1.)I tend to be condescending to idiots 2.) If you voted for obama when it was soooooooo easy to see through his facade, you are definitely on the lower end of the totem pole when it comes to brain power.

And if you voted for anyone else?
You show the same level of brain power.

It's a Catch 22!

You prove to me that ANYONE voted into a Government Office has kept the promises that got them there.

If you believe anyone of them actually care about you or I?
You need a brain scan.

Oh I agree the OP was indeed biased as all get out. I don't approve of that one either. Lets debate in the arena of facts and ideas, where every person can decide for themselves.

I was refering to the question/accusation raised in post #23

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...4&postcount=23

Also - for those mocking the intelligence of someone based on who they voted for, cmon - mockery does nothing but show your own argument is flawed, or you simply lack the ability to defend it.

Interesting. You paint with such a broad brush and still manage to miss a great deal of canvas. You should read more of Haplo's posts if you want to see how to argue from the conservative viewpoint. There is a great deal to be learned from his text.

Hmm, facts... You mean those inconvenient things? Ok, I'll bite that trollbait, as well chum the waters with my own! :>

Hypothesis: The current administration shows little respect for the Constitution and rule of law, choosing to enforce or enact laws as it sees fit.

Evidence:

• Cap and Trade fails to pass in Congress. President uses backdoor executive order to make the EPA regulate carbon emissions and the coal industry directly.
  Impact: Immediate effects on coal miners, powerplant workers, and support infrastructure for both. Layoffs ensue as plants are unable to suddenly enact new requirements and it is deemed cheaper to decommission them. Electrical grid is unduly stressed. Obama is forced to backpedal on new limitations after public outcry.
  
• DREAM act fails to pass in Congress. President uses backdoor executive order to Homeland Security to not prosecute and deport captured illegal aliens. President then later brags before Latino special interest group saying "we choose how to enforce the law."
  Impact: President gains bounce of support from Latino special interest group.
  
• Federal court rules Obama administration does not have the authority to enact wholesale ban on offshore drilling. President ignores court ruling and maintains ban in place, uses propaganda tactics to demonize judge presiding in case as a shill for the oil industry.
  Impact: Ban on offshore drilling in Gulf of Mexico causes economic harm to local industries in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. President's refusal to honor court ruling chips away at balance of power between Executive and Judicial branches.
  
• President refuses to defend Defense of Marriage Act (a law I don't necessarily agree with, but nevertheless is the law of the land), despite it being his Administration's job as defined under the Constitution of the United States of America.
  Impact: President commits dereliction of duty under the Constitution and undermines the law-making authority of Congress.
  
• President launches military action against sovereign nation-state of Libya. Action persists for more than 90 days. President ignores obligations under the law to report to Congress and seek approval. President sidesteps the issue by unilaterally redefining what "military action" means.
  Impact: President severely weakens Congress's check on Executive power and Congress's sovereign ability to declare war. Admittedly, this power has been ever-weakening since the Vietnam war, but this is the first precedent in which the President outright ignores the War Powers Act or limits on Presidential war-making powers in the Constitution (even Bush sought and received Congressional approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan within the 90 day timeframe). Snippy side remarks: Didn't the President promise us this would be a campaign lasting days, not weeks, 6 months ago? Do we know who's in charge yet in Libya? Oh, and how 'bout that "lead from behind" stuff he was talking about? (Hint: Sarkozy and Cameron were in Libya receiving a heroes' welcome, no mention of Big O though...) :>

I'll save the next hypothesis for later, as I assume this thread will continue getting more popcorn-worthy.

Illegal immigration is where me and Obama completely split.

Its really beyond explanation how these idiots are allowing these "latinos" to come in unmolested and get MORE benefits than an american citizen. The dream act, which is going to pass in california, gives illegals a college education for FREE, spending OUR money to put THEIR kids through college while we get the finger.

im so infuriated at the stupidity, corruption, and Bull that has become our entire system of government and the PEOPLE IN IT. Is there No person in this country who can actually do something RIGHT. Democrat, republican, independent, i DONT care. I simply cant see this country burn by the hands of the IDIOTS that other idiots elect to burn this country.

Disgusting...:nope:

Ah forgot to mention that if you take home US$35.000 annually you're considered lucky here. Very lucky in fact. Most probably more than a manager. Director perhaps. But perhaps the living costs there are way higher.

I remember a friend at work from the Phillipines talking about why he doesn't give money to homeless people in America. It went something like this:

"I'm from the Phillipines where everyone is poor and that's just how it is. Some people don't even have houses. In a place like America there's no reason to live like that since you have so many opportunities."

Hmm that's a bit harsh there are unlucky people in every society for many different reasons.

But I agree being poor in America is not as bad as being poor in developing country. It's till bad though.

To be fair, a large portion of the homeless population in America is either mentally ill or homeless because they appreciate the freedom it provides.

Also, $35k can allow one to get by in America very easily, depending on where you live. Location can make it so a person making $35k is actually better off than someone making twice that when you take into account the vast differences in cost of living in the USA. Unfortunately, our tax code doesn't take this into account at all, nor does our President, who thinks anyone making more than $200k a year is a part of the "evil millionaires and billionaires" club (perhaps the most ironic thing ever for a President who hangs out at Martha's Vineyard and gives government sponsored loans to his rich contributors).

Yeah thought so too.

I see.

Ours robbed a bank......we think, more than 14 billions USD of the funds. Just to put things into perspective.

Ours robbed the Treasury of $1 trillion USD and is now seeking to steal $500 billion more so he can get reelected... ;>

:o

Not really it was called stimulus. Ours REALLY robbed a bank not with guns but with political power. Well it was said(rumored) for funding his party in the last election.

I assure you - its not trollbait - at least regarding me. For some surely it is, but that is their issue. I fully agree with the hypothesis, and the evidence you cited (along with much more) demonstrates it.

See, pointing to evidence and making an arguement based on reality (instead of insults and generalities) is what a discussion is about. Others will chime in with their viewpoints, agree or disagree, and the points can be disputed as to how they should be interpreted (since facts remain facts - it is the interpretation of them that defines a perspective).

Unless of course one's interpretations of facts are presented as the facts themselves, which is the case with that list.

Well, since I absolutely hated the three years I spent without a home I guess the former applies.

No, really. :sunny:

At which point you are more than welcome to provide a counter interpretation or cite evidence for your statement rather than an ad hominem attack.

You'll note that "...a large portion..." does not equate to "...all homeless people..."

A minor oversight on your part, I'm sure. ;)

It was self evident.
Also it certainly wasn't an ad hominen.

So define what you meant.
Or can it be simply written off as a totally meaningless statement you made where you tried to present a very strange interpretation as a fact.

It's self evident how? I presented falsifiable facts that have not been falsified and an interpretation of those facts. You can either falsify the fact or present a counter viewpoint. That's called debate. Or did you mean "it's self evident because I disagree, therefore you're wrong."