punked Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 We do understand most employment added Texas have been government jobs right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 So, what???? With minimum effort one could present countless videos of union thugs supporting 0bama. So do it. Show me some union thugs walking up to Obama, telling him they will perform what could illegal acts and Obama not calling them out. PLEASE DO IT! I dare you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 At 20 seconds, someone from Bank of America comes up to Perry and tells him they will help him out. I wonder who Perry works for... "We will help you get elected if you promise to give us a bail out when you are POTUS" That's how I see that bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Perry is a handsome lad...let him have the green chopper for a term - He can shoot wild dogs from the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 So do it. Show me some union thugs walking up to Obama, telling him they will perform what could illegal acts and Obama not calling them out. PLEASE DO IT! I dare you. Obama recieved over half a million dollars from each of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc.......So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Obama recieved over half a million dollars from each of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc.......So what? I'd consider that a form of lobbying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'd consider that a form of lobbying. He also got money from BP.............it's not illegal, so whats the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 He also got money from BP.............it's not illegal, so whats the problem? Maybe you can tell me why it's not a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 20, 2011 Report Share Posted August 20, 2011 Maybe you can tell me why it's not a problem? There's no US law against it, both sides equally do it, and in many cases, the company gives to both parties.........I don't see any problem, perhaps if you indicated what you feel the problem is I might be able to address it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 There's no US law against it, both sides equally do it, and in many cases, the company gives to both parties.........I don't see any problem, perhaps if you indicated what you feel the problem is I might be able to address it? Sure these guys lobby BOTH sides, to get what they want. It's not illegal, granted, but downright unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Sure these guys lobby BOTH sides, to get what they want. It's not illegal, granted, but downright unethical. How is it unethical? Even Ron Paul takes money from oil companies and the Credit Union National Association.......... I'm sure if most Americans found this practice unethical, it would be stoped and laws similar to here adopted...........If company x give money to candidate Y, I can personally choose to boycott company X………..If the government gives my tax dollars to candidates Y, W and Z and I vote for W, how is that ethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Obama recieved over half a million dollars from each of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Citigroup Inc.......So what? Hey if you are going to be a henchman - you gotta get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 Any brave soul with balls or a uterus made of stone will do. Time for America to have a strong and serous leader. You got that right. Hopefully Americans have wised up and have seen the destruction that happens when one votes for the most popular flavour of ice cream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 You got that right. Hopefully Americans have wised up and have seen the destruction that happens when one votes for the most popular flavour of ice cream. Well said - They refere to Obama now that they know him as "not a serious man." Could it be that America in general is not a serious entity? Where are the old school types that used to run the place - men and woman of action and of faith...strong people who believe in more than blowing a dube - playing video and wondering who to invade next in the interest of keeping the corporate autocrats happy - love the term "corporate autocrats" - It might just be the new way of saying "democracy".. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 21, 2011 Report Share Posted August 21, 2011 (edited) How is it unethical? Even Ron Paul takes money from oil companies and the Credit Union National Association.......... He probably does, an I have a problem with that. But most of his donations come from the American people themselves. I'm sure if most Americans found this practice unethical, it would be stoped and laws similar to here adopted........... Well, when the status quo has been voted into office time and time again and helped by big business through donations (i'll scratch your back if you scratch mine type of thing), you think the American people can actually change anything? They are overall powerless with the current set up. If company x give money to candidate Y, I can personally choose to boycott company X………..If the government gives my tax dollars to candidates Y, W and Z and I vote for W, how is that ethical? I think you just answered you own question. And it seems you agree with me it is unethical. I have a feeling many Americans finds it unethical. And if that is the case, why have the American people not been effective in changing that system? Here are some examples of why regular Americans can't change the system. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44217977/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/ 'Pay-to-play culture' Over three terms in office, Mr. Perry’s administration has doled out grants, tax breaks, contracts and appointments to hundreds of his most generous supporters and their businesses. And they have helped Mr. Perry raise more money than any politician in Texas history, donations that have periodically raised eyebrows but, thanks to loose campaign finance laws and a business-friendly political culture dominated in recent years by Republicans, have only fueled Mr. Perry’s ascent. Read the rest of the article for more .. Edited August 21, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Perry-Surging-in-Republican-US-Presidential-Race-128488853.html Perry- 29% Romney- 17% Paul- 13% Bachmann- 10% As I posted in another thread, Paul was on Fox News Sunday this morning....... Realistically this is shaping up into a Romney vs. Perry campaign (as it should be in my view) and the much lauded Bachmann is slipping (as she should) as the GOP gets to know her, and replaces her as the Tea Party candidate with the original Tea Partier Paul (Was he at the original party?)……..For those that are fans of Paul (and I admit, I agree with some of what he says) he will at least get a increase in coverage being #3 now………Perhaps if his numbers continue to grow, we might see Perry & Romney adopt some of his more mainstream ideas……..Perry/Paul in 2012?………Nah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 Personally, I like Perry and his chances………Texas is one of the few states still experiencing strong economic growth, he will bode well with the Christian voters, the Tea partiers’ (was one of the first Republican leaders to recognise them), fiscal conservatives and should play well with the GOP establishment…..I happen to like Perry. But crediting him with Texas' growth is like crediting the rooster for the sunrise. He didn't put the oil there.That being said, New York could be Texas-like if it didn't have the hairshirt opposition to fracking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I happen to like Perry. But crediting him with Texas' growth is like crediting the rooster for the sunrise. He didn't put the oil there. That being said, New York could be Texas-like if it didn't have the hairshirt opposition to fracking. Fair point, Perry didn't put the oil there........We all know God did that.......Perry & God are tight, don't you know Joking aside, many Corporations over the last ten years are leaving places like New York, Chicago and LA for Houston and Dallas………One could argue, that’s due to the economic policies of Perry and W. for nearly the last twenty years (Well 16 years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) dre, here are the only sentences I start with a lower case letter, just like the one you laughed about: you and your screen name, dre. (short for dreadful). What is an 'encumbant'? What is 'wont' in context of your post? You know, next to your incorrect and misspelled word of 'encumbant'? I hate to nitpick about spelling, but anyone who abuses his/her mother tongue, as you do, deserves no consideration and no understanding and no forgiving. As soon as you come back with a post void of errors, I will consider giving your posts a second glance. Hmmm. I have no patience or tolerance for those who abuse and misuse their mother tongue, like dre, which is, obviously short for dreadful. Since you used commas to bookend "which is," you need to add another after "obviously." (Or you could have omitted the comma after "is," and so evaded this problem.) dre, here are the only sentences I start with a lower case letter, just like the one you laughed about: you and your screen name, dre. (short for dreadful). Even when using parentheses, you need to capitalize the first word unless the parenthetical remark is part of the preceding sentence. This is especially relevant when your sentences (well, your sentence and your fragment) are precisely about this very topic. (And just to be clear, I only ever feel compelled to match the smug pedantry of other posters on these matters when they fumble the language while correcting that of others.) Edited August 28, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I posted this piece in the pipeline thread, but I feel it's also relevant here, in response to Rick Perry’s (with the help of Gods) record of job creation in energy rich Texas. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/24/yes-rick-perry-deserves-credit-for-the-texas-economy/ It is encouraging that the political left is finally beginning to realize that energy production can and does make the difference between energy producing states like North Dakota and Texas experiencing job growth and relative prosperity while the rest of the nation suffers the worst economic conditions in over 70 years. But Perry detractors completely miss the facts when they assert, as did the Slate article, “So what does it all mean for other states? Well, they cannot produce oil out of thin air.”Make no mistake, many states are well positioned to realize the same energy production benefits as North Dakota and Texas. These include, at a minimum, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming — each of which has ready access to abundant resources of the same shale oil and shale gas that is fueling economic growth in North Dakota and Texas. Energy production and economic strength in North Dakota and Texas are the results of wise and courageous policy decisions designed to encourage rather than stifle energy production (something that fellow Forbes columnist Joel Kotkin pointed out in his recent piece on Texas). Going forward, the question is which leaders in which states have the political courage to stand up to environmental activist groups and their media allies who routinely vilify energy production? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 .I hate to nitpick about spelling, but anyone who abuses his/her mother tongue, as you do, deserves no consideration and no understanding and no forgiving.As soon as you come back with a post void of errors, I will consider giving your posts a second glance. What about your repeated use of such incorrect spellings as "harbour", "labour", and "defence" to name a few? Or your saying that an idea that is to be discussed is "tabled" when that term means "discussion over" or "discussion postponed"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 28, 2011 Report Share Posted August 28, 2011 I posted this piece in the pipeline thread, but I feel it's also relevant here, in response to Rick Perry’s (with the help of Gods) record of job creation in energy rich Texas. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/08/24/yes-rick-perry-deserves-credit-for-the-texas-economy/ I totally agree. I am a New Yorker and a prolific taxpayer. My stomach turns as the enviros living in rent-controlled apartments on New York's Upper West Side, who never met a payroll, protest against energy development at the same time as they rail against rents that are inflated by high fuel costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 What about your repeated use of such incorrect spellings as "harbour", "labour", and "defence" to name a few? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 What about your repeated use of such incorrect spellings as "harbour", "labour", and "defence" to name a few? Or your saying that an idea that is to be discussed is "tabled" when that term means "discussion over" or "discussion postponed"? Those are the correct english spellings of those words. Labor, harbor and defense are all USA english spellings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted August 29, 2011 Report Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) One needs to ask where Perry's TRUE loyalties lie. He is the clown that threatened to have Texas secede when the Republicans lost the presidency. Now he wants to be president? Is he an American or a Texan first? Edited August 29, 2011 by scouterjim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.