to the funds sitting in the 501(4)c charitable organization. These charitable organizations are political action groups. Both parties have them. The IRS law states that they can not perform any political activity. The IRS isn't enforcing the law as written. They are using 50% as the law, which is a joke.

I really like Biden/Warren against Kasich/Rubio. I don't give a damn, what the party higher ups have to do to get there. Just like in golf, who cares how the ball got there as long as the out come is good.

There was talk about Bernie's crowd not voting, if he isn't the nominee.
The same holds true for the Republicans, if Trump isn't the nominee. At least Bernie isn't whining like a baby every day about the process like Trump does all the bleepin time. The Republican will get hit either way, if Trump is the nominee. His people will get out and vote, but the party faithful might not.