|
|
Most people ask questions in search of answers, I wouldn't have asked if he had already said that.Originally Posted by Troker
I'm attempting to ****ess how these purchases were acquired without borrowing. Seems odd, and I would want in on that action. I'm aware of most tricks, would like to know this one.
Here's a post I copied from another poster.. I can't take credit for this but I wish i could because he has done his research.. I think maybe he posts here as well and is an excellent poster If he wants to come forward and take credit for his great research he can but I'm sure he won't mind me reposting this here.
In 1983, 241 U.S. Marines were killed by a truck bomb in Lebanon. Reagan immediately withdrew U.S. forces. The 9/11 Commission report (p. 97) notes that this was routinely cited by jihadists as a sign of U.S. weakness. In 1993, Al Qaeda sent a delegation to the Bekaa Valley for additional explosives training. As member of that delegation, Osama bin Laden showed particular interest in the truck bomb used against the Marine barracks. The perceived weakness of Reagan's withdrawal aided in the rise of Osama bin Laden.
Contrastingly, when U.S. troops were repeatedly attacked in Afghanistan, Obama increased troop levels, and stayed the course. Eventually Osama bin Laden met his end on Obama's watch.
When Iran took U.S. hostages, Reagan traded them for arms. He negotiated with terrorists. When Somali pirates took a single U.S. citizen hostage, Obama authorized head shots all around to free him.
Obama was vilified for saying that he would meet with enemies without pre-conditions. Reagan met with Gorbachev without pre-conditions.
Reagan in a 1984 Presidential declaring his firm belief in amnesty for illegal aliens:
Obama says that the 11 million that broke the laws should be held accountable.
Obama has never raised taxes.
Reagan raised taxes 12 times, including the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, generally considered the largest tax increase - as a percentage of the economy - in modern American history, and at the time the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. He also signed the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, a higher gasoline levy, and a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history.
Obama has not TRIPLED the the Gross Federal Debt. Reagan did: $900B to $2.7T in eight years.
Reagan championed the Brady Bill - that unholy of unholies of gun-control, even wrote a 1991 op-ed in favor of it in the NY Times. Obama received a failing grade from Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence on all 7 of of the issues it deems important.
And this little mash-up shows what The Gipper thought about millionaires not paying enough taxes:
Reagan was the first President to host an openly **** couple overnight in the White House.
Reagan signed legislation saving Social Security and MediCare.
Reagan negotiated arms deals with the Soviet Union, one of which did away with an entire cl**** of ballistic missiles.
If Obama tried any of those things, he'd be pilloried by Hannity and his ilk. The fact is, conservatives of today make Reagan look like a New Dealer. That's ironic, because Reagan was a big fan of FDR. He couldn't get 10% in Iowa or New Hampshire today.
people are telling you what to think..
__________________
Many but Iraq is enough for me..
The purchases were acquired by saving up cash.
I had very little credit history before I bought the first car three years ago, I paid cash. I could have bought the second car with cash as well, but my credit5 score was horrible, having very little credit history aside from a couple of utility bills and a credit card used primarily for Pizza Shuttle in the 90s. Revovlving credit was probably the wrong term (Will start the Sowell nest week, Shooter)..what I meant was establishing a solid monthly payment on a sizeable finance note.
As for the purchases acquired without borrowing, they were able to happen for two reasons...One I paid cash for the first car. On the second two I purchased enough of the equity that the lender would have been stupid not to exchange the funds for Liens on the acquired merchandise.
This has little, if anything, in common with unsecured credit card debt...there is no collateral for a cc)
Hope this clarifies...
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama just packed it in and resigned.
This just isn't true. Romney does not reach the people. Most Americans vote based on feelings or party lines. I talk to people from all walks of life and the ones who don't like Obama don't like mitt either. Most feel he is out of touch. If he wins it would be a shock. He's like the John Kerry of the republicans. Just not all that likable.
Love the videos thrown in. There were a couple things I didn't know in this.
The following users like this post: boomermagic
I guess technically Obama has not raised taxes.
http://stablewomangazette.com/blogs/...g-fee-increase
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...request-today/
http://midwestdemocracy.com/articles...-deficit-plan/
Muammar Gaddafi would like to weigh in on this comment.
The following users like this post: okie52
Well that's different.
It is.
In one, we coerced the rest of he world to sympathize with information later found to be dubious.
In the other, the rest of he world begged us to ****ist.
The following users like this post: boomermagic
Well you are right...Iraq had congressional approval and Libya didn't. Go figure.
They were both tyrants but that shouldn't be a reason for us to engage in a war. Our interests were probably much greater in Iraq than Libya but, even if there had been WMDs that doesn't necessarily demand our intervention or excuse it.
Obama railed about our involvement in Iraq but had no problem jumping into Libya without congressional approval. No hypocrisy there but Im sure you will applaud him for it.
The following users like this post: tcrb
No comparison to Iraq and Libya.. How many years have we been in Iraq ?
Longevity was the issue? As long as it can be done in a few months it's okay? When did Obama get congressional approval for Libya?
Obama’s EPA and other GOV. regulations will make it a lot more difficult on the major pipeline companies. Because of Obama it will be much less likely for you to see the same type of stock growth in a company like EP.
But EP and its subsidiaries are generally very good responsible companies both to their employees and to the environment. Good luck with Kinder Morgan
Last edited by OU48A; 11-14-2012 at 12:40 PM.
Bottom line here is that US foreign policy did not change from Bush to Obama. We are changing regimes in all these middle eastern countries. The US is backing rebels in Iran and Syria but so far we have been unable to overthrow those regimes because the Soviets will not tolerate our military intervention in those two countries. That and Iran is a much stronger military than was Iraq.
I don't see the foreign policy changing with Romney
Dam, the soviets are back?
I don't mind us backing regimes, I just mind our intervention unless we are attacked (or the imminent threat of attack).
If you don’t think the foreign policy hasn’t changed under Obama for the worse then you haven’t been paying close enough attention.
I certainly didn't agree with all his policies, but the problem with most liberals of today is that they want to use Reagan out of context and frame the argument in today's terms. It really is a false comparison. Take taxes. Obama uses the Reagan tax rates against repubs of today. However, you really have to look at where he was coming from. It would have been near impossible to get a Bush rate in the 80's coming from the carter era(error) with the dems in control of the house. Obama conviently leaves that part out and knows that most won't even understand it.
If you really want to know why Reagan was so good, you have to look at the psychology of his presidency and compare it to others.
Nixon=liar
Ford=tainted by Nixon
Carter=failure, uninspiring, basically gave up on America
Reagan= despite what you thought of him or his policies, he made America feel good and feel good about ourselves. He turned our country around. The healed the psyche of our nation. It is for that reason that he is the greatest president of my lifetime.
Bush1= failed to inspire, capitalize or continue the Reagan era.
Clinton= great politician. He had potential to do Reagan like things to our psyche, but ultimately failed
Bush 2= wanted to be a uniter. He did unite Americans, but for all the wrong reasons. He couldn't inspire and his policies pissed off liberals and conservatives. He wanted to be a visionary. Only the future will be the true judge.
Obama= most divisive president in decades. He has crippled our psyche and our outlook. There is nothing optimistic about him. He came on in 2008 and presented himself like a rock star. Many bought into it. But he can't open his mouth without taking a shot at some demographic. I had hope that he would look to Clinton as an example of how to turn things around, but instead he doubled down on rhetoric and hatred.
So, yes, look at that list. Reagan was the best president in my lifetime and there really isn't a close second.
If our intelligence agencies weren't involved in these countries they wouldn't be doing their jobs. I think they are out of control though. Just because of what you point out - that we invaded Iraq just to change regimes and Afghanistan to advance our interests in that region.
I thought you said Obama appeased all of our enemies worldwide?
How long were we in Vietnam, a war started by Democrats?
Does it matter about the length of time or who started it? Libya is Unconstitutional. You can piss, ****, and moan all you want but it still doesn't change the fact it's Unconstitutional.
Hope that Kinder works out long term. Frankly, my wife fills a position of need and others above jumping ship has put us in a very good position for the time being. She had two very respectable offers to take her talents elsewhere, but Kinder stepped up to the plate and made an offer we couldn't refuse. The old lady will have plenty of options if things go sour for Kinder (as some are predicting).
You run down other presidents for being liars .. Do you honestly think Reagan didn't lie ? LOL.. Saying I don't remember when you do is a damn lie.. Clinton was TWICE the president reagan was..Do you think republicans don't use Bill out of context ? You say Clinton Failed ? You gotta be kidding..lol Also, If you can't judge bush 2 as being a total failure you fail..
Economic Growth Slows to 2.2%, Updated Comparison between Obama & Reagan Recoveries
Economic Growth Slows to 2.2% in First Quarter of 2012
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported today that the U.S. economy grew at a compounded annual rate of 2.2% in the 1st quarter of 2012, down from 3% in Q4 2011.
Last month, The Washington Dispatch began tracking the progress of the current recovery against the 1980s recovery.
Since the second quarter of 2009 (the last quarter of GDP contraction), real GDP growth has averaged 2.4% over the last eleven quarters. By comparison, in the eleven quarters following the third quarter of 1982 (the last quarter of GDP contraction resulting from the early 1980s recession), real GDP growth averaged 5.5%, or more than double the current average:
yeah I screwed up there didn't I.
According to this chart, EP was trading for under $10 when Obama took office and now it's around $30:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=EP&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
That’s right and the stocks recovery happened in spite of Obama and before Obama had a chance to seriously hinder the industry. It was also driven up because of the talk of, then the eventual buyout that Obama had nothing to do with.
Last edited by OU48A; 04-28-2012 at 09:55 PM.
They all lie to some extent. Much easier to just say liar for Nixon than to go into the details. I am hoping you are smart enough to know the history of Nixon.
Your reading comprehension must be off. I said Clinton tried to improve our psyche and failed. He failed miserably on that count. He was a great speaker and a great politician, but making a joke of the oval office was a complete failure to the American psyche. And if your memory isn't a complete failure, Clinton's first 2 years were an abomination. He brought about the republican revolution that gave the house to the repubs. So, even a dem,if they were smart, would consider that a failure.
As far as bush 2 goes, history may look back on him differently. Only time will tell. The inability to look at things in context and look at long term consequences is a deficiency in liberal thinking. In addition, Clinton tried twice to ruin my dream and my profession, once at the beginning and once at the end. Bush, if nothing else, reversed the Clinton act within 3-6 months of taking office and helped me out. For as much as I disagreed with bush and his policies, I owe him a thanks for that. So, in my mind, he was not a total failure.
As for history looking back on Bush differently, I think it's unfair to call any certain Presidency a success or failure for at least 20 years after they leave office.
The criticisms of Bush by the Dems were justified although they obviously didn't mean a word of it. They basically copied his agenda.
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
I think the people who are talking about Romney not only winning but winning going away are completely delusional. I am a very hard core conservative and detest Obama but anyone with half a brain and any political intelligence has to be able to look at the electoral college map and realize Romney is at best putting from the rough right now.
The national media can call Pennsylvania a swing state all it likes but having personally worked on statewide campaigns in that state in my younger days I'm going to let y'all in on a little secret that really shouldn't be much of a secret. It's very VERY hard for Republicans to win statewide elections; you have to virtually crush your liberal opponent in the middle of the state to even have a prayer because Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are heavy left leaning large cities. I'd be shocked if Romney could illicit the sort of fervent support required to win there. I know I don't and won't support Romney and am as about hard core fiscally conservative as a person can be. I will likely be writing in a candidate or voting for a third party candidate in the general because I have absolutely no faith in either of the candidates.
If Obama takes Pennsylvania then Romney almost has to sweep every other swing state to win the election. Forgive me if I am dubious of someone who isn't able to attract a great deal of enthusiastic support even among his own base being able to do so.
The following users like this post: Jenn and tonic
Could you post a link confirming that EP'S stock price increase during the Obama years happened "in spite of Obama" and "before Obama had a chance to seriously hinder the industry"? Also, if Obama has seriously hindered the industry, then why did Rich Kinder find it wise to pay a 40% premium for EP? Do you think he's a fool?
In addition, let's look at this in a slightly different way: On Bush's first day in office in 2001, El Paso traded at about $65/share. On his last day in office, it traded at about $8/share. (Link below.) Let's hear your spin on those facts.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=E...rce=undefined;
No candidate will ever be prefect but and as imperfect as Romney maybe he is worlds apart from Obama on issues vital to our prosperity with energy being the major one.
The election will be won in the swing states but the economy is still very poor in many of the swing states and it’s not going to improve significantly by November.
Pennsylvania is a swing state, so is Ohio. Coal is important to both states. Obama war on coal will not play well in either state.
There is a new factor in both states that hasn’t really ever been a factor before. It's one of the few bright spots in their states economies. It is the new oil & natural gas production and its supporting industry. They have added tens of thousands of new high wage jobs in recent years. Some of the areas steel makers are now manufacturing pipe and other components for the industry. There are many spin off jobs. Even if they are unionized given Obamas war on energy they would be fools to vote for Obama.
Since his election Obama has seen a significant decline in support from nearly every demographic block of voters. Obama won the independent vote by decent numbers but Romney now has a strong lead with Independents. A recent poll showed that about 83% of voters still believe we are in a recession. That’s a giant hurtle for Obama to overcome that won’t be changing very much by November.
Fraud and war are about the only things that could reelect our worst and most divisive president in modern times.
Well, he's not above using either of those tactics.
NG market conditions caused most of the volatility. High prices as they were have a tendency to cure high prices. Obama had nothing to do with this. Obama’s drilling restriction did not stop the glut of natural gas from expanding….this along with better pipeline utilization occurred in spite of Obama.
Obamas pending EPA regulations on methane will cost the industry millions if not billions. At the time of the buy out the EPA’s war on energy was not fully clear to everyone. Many believed that Obamas war on coal would increase NG usage and it has but not as much as some hoped. Many of Obamas environmentalist now oppose natural gas.
EP is one of the crown jewels of the NG transportation sector. In the long run it should pay off very well for KM.
EP is a great company, and worked very hard to increase stock prices...problem is, they were still trading well below value and had hit a ceiling because they are one of the most employee friendly companies in the sector. It has never been confirmed, but there was a possibility of hostile takeover due to low stock prices. The stock immediately increased because of purchase options given in the sale agreement.
This is why I had mention in a previous post that it was also driven up because of the talk of, then the eventual buy out. The talk of a takeover hostile or not usually sends any stock price up. This has been my experience as a Co 401K shareholder and as an investor in stocks. While working in the energy business I went through 3 takeovers and many rumors of takeovers. As a result a few the older employees that I knew retired as millionaires in the 80’s
He can't ! LOL
The republicans use reagan out of context.. They ignore the bad and there was plenty.. Saying Reagan is KNOWN as one of the greatest presidents is BS. Reagan is said by republicans to be one of the best but frankly he sucked..
Bump for beelzeBob.
Hahahahahahahahah
2 users like OnlyOneOklahoma's post: Aurora, URNotserious
FIFY
The following users like this post: runningwithscissors
I hate to say I told you so but . . .
Stevie Wonder saw this was a bad prediction.
Even more funny was watching the fox republican channel turning on Romney minutes after the results were decided. when 5 minutes before that they were all sucking his ****.
Bump
Oh go **** yourself ... How many times do I need to post that I am eating crow.... Do you feel better about yourself now? lol
Posting Permissions
