Birthers are Crazy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question here Zeb Do you understand Capital Gains taxes ? Have you ever paid them ? I have a couple years where my Capital Gains were %50 of my income .[/quote]
Dude, I’m in the top tax bracket, we pay 35% on our income. Then after tax, we invest some of that money. We then pay 15% capital gains tax.
What’s not to understand?
Sure there are deductions, but that’s the basics.
IF all of your income is from investments ie; capital gains, then sure, you only pay 15%.
But that’s only for the Warren Buffett types, not regular working people.[/quote]

The number of people who are actually wealthy enough to live off of capital gains income probably number less than 5,000 people.

That is just a guess but I’d be surprised if it were many more than that. And so what if there were? They earned the money paid the top tax percentage on it they then invested it and pay additional 15% on it and they are now wealthy.

When did that become wrong in America?

[/quote]
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all. I hope for it to be me in the next 10 years. It’s a goal we have. Seriously.
The misinformation both sides put out is outrageous. Like when the Dems say “Republicans are gonna cut your SS” Well, they propose cutting the planned increases, that’s all. If you get $100 a month in SS, and it’s slated to go to $110, the proposal is cut 50%. Of the proposal. So you’d get $105, not $50.
People who take the news at face value are sheep.
Baahhh…(pointed at you Pitbull)
[/quote]

I do not understand your post , There is no disinformation that a dollar Mitt earns is worth 85 cents and mine is worth 67 cents what is disinformative about that . [/quote]
Right. His income now comes from investments. Your’s doesn’t. What’s the problem?
[/quote]

So Mitt makes more money than i with other money I make less money than Mitt with sweat . So My Dollar should be worth less . I got it (NOT)
[/quote]
You could move to Europe where the taxes are around 50%, then have VAT of %15-27 on top of that, get some awesome (not!) healthcare and share your “wealth” with everyone.
See how that’s turning out over there?

242

ZEB,

You sir are a full on tool, you are dumb as a box of fucking rocks, seriously every time I post you pop-up like some oddball little stalker adding your half-assed 2 cents, lets just finish up here shall we, you post under an assumed name, run your mouth about nothing and are apparently the least busy person I know, get a fucking grip ZEB, following me around like a lonely puppy will not help you I will never take you home. Now please go back to your imaginary life of being awesome.

And by the way I posted the Tax rate, and a hope that he would find something else, I did not assume to know more than his accountant I also stated that I was unaware of his exact situation, now feel free to blow yourself.

243

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

You sir are a full on tool, you are dumb as a box of fucking rocks,[/quote]

This is B r i a n using intelligent debate and not name calling. Notice that he puts forth his argument in a very logical manner and gives specifics for his deliberate attacks. Oops…guess not.

I was involved in this thread talking to a poster about the Romney capital gains topic. You pop in and try to act as Trib’s accountant, I call you on it and that bothered you didn’t. Gee B r i a n you are a sensitive one.

You started giving tax advice over the Internet regarding a situation that you knew nothing about. If that is not the definition of an ass clown I don’t know what is. Now you’re actually trying to defend giving that advice. (eye roll)

You’re still entertaining me B r i a n, but please do try to make more sense with your next dozen posts.

244

ZEB,

he wondered aloud about how high his bill was I pointed out the tax rate, read the fucking post shithead, I didn’t offer to do his taxes, I commiserated with him regarding his situation. How the fuck do you get anything done at your “business” when you are doing this shit all day. I could post black you’d pop up and type “white idiot”, grow the fuck up.

245

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question here Zeb Do you understand Capital Gains taxes ? Have you ever paid them ? I have a couple years where my Capital Gains were %50 of my income .[/quote]
Dude, I’m in the top tax bracket, we pay 35% on our income. Then after tax, we invest some of that money. We then pay 15% capital gains tax.
What’s not to understand?
Sure there are deductions, but that’s the basics.
IF all of your income is from investments ie; capital gains, then sure, you only pay 15%.
But that’s only for the Warren Buffett types, not regular working people.[/quote]

The number of people who are actually wealthy enough to live off of capital gains income probably number less than 5,000 people.

That is just a guess but I’d be surprised if it were many more than that. And so what if there were? They earned the money paid the top tax percentage on it they then invested it and pay additional 15% on it and they are now wealthy.

When did that become wrong in America?

[/quote]
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all. I hope for it to be me in the next 10 years. It’s a goal we have. Seriously.
The misinformation both sides put out is outrageous. Like when the Dems say “Republicans are gonna cut your SS” Well, they propose cutting the planned increases, that’s all. If you get $100 a month in SS, and it’s slated to go to $110, the proposal is cut 50%. Of the proposal. So you’d get $105, not $50.
People who take the news at face value are sheep.
Baahhh…(pointed at you Pitbull)
[/quote]

I do not understand your post , There is no disinformation that a dollar Mitt earns is worth 85 cents and mine is worth 67 cents what is disinformative about that . [/quote]
Right. His income now comes from investments. Your’s doesn’t. What’s the problem?
[/quote]

So Mitt makes more money than i with other money I make less money than Mitt with sweat . So My Dollar should be worth less . I got it (NOT)
[/quote]

If you can’t understand such a simple concept as investments are not the same as working at a job that says something about your mental capacity. What it shows is you have a very limited capacity to think on a conceptual level. You see the first most obvious fact and that is it.

Investment earnings are not the same as working at a job because of several reasons. I’ll start with the most obvious. Investment involves risk because there are no guarantees. Working at a job involves none to little risk because there are guarantees.

For example when you invest money you have no idea how much money you are going to get in return. You could do well or you could lose your entire investment. There is no guarantee and there is no recourse for getting your money back if you make a bad investment.

When you go to a job not only do you know how much you are going to get paid for every hour you are on the job, there is even a guaranteed return on your time that is mandated by law called the minimum wage. If your employer doesn’t pay you, you can take him to court.

There is no Federal minimum return on investments that must be paid out to an investor, you are on your own to win or lose and if you lose you can lose big. If you work for a company and it goes out of business, at most you are going to lose the money earned since your last paycheck and maybe a pension. With investing you could lose a lifetime of savings in a bad day and have to start all over again.

Since they are two very different ways of making money, where the risks are very different it makes perfect sense then, that the rewards should be taxed differently.

Next there is the benefit to the economy of investing. Investing results in economic activity that generates taxes. A good example of this concept was the story of Mitt Romney and his secretary. Maybe he does pay less taxes as a percentage of his income. But if it wasn’t for his business acumen, and prudent management of his finances creating a successful business, people like the secretary and the rest of the company would not have a job to go to and draw a paycheck that they pay taxes on.

So by creating a successful business and employing people he has added greatly to the tax base. In light of that fact, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone like him to enjoy a favorable tax structure, because he will use the money to employ more people and further increase the tax base. We might lose a little on his taxes initially but in the long run his reinvesting the money more than makes up for it.

246

I think there are more similarities between a job and a stock investment than your making it out to be. There are very safe investments and there are jobs that are very risky investments.

An unsure job example: starting a restaurant

A very sure investment: Placing 10-15% of your income in Loreal or across the Dow Jones and taking it out when you retire.

For both stock and regular jobs there’s lots of area inbetween risky and safe.

247

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

he wondered aloud about how high his bill was I pointed out the tax rate, read the fucking post shithead, I didn’t offer to do his taxes, I commiserated with him regarding his situation. How the fuck do you get anything done at your “business” when you are doing this shit all day. grow the fuck up.[/quote]

My goodness B r i a n all this name calling and over the Internet too. But it was you who spoke out against such things several posts ago. Oh well I guess it’s part of your hypocritical nature.

What you did was try to probe him for answers about his taxes. Which made me wonder why doesn B r i a n just leave Trib’s taxes to Trib and his accountant.

You began by stating the obvious:

Which of course is no help at all–Is the obvious ever any help?

Then as if his accountant didn’t think of this, you asked him:

Then you offered this gem as if he didn’t think of it before you would have to post it on the Internet. LOL:

You’d think that? Would you Brian? R e a l l y?

Then being the good little liberal boy that you are you put a plug in for the democratic administration on the way out the door:

You want to know why you are so upset with me B r i a n? I’ll be glad to tell you. I don’t think that you like hearing your words thrown back in your face. Now with most of us that wouldn’t mean much, but you are very sensitive to these things. You like to be right and you think you know far more than you really do. Hence, there is a disconnect when you read your own weak words in this format.

Now that’s just a guess B r i a n. But I think I’m really close.

Now run along until the next time that I summon you!

248

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question here Zeb Do you understand Capital Gains taxes ? Have you ever paid them ? I have a couple years where my Capital Gains were %50 of my income .[/quote]
Dude, I’m in the top tax bracket, we pay 35% on our income. Then after tax, we invest some of that money. We then pay 15% capital gains tax.
What’s not to understand?
Sure there are deductions, but that’s the basics.
IF all of your income is from investments ie; capital gains, then sure, you only pay 15%.
But that’s only for the Warren Buffett types, not regular working people.[/quote]

The number of people who are actually wealthy enough to live off of capital gains income probably number less than 5,000 people.

That is just a guess but I’d be surprised if it were many more than that. And so what if there were? They earned the money paid the top tax percentage on it they then invested it and pay additional 15% on it and they are now wealthy.

When did that become wrong in America?

[/quote]
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all. I hope for it to be me in the next 10 years. It’s a goal we have. Seriously.
The misinformation both sides put out is outrageous. Like when the Dems say “Republicans are gonna cut your SS” Well, they propose cutting the planned increases, that’s all. If you get $100 a month in SS, and it’s slated to go to $110, the proposal is cut 50%. Of the proposal. So you’d get $105, not $50.
People who take the news at face value are sheep.
Baahhh…(pointed at you Pitbull)
[/quote]

I do not understand your post , There is no disinformation that a dollar Mitt earns is worth 85 cents and mine is worth 67 cents what is disinformative about that . [/quote]
Right. His income now comes from investments. Your’s doesn’t. What’s the problem?
[/quote]

So Mitt makes more money than i with other money I make less money than Mitt with sweat . So My Dollar should be worth less . I got it (NOT)
[/quote]

If you can’t understand such a simple concept as investments are not the same as working at a job that says something about your mental capacity. What it shows is you have a very limited capacity to think on a conceptual level. You see the first most obvious fact and that is it.

Investment earnings are not the same as working at a job because of several reasons. I’ll start with the most obvious. Investment involves risk because there are no guarantees. Working at a job involves none to little risk because there are guarantees.

For example when you invest money you have no idea how much money you are going to get in return. You could do well or you could lose your entire investment. There is no guarantee and there is no recourse for getting your money back if you make a bad investment.

When you go to a job not only do you know how much you are going to get paid for every hour you are on the job, there is even a guaranteed return on your time that is mandated by law called the minimum wage. If your employer doesn’t pay you, you can take him to court.

There is no Federal minimum return on investments that must be paid out to an investor, you are on your own to win or lose and if you lose you can lose big. If you work for a company and it goes out of business, at most you are going to lose the money earned since your last paycheck and maybe a pension. With investing you could lose a lifetime of savings in a bad day and have to start all over again.

Since they are two very different ways of making money, where the risks are very different it makes perfect sense then, that the rewards should be taxed differently.

Next there is the benefit to the economy of investing. Investing results in economic activity that generates taxes. A good example of this concept was the story of Mitt Romney and his secretary. Maybe he does pay less taxes as a percentage of his income. But if it wasn’t for his business acumen, and prudent management of his finances creating a successful business, people like the secretary and the rest of the company would not have a job to go to and draw a paycheck that they pay taxes on.

So by creating a successful business and employing people he has added greatly to the tax base. In light of that fact, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone like him to enjoy a favorable tax structure, because he will use the money to employ more people and further increase the tax base. We might lose a little on his taxes initially but in the long run his reinvesting the money more than makes up for it. [/quote]

That was an exceptional explanation Sifu. I hope it goes a long way in allowing people to understand why class warfare is both dangerous and destructive!

249

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think there are more similarities between a job and a stock investment than your making it out to be. There are very safe investments and there are jobs that are very risky investments.

An unsure job example: starting a restaurant

A very sure investment: Placing 10-15% of your income in Loreal or across the Dow Jones and taking it out when you retire.

For both stock and regular jobs there’s lots of area inbetween risky and safe.[/quote]

Your example’s are inaccurate Fletch. If someone “starts” a restaurant then he is in fact starting a business which is not a job but a business. And obviously that is quite risky. And the stock market is like purchasing a part of the business that you’re buying the stock in. Unlike a Bond which is much safer as you are only loaning money to that entity, be it a corporation or a municipality.

Sifu’s example is quite good.

250

^

Point taken.

Do any of ya’ll have any good legit sources on basic economics and money management strategies?

251

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I think there are more similarities between a job and a stock investment than your making it out to be. There are very safe investments and there are jobs that are very risky investments.

An unsure job example: starting a restaurant

A very sure investment: Placing 10-15% of your income in Loreal or across the Dow Jones and taking it out when you retire.

For both stock and regular jobs there’s lots of area inbetween risky and safe.[/quote]

Right, noone’s ever lost their ass on the stock market. That was sarcasm by the way, please don’t think I’m agreeing with you. All investing involves risk, just look at the people who invested in a “sure thing” called Facebook a few days ago.

Starting a restaurant is not a job! That is an investment. Working at a restaurant that someone else started is a job.

I wouldn’t want any money in the market when Greece is ejected from the Euro followed by Spain imploding. Which could happen any day now. That ole Dow Jones is not going to react well.

I will agree there are some risky jobs, but as a general rule most are not. ie stocking shelves at WalMart is not very risky. Because there is little chance they are going to go bankrupt and not pay wages.

252

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Point taken.

Do any of ya’ll have any good legit sources on basic economics and money management strategies?[/quote]
I think the best thing to do is find a good financial advisor. One that actually listens to you and has a solid track record and works for a firm that makes money. Your portfolio should have some in cash, stocks, bonds and notes. If you’re young (35 or less) you can be more aggressive and risky. Over the years we’ve dialed back our risk and make less, but still do well. Even in this profile we’ve made 14% in the last quarter. Pretty good when people think everything’s gone to shit. Of course it’s gonna stay good until the election. If Obama gets re-elected the market will go into hibernation. If Romney wins it’ll be good for a few months and go back to how things were 6-8 months ago. Then time will tell…

253

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question here Zeb Do you understand Capital Gains taxes ? Have you ever paid them ? I have a couple years where my Capital Gains were %50 of my income .[/quote]
Dude, I’m in the top tax bracket, we pay 35% on our income. Then after tax, we invest some of that money. We then pay 15% capital gains tax.
What’s not to understand?
Sure there are deductions, but that’s the basics.
IF all of your income is from investments ie; capital gains, then sure, you only pay 15%.
But that’s only for the Warren Buffett types, not regular working people.[/quote]

The number of people who are actually wealthy enough to live off of capital gains income probably number less than 5,000 people.

That is just a guess but I’d be surprised if it were many more than that. And so what if there were? They earned the money paid the top tax percentage on it they then invested it and pay additional 15% on it and they are now wealthy.

When did that become wrong in America?

[/quote]
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all. I hope for it to be me in the next 10 years. It’s a goal we have. Seriously.
The misinformation both sides put out is outrageous. Like when the Dems say “Republicans are gonna cut your SS” Well, they propose cutting the planned increases, that’s all. If you get $100 a month in SS, and it’s slated to go to $110, the proposal is cut 50%. Of the proposal. So you’d get $105, not $50.
People who take the news at face value are sheep.
Baahhh…(pointed at you Pitbull)
[/quote]

I do not understand your post , There is no disinformation that a dollar Mitt earns is worth 85 cents and mine is worth 67 cents what is disinformative about that . [/quote]
Right. His income now comes from investments. Your’s doesn’t. What’s the problem?
[/quote]

So Mitt makes more money than i with other money I make less money than Mitt with sweat . So My Dollar should be worth less . I got it (NOT)
[/quote]

If you can’t understand such a simple concept as investments are not the same as working at a job that says something about your mental capacity. What it shows is you have a very limited capacity to think on a conceptual level. You see the first most obvious fact and that is it.

Investment earnings are not the same as working at a job because of several reasons. I’ll start with the most obvious. Investment involves risk because there are no guarantees. Working at a job involves none to little risk because there are guarantees.

For example when you invest money you have no idea how much money you are going to get in return. You could do well or you could lose your entire investment. There is no guarantee and there is no recourse for getting your money back if you make a bad investment.

When you go to a job not only do you know how much you are going to get paid for every hour you are on the job, there is even a guaranteed return on your time that is mandated by law called the minimum wage. If your employer doesn’t pay you, you can take him to court.

There is no Federal minimum return on investments that must be paid out to an investor, you are on your own to win or lose and if you lose you can lose big. If you work for a company and it goes out of business, at most you are going to lose the money earned since your last paycheck and maybe a pension. With investing you could lose a lifetime of savings in a bad day and have to start all over again.

Since they are two very different ways of making money, where the risks are very different it makes perfect sense then, that the rewards should be taxed differently.

Next there is the benefit to the economy of investing. Investing results in economic activity that generates taxes. A good example of this concept was the story of Mitt Romney and his secretary. Maybe he does pay less taxes as a percentage of his income. But if it wasn’t for his business acumen, and prudent management of his finances creating a successful business, people like the secretary and the rest of the company would not have a job to go to and draw a paycheck that they pay taxes on.

So by creating a successful business and employing people he has added greatly to the tax base. In light of that fact, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone like him to enjoy a favorable tax structure, because he will use the money to employ more people and further increase the tax base. We might lose a little on his taxes initially but in the long run his reinvesting the money more than makes up for it. [/quote]

That was an exceptional explanation Sifu. I hope it goes a long way in allowing people to understand why class warfare is both dangerous and destructive![/quote]

Thank you Zeb. With my family background I’ve had the opportunity to observe class warfare up close. A hundred years ago Britain was the dominant economy in the world. Now it’s only the third or fourth biggest economy in Europe and it’s position in the world is declining. Entire industries like the automobile industry have been completely wiped out.

So I have been keenly aware of how under Obama the Democrats have been using the language and rhetoric of class warfare. This is a man who really doesn’t get America. It’s because he wasn’t raised here. It’s also because his mother who raised him had resentments against this country that she passed on to him. For me this is a much more serious and indisputable issue than the birth certificate.

I believe the whole intent of the requirement be natural born, was to try to ensure that our president was someone who was raised in the American culture and had it deeply ingrained in their character.

Obama isn’t like that and people can tell. The publishers biography doesn’t prove that he was born in Kenya, but it does show that it is quite possible that back then he didn’t want to be seen as an American. That he saw something wrong with being an American. That he was ashamed of it even. That mindset would certainly explain the apology tour.

254

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]strangemeadow wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the real question here Zeb Do you understand Capital Gains taxes ? Have you ever paid them ? I have a couple years where my Capital Gains were %50 of my income .[/quote]
Dude, I’m in the top tax bracket, we pay 35% on our income. Then after tax, we invest some of that money. We then pay 15% capital gains tax.
What’s not to understand?
Sure there are deductions, but that’s the basics.
IF all of your income is from investments ie; capital gains, then sure, you only pay 15%.
But that’s only for the Warren Buffett types, not regular working people.[/quote]

The number of people who are actually wealthy enough to live off of capital gains income probably number less than 5,000 people.

That is just a guess but I’d be surprised if it were many more than that. And so what if there were? They earned the money paid the top tax percentage on it they then invested it and pay additional 15% on it and they are now wealthy.

When did that become wrong in America?

[/quote]
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all. I hope for it to be me in the next 10 years. It’s a goal we have. Seriously.
The misinformation both sides put out is outrageous. Like when the Dems say “Republicans are gonna cut your SS” Well, they propose cutting the planned increases, that’s all. If you get $100 a month in SS, and it’s slated to go to $110, the proposal is cut 50%. Of the proposal. So you’d get $105, not $50.
People who take the news at face value are sheep.
Baahhh…(pointed at you Pitbull)
[/quote]

I do not understand your post , There is no disinformation that a dollar Mitt earns is worth 85 cents and mine is worth 67 cents what is disinformative about that . [/quote]
Right. His income now comes from investments. Your’s doesn’t. What’s the problem?
[/quote]

So Mitt makes more money than i with other money I make less money than Mitt with sweat . So My Dollar should be worth less . I got it (NOT)
[/quote]

If you can’t understand such a simple concept as investments are not the same as working at a job that says something about your mental capacity. What it shows is you have a very limited capacity to think on a conceptual level. You see the first most obvious fact and that is it.

Investment earnings are not the same as working at a job because of several reasons. I’ll start with the most obvious. Investment involves risk because there are no guarantees. Working at a job involves none to little risk because there are guarantees.

For example when you invest money you have no idea how much money you are going to get in return. You could do well or you could lose your entire investment. There is no guarantee and there is no recourse for getting your money back if you make a bad investment.

When you go to a job not only do you know how much you are going to get paid for every hour you are on the job, there is even a guaranteed return on your time that is mandated by law called the minimum wage. If your employer doesn’t pay you, you can take him to court.

There is no Federal minimum return on investments that must be paid out to an investor, you are on your own to win or lose and if you lose you can lose big. If you work for a company and it goes out of business, at most you are going to lose the money earned since your last paycheck and maybe a pension. With investing you could lose a lifetime of savings in a bad day and have to start all over again.

Since they are two very different ways of making money, where the risks are very different it makes perfect sense then, that the rewards should be taxed differently.

Next there is the benefit to the economy of investing. Investing results in economic activity that generates taxes. A good example of this concept was the story of Mitt Romney and his secretary. Maybe he does pay less taxes as a percentage of his income. But if it wasn’t for his business acumen, and prudent management of his finances creating a successful business, people like the secretary and the rest of the company would not have a job to go to and draw a paycheck that they pay taxes on.

So by creating a successful business and employing people he has added greatly to the tax base. In light of that fact, I see nothing wrong with allowing someone like him to enjoy a favorable tax structure, because he will use the money to employ more people and further increase the tax base. We might lose a little on his taxes initially but in the long run his reinvesting the money more than makes up for it. [/quote]

That was an exceptional explanation Sifu. I hope it goes a long way in allowing people to understand why class warfare is both dangerous and destructive![/quote]

Thank you Zeb. With my family background I’ve had the opportunity to observe class warfare up close. A hundred years ago Britain was the dominant economy in the world. Now it’s only the third or fourth biggest economy in Europe and it’s position in the world is declining. Entire industries like the automobile industry have been completely wiped out.

So I have been keenly aware of how under Obama the Democrats have been using the language and rhetoric of class warfare. This is a man who really doesn’t get America. It’s because he wasn’t raised here. It’s also because his mother who raised him had resentments against this country that she passed on to him. For me this is a much more serious and indisputable issue than the birth certificate.

I believe the whole intent of the requirement be natural born, was to try to ensure that our president was someone who was raised in the American culture and had it deeply ingrained in their character.

Obama isn’t like that and people can tell. The publishers biography doesn’t prove that he was born in Kenya, but it does show that it is quite possible that back then he didn’t want to be seen as an American. That he saw something wrong with being an American. That he was ashamed of it even. That mindset would certainly explain the apology tour. [/quote]

I agree his birth place is far less important to me than his mind set, which does seem to be somewhat anti-American. From not wearing a flag pin, to not returning military salutes to his apology tour. He does act like someone who is ashamed of America and wants to remake it in his own image.

And I must ad that I have a good recollection of many Presidents, some I agreed with and others I didn’t but I’ve never felt as uneasy about a President as do Obama. God help this country if he gets a second term with no electorate to answer to. I cannot imagine the left wing havoc that he’ll wreak.

255

Sifu,

At the risk of opening another can of worms, you are aware that the “Apology Tour” never really happened right? Obama did not wander the globe apologizing for American awesomeness, you can read about it here… http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html ,I know that the Washington Post won’t pass a Conservative Litmus Test, but the facts are spelled out pretty clearly, it was more of a “mending fences and building relationships tour”.

256

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Sifu,

At the risk of opening another can of worms, you are aware that the “Apology Tour” never really happened right? Obama did not wander the globe apologizing for American awesomeness, you can read about it here… http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html ,I know that the Washington Post won’t pass a Conservative Litmus Test, but the facts are spelled out pretty clearly, it was more of a “mending fences and building relationships tour”.[/quote]

As usual B r i a n Simple Simon the left wing hypocrite is wrong. From bowing to Sheiks to out right apoligizing for the US Obama disgraced himself and the US during his first year or so in office.

You can read about here:

Or if you like you can pick up the following clip at :42 Obama is apologizing faster than B r i a n turns and runs from one of his many foolish points.

257

ZEB,

This is your “apology” tour footage? excellent work, so in none of those cherry picked sentences does he apologize, in fact the entire quote about Europe is this:

"“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Where is the apology ZEB? He is saying we should value your history and experience a bit more, not “I’m sorry”. Even you should be able to figure that out. Now fuck off until you find something worthwhile.

258

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

This is your “apology” tour footage? excellent work, so in none of those cherry picked sentences does he apologize, in fact the entire quote about Europe is this:

"“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Where is the apology ZEB? He is saying we should value your history and experience a bit more, not “I’m sorry”. Even you should be able to figure that out. Now fuck off until you find something worthwhile.[/quote]

You don’t even know what the word “apology” means do you B r i a n? You really need to rehthink debating adults on this level.

Here you go little man

Obama toured the world “APOLOGIZING” for America in many forms. You see there are many ways that one can say they are sorry.

Stick around B r i a n there is plenty I have to teach you.

For now you are dismissed!

259

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Sifu,

At the risk of opening another can of worms, you are aware that the “Apology Tour” never really happened right? Obama did not wander the globe apologizing for American awesomeness, you can read about it here… http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html ,I know that the Washington Post won’t pass a Conservative Litmus Test, but the facts are spelled out pretty clearly, it was more of a “mending fences and building relationships tour”.[/quote]

What you talkin bout Willis? I watched it on TV as it happened homeboy! The apology tour was the name given to a series of speeches given by Obama at the beginning of his presidency where he downed America. Sure there are more appropriate terms that could be used to describe it instead of apology tour. ie the “yeah I know my country fucking sucks donkey dicks tour” But that is not the kind of language the FCC or FOX viewers likes to hear in prime time.

But thanks for the link as it saved me having to waste my time looking for the specific quote I was looking for to throw at you.

“The quote in Paris often cited by conservatives is this: “In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.””

What leadership is that? Is it French leadership? Obama did say that France is America’s most important ally about the time he returned Winston Churchill’s bust to the British. The last time the French lead anything of world wide significance was the “Phony war”. That ended when the Germans launched the Blitzkrieg! Or does he mean when the French lead us into fighting their former colony “French Indo-China” aka Vietnam.

The very notion of European leadership is risible. Aside from the British (who are now useless as a power too) the Europeans haven’t lead anything in the world since world war two.

America did more than all the European countries combined to win the cold war. We’ve been the leading country since world war two. For Obama to give a speech praising Europe as the leading power in the world was unseemly, ass kissing, that weakened us.

260

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
ZEB,

This is your “apology” tour footage? excellent work, so in none of those cherry picked sentences does he apologize, in fact the entire quote about Europe is this:

"“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”

Where is the apology ZEB? He is saying we should value your history and experience a bit more, not “I’m sorry”. Even you should be able to figure that out. Now fuck off until you find something worthwhile.[/quote]

It was groveling. It was ass kissing. Instead of getting on with the job of being president he couldn’t resist the urge to take a stab at Bush like he was still on the campaign trail. It showed him to be a rank amateur. He seriously undermined our position with his behavior and we can see the results in his failed diplomacy with Iran.

Just what is it that the Europeans need to teach us about their history and experience that we don’t know? I think you don’t have the first clue as to what you are talking about. You are just putting ridiculous ideas out there that might sound real nice to you because of your world view, but they don’t have any sound logic behind them.