(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Let me say this slowly for your pea brain.

GINGRICH SAID OBAMA HAS PUT MORE PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

THAT IS A LIE

And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

When Obama came in with his pie in the sky foolish ideas about "spreading the wealth" and blowing through trillions of dollars, he inherited the whole lot and added many more. Fact is, NOTHING has improved and no, I don't give a damn about what the PRIVATE stock market looks like.

(01-19-2012 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:36 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 12:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Zero, Zip, Nada. I'm shocked...shocked I tell you!!!

Newt Gingrich claims that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
Fact check: Gingrich's faulty food-stamp claim

The total number is higher now than it was then. Which begs the question, after blowing trillions of dollars in 3 years of office, what the hell makes you think this jacka** deserves another chance?

Because the economy during the first few months of his presidency was the worst it has been since the depression. We were in a huge whole and we are climbing out of it.

Are there or are there not more people on food stamps now? I rest my f'n case. Obama has seen more people on food stamps than any other president in history. Gingrich didn't say a f'n thing about percentages, he used real numbers. ...and no, it wasn't the worst its been since the Great Depression.

Quote:And Rebel, you say we "blew" the money. Where exactly do you think that money went?

You tell me. The economy is sh*t, millions are unemployed, more people on food stamps than any other president in history, and all he seems to be worried about is getting re-elected and continuing to pay for extended unemployment benefits. Hey jacka**, how about getting the f'n government out of the Gdamn way so people can get jobs?

It went to corporate profits.

...and yet, you're still going to vote for him. dumb***. You think any conservative here likes crony Capitalism? You libs seem to love it.

(01-19-2012 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ...under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

Are there or are there not more people on food stamps now than when Bush was in office? He's had three years, three, 3, tres, drei, trois, tre. He is inept. He's BLOWN through money and **** has continually gotten worse. Only a FOOL would think this clown deserved another term. If Bush were a first-termer after you goons on the left took over Congress and he turned into a fiscal liberal like he did in '08, we'd have primaried his ass.

(01-19-2012 01:47 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:36 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 12:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  The total number is higher now than it was then. Which begs the question, after blowing trillions of dollars in 3 years of office, what the hell makes you think this jacka** deserves another chance?

Because the economy during the first few months of his presidency was the worst it has been since the depression. We were in a huge whole and we are climbing out of it.

Are there or are there not more people on food stamps now? I rest my f'n case. Obama has seen more people on food stamps than any other president in history. Gingrich didn't say a f'n thing about percentages, he used real numbers. ...and no, it wasn't the worst its been since the Great Depression.

Quote:And Rebel, you say we "blew" the money. Where exactly do you think that money went?

You tell me. The economy is sh*t, millions are unemployed, more people on food stamps than any other president in history, and all he seems to be worried about is getting re-elected and continuing to pay for extended unemployment benefits. Hey jacka**, how about getting the f'n government out of the Gdamn way so people can get jobs?

It went to corporate profits.

...and yet, you're still going to vote for him. dumb***. You think any conservative here likes crony Capitalism? You libs seem to love it.

Not what I meant by that.

(01-19-2012 01:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Not what I meant by that.

We've had more crony Capitalism under this clown than any time since I've been on this rock. ...and you still love him. You cannot have it both ways. Then again, you libs aren't too strong in the consistency department, are you?

(01-18-2012 02:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 10:44 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Georgia, Texas and the Feds have laws prohibiting the use of a photo of a dead celebrity figure to promote something without consent.

Tough to get consent from a dead person.

Or.....

It's easy. All depends on how the tea leafs turn up..

In this case the rights would go to his spouse, and then to his kids upon her death, up yo 50 years following MLK's death. From the Texas Property Code


§ 26.011. UNAUTHORIZED USES. Except as provided by
Section 26.012, a person may not use, without the written consent of
a person who may exercise the property right, a deceased
individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in any
manner, including:
(1) in connection with products, merchandise, or
goods; or
(2) for the purpose of advertising, selling, or
soliciting the purchase of products, merchandise, goods, or
services.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 152, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

(01-19-2012 02:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Not what I meant by that.

We've had more crony Capitalism under this clown than any time since I've been on this rock. ...and you still love him. You cannot have it both ways. Then again, you libs aren't too strong in the consistency department, are you?

More than W? Really?What I meant was the money went to kep people employed and the money was then spent buying things thus the money ending up as corporate profits. Those profits were exected to be re-invested in hiring and corporate buying but they didn't do either, they just sat/are sitting on the money.

(01-19-2012 02:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Not what I meant by that.

We've had more crony Capitalism under this clown than any time since I've been on this rock. ...and you still love him. You cannot have it both ways. Then again, you libs aren't too strong in the consistency department, are you?

More than W? Really?What I meant was the money went to kep people employed and the money was then spent buying things thus the money ending up as corporate profits. Those profits were exected to be re-invested in hiring and corporate buying but they didn't do either, they just sat/are sitting on the money.

Something wrong with your keyboard or are you having a stroke?

BTW, what you're stating is BS anyway. Many of the bailouts started under Bush and a Dim Congress, namely the auto bailouts.

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

...and they were f'n wrong. It is not the government's charge to prop up private companies with MY damn money. It was nothing but a payoff to big labor. As for this newest sign of crony Capitalism, the reason this goon is opposing the pipeline is because Soros is heavily invested in their competitor.

(01-19-2012 02:17 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 02:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 10:44 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Georgia, Texas and the Feds have laws prohibiting the use of a photo of a dead celebrity figure to promote something without consent.

Tough to get consent from a dead person.

Or.....

It's easy. All depends on how the tea leafs turn up..

In this case the rights would go to his spouse, and then to his kids upon her death, up yo 50 years following MLK's death. From the Texas Property Code


§ 26.011. UNAUTHORIZED USES. Except as provided by
Section 26.012, a person may not use, without the written consent of
a person who may exercise the property right, a deceased
individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in any
manner, including:
(1) in connection with products, merchandise, or
goods; or
(2) for the purpose of advertising, selling, or
soliciting the purchase of products, merchandise, goods, or
services.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 152, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

I was just kidding around

(01-19-2012 02:22 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 02:06 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Not what I meant by that.

We've had more crony Capitalism under this clown than any time since I've been on this rock. ...and you still love him. You cannot have it both ways. Then again, you libs aren't too strong in the consistency department, are you?

More than W? Really?What I meant was the money went to kep people employed and the money was then spent buying things thus the money ending up as corporate profits. Those profits were exected to be re-invested in hiring and corporate buying but they didn't do either, they just sat/are sitting on the money.

Something wrong with your keyboard or are you having a stroke?

That's the closest he has come to contributing to a discussion since he got back... don't discourage

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:36 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:30 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 12:03 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 11:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Zero, Zip, Nada. I'm shocked...shocked I tell you!!!

Newt Gingrich claims that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." He's wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.
Fact check: Gingrich's faulty food-stamp claim

The total number is higher now than it was then. Which begs the question, after blowing trillions of dollars in 3 years of office, what the hell makes you think this jacka** deserves another chance?

Because the economy during the first few months of his presidency was the worst it has been since the depression. We were in a huge whole and we are climbing out of it.

Are there or are there not more people on food stamps now? I rest my f'n case. Obama has seen more people on food stamps than any other president in history. Gingrich didn't say a f'n thing about percentages, he used real numbers. ...and no, it wasn't the worst its been since the Great Depression.

Quote:And Rebel, you say we "blew" the money. Where exactly do you think that money went?

You tell me. The economy is sh*t, millions are unemployed, more people on food stamps than any other president in history, and all he seems to be worried about is getting re-elected and continuing to pay for extended unemployment benefits. Hey jacka**, how about getting the f'n government out of the Gdamn way so people can get jobs?

Let me say this slowly for your pea brain.

GINGRICH SAID OBAMA HAS PUT MORE PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

THAT IS A LIE

And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

So, money was put into the economy. Where did it come from?

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

Since you're wrong, I guess we are all in agreement that you can't even do simple math.

Redwing reminds me of one of the pilots of Flight 401. He's messing around with a damn light bulb while the plane is descending into the Everglades.

(01-19-2012 03:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

Since you're wrong, I guess we are all in agreement that you can't even do simple math.

Don't you have another worthless article to start another stupid thread with that only SMN will respond to?

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

But you are missing a key point. That money didn't just "go into the eocnomy." It had to come FROM somewhere. Governments, like plaintiffs' attorneys, lack the capcity to create value, they simply take it from people who created it and move it people who didn't.

And the act of taking that money from somewhere else hurt the economy. And while that hurt may or may not be greater than the help that the economy got in the short run from the "stimulus," some of that hurt is long-term. Hence CBO's own scoring that the long-term effect of "stimulus" would be negative. And CBO didn't consider all the negative impacts, because many are too hard to quantify.

(01-19-2012 03:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2012 01:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you prove post after post that you have no clue about the economy. That money spent went into the economy. If we would not have put that money into economy things would have been much worse. It's simple math fool.

But you are missing a key point. That money didn't just "go into the eocnomy." It had to come FROM somewhere. Governments, like plaintiffs' attorneys, lack the capcity to create value, they simply take it from people who created it and move it people who didn't.

And the act of taking that money from somewhere else hurt the economy. And while that hurt may or may not be greater than the help that the economy got in the short run from the "stimulus," some of that hurt is long-term. Hence CBO's own scoring that the long-term effect of "stimulus" would be negative. And CBO didn't consider all the negative impacts, because many are too hard to quantify.

I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

(01-19-2012 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I would imagine a vast majority of the money was borrowed at a next to nothing interest rate. Also, quite a bit of the stimulus was in tax cuts.

The "tax cuts" in the "stimulus" were arguably not tax cuts at all, at least not in any usual sense of the term, but merely handouts processed through the tax system. There were no tax rate cuts, and tax rate cuts are what is needed to stimulate investment. There were certainly no tax cuts of any of the sorts that were recommended by republicans.

Whether the money was distributed through spending or through handouts processed through the tax system, in either case there is a shortfall and it had to be made up somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot see how the interest rate paid on borrowed funds has any relevance at all to any of the points I was making.

Of course not. The tax breaks went to poor people. And the only investment that tax cuts through lower tax rates would fund, recommended by Republicans, would go to the top 1%, and would end up in a bank account, not in any sort of job investment. Have you been asleep since the beginning of the Bush regime?

(01-19-2012 02:17 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 02:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 12:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-18-2012 10:44 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Georgia, Texas and the Feds have laws prohibiting the use of a photo of a dead celebrity figure to promote something without consent.

Tough to get consent from a dead person.

Or.....

It's easy. All depends on how the tea leafs turn up..

In this case the rights would go to his spouse, and then to his kids upon her death, up yo 50 years following MLK's death. From the Texas Property Code


§ 26.011. UNAUTHORIZED USES. Except as provided by
Section 26.012, a person may not use, without the written consent of
a person who may exercise the property right, a deceased
individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in any
manner, including:
(1) in connection with products, merchandise, or
goods; or
(2) for the purpose of advertising, selling, or
soliciting the purchase of products, merchandise, goods, or
services.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 152, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Interesting. I never knew this, but then I never thought about it, especially if they were/are a public figure.

What about a living person? Is Paul M violating the law with his Nancy image? Then he may have her written permission.

What ab