Wow ya learn something new every day

This is the forum frequently asked questions section and will always be a work in progress.

Why create such a forum?

Several reason's have lead me to create this forum but the biggest is the over moderation and censorship on previous forums that I have visited has inspired to to create a forum solely about today's politics. Today's politics are more controversial than they ever have been and …

The Rules here are very simple

-No Attacking a person's race and/or religion
-No Personal Threats (this includes the politicians)
-Stay on Topic
-No links to porn sites and nudity
-Swearing is allowed but it has to be appropriate and NO F-bombs and other grossly vulgar words

-Don't be a douchebag

Most offensives will get a warning, however you may not even get a warning and you may be banned, …

Subject: Wow ya learn something new every day Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:00 pm

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=19877299&nid=1016&title=msnbcs-odonnell-criticizes-romneys-invented-religion&s_cid=featured-2

Who would have ever guessed a maid would be the reason for the religion.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:06 pm

Lawrence O'Donnell is not the brightest crayon in the crayon box is he

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:02 pm

Yep he's right up there with the "birther's" The "Obama is a Muslim" Crew
and my personal favorite the " Obama is a Socialist" clan.

I won't even go in to Limbaugh or Hannity.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:50 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: Yep he's right up there with the "birther's" The "Obama is a Muslim" Crew
and my personal favorite the " Obama is a Socialist" clan.

I won't even go in to Limbaugh or Hannity.

Give me one bit of proof that Obama is not a socialist. In particular, explain Obamacare as being not socialism. Explain "economic redistribution" as not socialist. Then, explain how abortion is not taking life.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:39 am

voiceofreason wrote:: Who would have ever guessed a maid would be the reason for the religion.

It was broadcast on MSNBC so it MUST be the truth - right?

lol!

Damn Pinhead - you're actually funny sometimes.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:49 am

Bassy I rest my case with your example.

Boob even a busted clock is right twice a day

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sat Apr 07, 2012 11:18 am

voiceofreason wrote:: Boob even a busted clock is right twice a day

But MSNBC ain't no damn clock. If they get two right a year, it's been a banner year for them. And again Pinhead, thanks for the laugh. It really brightened my day.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:09 am

voiceofreason wrote:: Bassy I rest my case with your example.

Boob even a busted clock is right twice a day

You better rest that case 'cause it's got no basis in facts. You're obviously completely ignorant of the definition of socialism.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:54 pm

BASSY you thick, obtuse sumbitch!!!

Hows this definition??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:12 pm

Just for clarification for the rest of the folks, the first paragraph had this to say:

Quote :: There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organized within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.

In other words, you two are fighting a battle that cannot be won. But if you insist on having this battle about the definition of socialism, then by all means, battle on.

Also Pinhead, you should have noticed at the very beginning of the article (which doesn’t really mean definition) there were these two caveats:

Quote :: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2012)

Quote :: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2012)

I think you would have been better served by providing an undisputed and verifiable source. But then, I’ve come to expect less than complete research on your part so this is no great surprise.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:11 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: BASSY you thick, obtuse sumbitch!!!

Hows this definition??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

From your own article:

"Proponents of state socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. Social democrats advocate redistributive taxation in the form of social welfare and government regulation of capital within the framework of a market economy."

So, the nationalization of GM isn't socialism? Take from the shareholders and give to the unions?

The cognitive dissonance you showcase simply makes me laugh! Laughing

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Mon Apr 09, 2012 6:03 pm

"So, the nationalization of GM isn't socialism? Take from the shareholders and give to the unions?"

So with your understanding of history are you going to tell me that
Obama was responsible for the GM Bailout???

Are you shitting me??

As for the rest of your O'Donnell logic, let me know when wealth starts getting redistributed in any other direction than up.

Like I said BASSY keep being a good Birther.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:39 pm

BASSY did O J do it???

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:32 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: So with your understanding of history are you going to tell me that Obama was responsible for the GM Bailout???

WTF are you smoking Pinhead? Here's a little history lesson for you from nationalaffairs.com; please pay close attention those parts underlined and in italics.

National Affairs wrote:: On December 11, 2008, the House of Representatives buckled under the automakers' demands, voting (largely along party lines) in favor of a $14 billion bailout. The next day, however, the Senate voted down the legislation. A week later, lame-duck President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson intervened. Announcing that the administration would offer the automakers loans with terms similar to the ones Congress had voted down, Bush gave GM and Chrysler three months to develop restructuring plans and prove they could become viable companies. To help the automakers through that phase (and a possible Chapter 11 bankruptcy), the administration extended them $17.4 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which had originally been set up to buy assets and equities from the financial sector in the wake of the mortgage crisis.

In March 2009, when the lifeline extended by the Bush administration had run out, President Obama stepped in. The administration forced out the CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, and gave Chrysler 30 days to finalize a merger with the Italian automaker Fiat. In exchange, the companies received another (and even larger) round of government loans. In the end, almost $77 billion in TARP funds was diverted to GM and Chrysler.

But in spite of the generous loans, extensions, and second chances, the Obama administration finally concluded that the companies' restructuring plans were insufficient. In the spring of 2009, it directed both automakers to proceed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy — Chrysler filed on April 30, and GM on June 1. In both cases, bankruptcy involved creating new companies — the so-called "new Chrysler" and "new GM" — in which the federal government would have a significant stake, and to which the bulk of the assets of the original companies (including all of their plants, equipment, brands, and trademarks) would be sold. The original companies, meanwhile, would settle their obligations to creditors and shed those assets that would not be transferred to the new companies. Their shareholders would be all but wiped out.

The automakers' house-cleaning didn't take long; within two months of filing, each company had emerged from its bankruptcy. By the summer of 2009, the new General Motors was a somewhat smaller and leaner company, having shed about a third of its American work force. It was owned jointly by the federal government (which held 60% of the stock), the United Auto Workers union (with 17%), and the Canadian government (with 12% ownership). Chrysler, meanwhile, emerged through an alliance with Fiat, under which the new company was owned by the United Auto Workers (with a 55% share), Fiat (with 20%), the United States government (with 8%), and Canada (with 2%). (Both GM and Chrysler have significant operations and large work forces in Canada; the Canadian government, facing pressures similar to those exerted on lawmakers in the U.S., also contributed bailout funds — about $800 million for Chrysler and $2.4 billion for GM — hence its ownership stakes.)

The idea was for the companies to go public within a few months, at which point the U.S. government would sell most of its shares. GM did in fact go public in November 2010, raising about $20 billion in the biggest initial public offering in American history. Through the stock sale, the government's share in the company was reduced to about 30%. The new Chrysler has not yet gone public — indeed, the company reported a $200 million loss in the last quarter of 2010 — but industry analysts believe it will later this year.

To the Obama administration, and to many other champions of the auto bailout in Congress and the press, the story outlined here is one of extraordinary success. "Supporting the American auto industry required tough decisions and shared sacrifices, but it helped save jobs, rescue an industry at the heart of America's manufacturing sector, and make it more competitive for the future," President Obama said when the new General Motors went public last November. Then-speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi echoed his view, arguing: In the midst of a severe recession, congressional Democrats and President Obama took difficult emergency action to rescue American auto companies and strengthen critical pillars of our manufacturing sector, while protecting taxpayers.

Now just exactly what is it about Obama being responsible don’t you understand. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of other sources that all point to the fact that Obama and his henchmen have been, are, and will continue to be responsible for this debacle. You need to pull your head out of whichever dark hole it now resides in and start living in the real world.

Nowhere have I stated that President Bush didn’t have some measure of involvement. But for you to claim that Obama didn’t is pure, 100% bullshit.

My apologies FB. I didn't mean to barge in front of you on this but Pinhead pissed me off with his assinine claim that Obama is blameless for the bailout.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:23 pm

BOOB tighten up your panties Nancy Boy!!!

I didn't absolve Obama in the least. I happen to appreciate his regulation and intervention in getting this company back in the black.

My bone to pick with you pencil dicks is the fact that you are quick to label Obama
a socialist for carrying on the agenda of W Bush. Was W a socialist??

Does W get a free pass because he came from the right side of the aisle??

Strap your tin foil on a little more snug and find me the real damn birth certificate!!!

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:57 am

voiceofreason wrote:: I didn't absolve Obama in the least.

Bullshit Pinhead you back peddling @#$%. And I quote:

voiceofreason wrote:: So with your understanding of history are you going to tell me that Obama was responsible for the GM Bailout??? Are you shitting me??

If you’re going to talk about socialism, then talk about socialism. Responsibility for an act and whether that act is socialistic are two separate discussions. Try completing one discussion before jumping into another. Or is following one train of thought just too much for you to handle?

With that, I leave this simpleton in your hands FB. I'm off to get my left shoulder rotator cuff repaired this AM and will probably be absent for a few days. Love and peace to all - yea, you too Pinhead.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:53 am

"My bone to pick with you pencil dicks is the fact that you are quick to label Obama
a socialist for carrying on the agenda of W Bush. Was W a socialist??"

??????????????????????????????

So was Bush a Socialist???

Are gun laws more liberal now than under Bush??

Are there more drill permits now than under Bush. (3500 new permits last week for Utah alone )

Are there any more abortion clinics now than under Bush??

Is OBL Deader than shit??

Where is the credit for this Socialist??

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:51 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: "So, the nationalization of GM isn't socialism? Take from the shareholders and give to the unions?"

So with your understanding of history are you going to tell me that
Obama was responsible for the GM Bailout???

Are you shitting me??

As for the rest of your O'Donnell logic, let me know when wealth starts getting redistributed in any other direction than up.

Like I said BASSY keep being a good Birther.

We have bankruptcy laws that protect investors and Obama completely sidestepped those laws. Instead of allowing GM to restructure and throw the yoke of union waste aside thus becoming solvent, BHO threw $billions at them, replaced the CEO with another socialist with NO experience, gave the unions part ownership and merely put off the inevitable, all the while raping the original stockholders.

Are you aware that the poorest 10% of Americans are still in the top 5% richest people on the planet?
You and your scummy brothers in the 99% movement are the new Bolsheviks and I'm all set for the clash, comrade.

And you're not a birther because you have the uncanny ability to ignore the obvious.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/oblivious_to_the_obvious.html

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:53 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: "My bone to pick with you pencil dicks is the fact that you are quick to label Obama
a socialist for carrying on the agenda of W Bush. Was W a socialist??"

??????????????????????????????

So was Bush a Socialist???

Are gun laws more liberal now than under Bush??

Are there more drill permits now than under Bush. (3500 new permits last week for Utah alone )

Are there any more abortion clinics now than under Bush??

Is OBL Deader than shit??

Where is the credit for this Socialist??

Yes, Bush was an enemy of the state, same as BHO!

You, Sir, are an idiot. jocolor

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:21 pm

BASSY, You and your pendejo ilk are absolutely proving the original
point of this post. Which is that some simple people, like yourself, will believe
whatever Hannity, Limbaugh or in this case O'Donnell spoon feed you.

You do admit that W Bush was the worst President in the history of this great nation. He trashed the Constitution, The Economy and lied his ass off when he lead
us in to Iraq to war. My point is where were you 5 years ago when all of this was going down?? Where was this website 5 years ago when good old W was creating
a fiasco that would take years to dig out from??

Now back to the original comparison of this post.

What is more likely? A Maid being the reason for a religion or Obama providing a fake birth certificate??

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:22 pm

voiceofreason wrote:: BASSY, You and your pendejo ilk are absolutely proving the original
point of this post. Which is that some simple people, like yourself, will believe
whatever Hannity, Limbaugh or in this case O'Donnell spoon feed you.

You do admit that W Bush was the worst President in the history of this great nation. He trashed the Constitution, The Economy and lied his ass off when he lead
us in to Iraq to war. My point is where were you 5 years ago when all of this was going down?? Where was this website 5 years ago when good old W was creating
a fiasco that would take years to dig out from??

Now back to the original comparison of this post.

What is more likely? A Maid being the reason for a religion or Obama providing a fake birth certificate??

I NEVER listen to any of those talking heads. I have also made it abundantly clear that I have never voted for a republican other than in municipal elections. W greased us but BHO is doing the screwing and I was plenty vocal about it at the time.

Obama is spending $millions to keep his records a secret. WHY?

Why won't he release his birth certificate to real experts in forensics? It's obviously because it is a forgery.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:47 pm

Pinhead wrote:: You do admit that W Bush was the worst President in the history of this great nation.

Notable Scholars Survey & Ranking of Presidents (WSJ - 2005)

5 Best (None ranked lower than 7 in last 15 years)
1 – Washington
16 - Lincoln
32 - FDR
3 - Jefferson
26 - T Roosevelt

5 Worst (None ranked higher than 31 in last 15 years)
15 - Buchanan
29 – Harding
14 – Pierce
17 - A Johnson
13 – Fillmore

Obama has not been ranked yet but I suspect that when he is his ranking will NOT be in the top half (22 or higher). Contrary to your opinion, Bush (W) has been ranked 23rd, 19th, & 37th which doesn’t hardly qualify him as the worst ever.

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:50 pm

"(WSJ - 2005)" Rolling Eyes

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Thu Apr 12, 2012 1:33 pm

Pinhead wrote:: "(WSJ - 2005)"

Is that your best shot Pinhead? The results of what notable scholars had to say were reported by the WSJ. I could just have easily given you results from the 1999 C-SPAN report (sans Bush 43) , the 2002 Sienna College report, or the 2008 The Times (Britain) report. The best and worst will not change by more than a couple of names and Bush 43 will not appear anywhere. And to be 100% truthful, the list of notable scholars varied from a couple of handfuls to more than 700 and was never the same group of people. They were sometimes balanced politically and sometimes not but the best and the worst lists remained stable. Damn you're easy!

Subject: Re: Wow ya learn something new every day Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:57 pm

C'Mon BOOB you are being intellectually dishonest.

How was the economy in 05 before the bubble burst??

How was the hunt for WMD's going in Iraq??

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst