Quote:
	

	

		

			
				

					Originally Posted by Jaredvcxz
					
				
				
Yet another person ranting about politics with a middle-school understanding of how it works.



This coming from someone who doesn't even know half of what I'm even talking about. If you think you know more about politics than I do, run for office . I on the other hand will say what I want to say, and if you have a problem with it, don't call it "ranting" after reading it unless it really is ranting. Ranting would be more like the comments you'd usually find on a youtube video about the GOP. I don't say things like that about any posts from you that I disagree with.



This is a government by the people, for the people. Which means we have nobody to blame but ourselves. If the american consumer base wasn't so obsessed with spending money they don't have, the government would have a lot less problems to worry about.



Are you even old enough to vote? I am now but not before the last election. And not all Americans want to spend money that they don't have. If what you said was actually true, we would still have the spending problems on a governmental level anyway. And since taxes are always there for the spending, even if more Americans did rein in their money, it would likely be taxed out of them by the government. In fact, why is it the people that are to blame, anyway? Most people vote for the candidate they feel will best carry out his duties and the needs of the people. But that's not to say that there aren't some people who will play dirty to get their candidate in, like ACORN and their voting fraud. Jared, you're younger than me, right? In that case, you probably were too busy with your schoolwork to care about what was going on at the time. I saw it happen.



It's not the 50's anymore. From their perspective, we're their saviors. We've given them countless jobs, and a huge boost to their economy.



They have the potential to do serious harm to America's financial future. I'm not saying China's an enemy, but they're not very friendly either. The Chinese government and the Chinese citizens are two different things. My mom for example is fascinated by Chinese culture and the language, but she told me herself that the US is "beholden" to China. And we're a great boost to their economy like you said, especially that they now have more than $1 billion of control over us.



Not necessarily. The rest of the world is well-equipped to handle our downfall, and probably would be better off without us.



No. You're dead wrong. The Middle East certainly isn't well-equipped to deal with our downfall because we're the strongest resistance against the threat of terrorism and we need to help Israel. Israel is the birthplace of three of the world's major religions, and it's struggling with it's current situation. As for the Middle East, the chances of a group called The Muslim Brotherhood acting as leader of Egypt are very real. Not all Muslims are bad and my respect goes out to the ones that are mistakenly seen as terrorists, but these guys worry me. Libya, Egypt, and other Arab nations are going through similar problems with riots and revolts. The dates and events even correlate to the texts in certain Islamic texts. I'm not one to believe in such superstition, but the guys we're fighting are, and it's part of the driving force and spirit behind their whole agenda. Europe is already showing signs of Middle Eastern problems. And don't even get me started on oil prices. I'm surprised people aren't seriously talking about it yet with all these revolts and extremist activity there. Our government continues to import oil from the Arab States, and yet we still have our own reserves that we need to start using if we want to exert some pressure on the same countries that want the western way of life destroyed.



America can fall to its enemies. And if America falls, it's up to the rest of the world to fight this. And I don't have much hope at all for the rest of the world without a US. Neither will you if all your friends end up in torture chambers or end up as victims of an honor killing. There is no reasoning with them. They are deeply devoted to their religion and right now are the most powerful divine-driven force on the planet. Christianity was very much like them during the Holy Crusades, but we're past that stage by centuries and Christianity isn't nearly as aggressive as it used to be. It has gone back to a peaceful religion.



And even if the terrorist threat wasn't here, *we* began the western way of life, and it has since been adopted by many countries across the world. It needs to be protected and preserved, not destroyed.



I have absolutely no clue what this has to do with the national debt.



Chairman Mao was a Communist. And Communism is associated with total government. Now if there are some people who at least accept Chairman Mao on the White House Christmas tree, there's a reason to worry right there. Now this relates to the national debt because of the strategy that the unseen forces in the government is using to "fundamentally transform" America. They want to turn it from a democracy/republic into something completely different. A major step they will take is to try and "collapse the system." That basically means they will try to bankrupt the US to the point where the dollar becomes worthless. That's when they will begin to build the new form of government. The Constitution will probably be in the fireplace by that point. It's already happening now on a local and federal level. Ever heard of the 4-year-old girl that was charged $400 (or $500, can't remember) for a license for opening her lemonade stand? They said it was for health and safety, but how many people get sick from lemonade? Another case was with a teenager that was driving a tractor while farming and got in trouble for driving a tractor on a farm without a license. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. 



I think I've said more than enough to explain how this relates to the national debt. It's a milestone that our domestic enemies will use to bankrupt the dollar and start building their own government.



This needs elaboration. A lot of it. What project? What silly causes? What road to nowhere are you talking about?



The project is the Stimulus bill. The silly causes include 9000+ earmarks, or things to spend money on that don't actually benefit the country or create the jobs it was supposed to. The road to nowhere was one of those causes. Literally, money was spent to pave a road to nowhere, a dead end. Another example is funding mosquito trapping in a town in Florida, but that was requested by somebody in Connecticut. What, may I ask can Florida do with trapped mosquitoes? It really isn't necessary to trap mosquitoes in just one town in the whole of Florida, since naturally, more would just migrate there and replenish the lost numbers. I can't list all 9000 earmarks, but I can tell you that most of them are done for political favors, including at least 1 from Obama when he promised that there would be no earmarks *next* year. So he crams 9000 in one bill the year before.



It's a majorly known fact among most historians that the successes or failures of a presidency is generally caused by the aftermath of the old administration's policies. Though I do agree that Bush is getting unecessay blame, because if we follow that notion mosty of bush's problems in his first term were caused by clinton.



History may repeat itself, but it always changes. In the Middle Ages countries were at war with each other for conquest. After America was formed, it all began to change. Not many countries are ruled by a royal family anymore, and as a result, the world began to prosper. While Obama had some problems that stemmed from Bush, some of Bush's problems stemmed from Clinton, and so on. In that case, the next president is responsible for *solving* the problems, not continuing to blame a previous president who isn't even in power anymore. Blaming never solved a debt crisis, and 3 years later, when the world is facing *really* serious problems, Bush is still a scapegoat, because the current administration doesn't want to take responsibility for their own mistakes.



And the queen of england deserves about as much etiquette as a high school football team mascot, since that's basically all her position is nowadays.



Position doesn't matter. She is royal blood and an important part of our history, heritage, and culture. And being British, I strongly suggest you make no such comments about her again. She certainly has more social etiquette than you and I, especially you. She has a big role to play in the UK and a responsibility as well. Her son is in the military for god's sake.



No comment, since I gave up watching network news a long time ago. But if you have any video clips to share, I'd be "glad" to watch them.




  

    
    took me a while to find one that didn't have namecalling in the title and description.    
    
  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  







  

    
    Proof that if you say anything bad about Barack Obama on MSNBC, you're fired    
    
  

  

  

  

    
  

  

  






Because they're actually responsible for some of the policies that put America in this mess. And I really find it hilarious that you bring up this point right after personally attacking Obama.



First off, you don't even know a lot of what I'm talking about to begin with, You asked me to clarify and explain a number of things that are common knowledge by now. You probably were too young to care about politics, unless I'm mistaken. I've been watching the world long enough to have a basic idea of what's going on, and if you think I'm personally attacking Obama, then maybe you should do some research into the actions he made as a president, his speeches, and even his body language during certain events. Obama is the president, so naturally, I'm going to focus on him quite a bit. He's a major role in all this. Oh and for the record, I respect your opinions, so I'd appreciate it if you respect mine, okay? I'm not personally attacking Obama.




  

    
    Read at your own risk. this is my personal opinion.    
    
  

  

  
If you want me to personally attack Obama, then I'll personally attack Obama. I'm trying to be fair in case you didn't know since this is a *debate* about the US and the world, not about who can outsmart who on Victory Road.




A state losing money like that is rarely a good thing in the long run. After a few decades of that, Alaska's coffers would be bone dry.



So now you're saying that a small bonus to your paycheck instead of a massive deduction is a bad thing? In case you didn't know, Alaska wouldn't have given the extra money back to its citizens if it didn't have a surplus or at least more tax money than needed to effectively manage the state. That state has oil and is using it. By the way, Texas is reportedly the only state to have a positive job growth rate. That's because of the domestic oil resources they have and use. People are moving from other states to Texas because it's easier to live there and is governed effectively.



Agreed. The kids have nothing to do with this, as far as I can tell. They're just desparate for ratings I guess.



It's not just ratings that they're after. The unions and other pressure groups are targeting them as well. It's pretty obvious that the reason they do it is because Sarah Palin is a threat to their agenda, as well as Glenn Beck and others. And if you strongly dislike either or both without actually getting to know them, I'd say the media has done a good job at indoctrinating you as well. They want you to hate those two so they can distract you from what is about to take place as we speak. A good example would be the NFL player that became unpopular with some of his fans after saying one of Glenn Beck's books was "epic." That guy was a liberal as well. A lot of those people who de-friended him on facebook don't even know what's in the book. That's good for the people who are trying to discredit those who pose a threat to their plans for the US government on every level.



Never, I repeat, NEVER bring up an argument as arbitrary and insulting as good vs evil.



Sorry, but I think this is a reasonable thing to say. When I say good vs evil I mean good vs evil. I'd say the military vs terrorism is a fine example of good vs evil. We have congressmen who openly admit to being communists and socialists, another example of good vs evil, when it actually starts affecting us, and I mean *now*. That's why we have the right to bear arms in case the government becomes tyrannical. Go ahead, laugh at me. You'll start seeing signs of it eventually. I already sense it coming with the 4-year-old's lemonade stand that attracted several police officers.



"Why did nobody read the bill before passing it"

>Implying nobody re- I'm not even going to bother picking out the flaws in this paragraph. Moving on.



If you don't have an answer to that paragraph, don't bother writing a response. If you see any flaws in my paragraph, point them out.



So he's not allowed to have a birthday party just because of something that he really has no control of.



I wasn't allowed to have a birthday party in the past 3 years because of something that I have no control of. At least he actually gets to *have* a party. But this is one of the worst times in history to have a birthday party, especially for a president.



 

  

    
    More opinion. You have been warned.    
    
  

  

  
I'm beginning to think you're just as clueless as he is. If your parents could no longer afford their bills, would you even think about having a birthday party? I have to worry about my parents dying all of a sudden.




Fun fact: The president's job is really only to sign bills and direct the army. Making laws to fix problems is Congress' job.



Fun fact: The president's job is to do the above, carry out his duties on the system of checks and balances, appoint new Supreme Court justices, choose a vice president, be vigilant about personal security risks because quite a number of presidents in the past were assassinated, plan out solutions for a potential or an existing crisis, prepare to make an executive order if necessary, protect himself in a dangerous situation, like Bush with the shoes thrown at him,




  

    
    Opinion.    
    
  

  

  
He dodged the first one and deflected the second one like "That's right, you got owned, terror man. I blocked it




and a whole lot of other things that I haven't brushed up on yet. See, I actually studied US Government in High School and still do from time to time if I need to find out about something.



It would have been a good idea to say this BEFORE you made yourself look like an ignorant fool <.<



It would have been a good idea to pay attention and think about what I said before making such a claim.



EDIT: And to be honest, they went easy on us. If I were in charge of this, I would have dropped our credit rating as soon as we hit 100 billion.
			
		
	
	
And what good do you think that would do? Nobody would like it as it hurts them a lot, financially. What would you try to do to fix that, anyway?

Is it just me or do half the people on the internet get offended at anything that could be remotely or marginally offensive, even if I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings?