patrick.net

The whole world is going to hell.

Nothing is as good as it was when I was young.

"America is turning to crap due to a lack of morals and ethics"

Yes, but Obama is one man. That lack of ethics is just too common within the society. Obama or no Obama, we are finished.

Bap33 says

the lib-media called Bush a liar when military intell was wrong

Hahahaha! Hahah! Great parody account, man!

The military intel on WMD's was sketchy because there weren't any WMD's. Colin Powell also thought the intel was shit: he said as much to his aides as he was preparing to whore out his integrity forever in his U.N. speech: "This is it? This evidence is crap - there's nothing here!"

Most intelligence analysts saw no believable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, because there wasn't one.

Aluminum tubes, yellowcake: all bullshit, and obviously so to anyone watching something besides Fox at the time.

I'm sure that Christians, as in every other case, had special moral insights that the rest of us lack as to why that war absolutely had to be fought. After all, it says in the Bible that you should smite first and then look for reasons to smite later: Jesus was all about the right caliber weapon for the job, air superiority, and raining death from the sky on people who had nothing to do with smiting that cheek of yours - which, last I checked, you're supposed to turn, anyway.

Bap33 says

We forced "big tabacco" to pay for health care because they sold a deadly, and addictive, product. But now the gov, allows dope to be smoked, and it's a much more dangerous drug with much worse health effects.

Much worse health effects? Between 64 and 04 12 million Americans died from tobacco. During that same period no Americans died from cannabis.

BTW, you do realize that Captain America is gay, don't you? Kinda makes your whole rant contradictory.

I didn't even have to read the OP. So totally and completely predictable, like a script. When I read things like this you have to put it into context. Don't feed me a line about morals. If someone thinks we as a society were morally superior in the past then they need to wipe the dust off their history books and do some hard reading. I'm not talking about the 1950's. I'm talking about from the very start of human civilization. Hell- a few years ago I took a trip to Bodie, Calif. It was among many ghost towns that had at one time been a huge city that dealt with mining. The murder rate there was tremendous. In fact, the overall lawlessness in much of the US back then would make today's standards look like peanuts. So don't feed me a line of horse shit about "Morals".

And as far as the Tea Party, as I've mentioned before this is nothing more than a totally invented, fake, and fictionalized " movement" created by people and organizations with lots of money who instead of following the proper, democratic process of voting for elected officials would rather use the political system for their own selfish wants and desires and in the process basically use voters to do the work for them by feeding them a non-stop and totally unrelated diatribe of nonsense. So again- don't tell me about morals.

And as far as things going back to how things "used to be", well that's not going to happen. The American founders were foward-thinking, progressive men who created a forward-thinking, progressive Constitution that by design, slowly but surely works to further the progress of the American people. In fact, just TRY and name one instance in the history of this country where things did not progress. Go for it but you won't succeed.

Bap33 says

Liberalism ( or call it socialism, communism, leftistism, progressivism, anti-Christianism, anti-Americanism)

The fact that you think all those incredibly different and independent things are all the same says everything we need to know about your opinion.

It's one thing to express the opinion that a car is slow, ugly, has poor performance, and bad gas mileage. It's quite another when the car you are criticizing is actually a tree.

Dan8267 says

It's quite another when the car you are criticizing is actually a tree

It's not a tree, but he is from the stone age.

HydroCabron says

Jesus was all about the right caliber weapon for the job, air superiority, and raining death from the sky on people who had nothing to do with smiting that cheek of yours - which, last I checked, you're supposed to turn, anyway.

nice...

but he won't get it. and yes, he is a parody of a right wing moron, and yet he's also the real deal.

Funny thing is that bap and his ilk don't even know what conservative means.

In 1962 conservatives were against lowering taxes because of how opposed they were to the possibility of the deficits it might cause.

These days "conservative" christianist morons will take this country down before they would ever allow us to raise taxes up to where they should be (and I don't mean to imply that they need to go all the way up as high as they were in the glory days of the 5os and 60s).

Yeah, bap likes him some guns, and he hates those deviants that believe in freedom to be themselves. America is going to hell and it it sure is easy to blame it on those damn folks that are so much more intelligent than him.

He feels it in his gut. It's their fault. Those damn smarty pants liberals with their high faultin college educations, and their ability to reason. They think they're so smart, but Bap knows. It's all their fault.

rooemoore says

Much worse health effects? Between 64 and 04 12 million Americans died from tobacco. During that same period no Americans died from cannabis.

and how many of the same pot smokers moved on to Heroin and died anyway.

you want to look back to the 1970s as any reference to the consequences of being

in a drug culture...frankly, you have no life...

humanity says

In 1962 conservatives were against lowering taxes because of how opposed they were to the possibility of the deficits it might cause.

you need to check your facts... the fear of deficits came from other Democrats not the republicans.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s267

furthermore, you need to review the consequences of tax cuts and expected
increases in tax revenues... Laffer Curve anyone...

Believe It! Democrats Once Demanded Tax And Spending Cuts

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/08/05/believe-it-democrats-once-demanded-tax-and-spending-cuts/

When Johnson gave his first State of the Union address in January 1964, he called for an actual reduction in the federal budget—not just a slowing of the rate of growth—as well as a reduction in the federal workforce. Talk about a radical! Was Johnson a member of the Tea Party?

"After passage, unemployment fell from 5.2 percent to 4.5 percent in 1965, and even further to 3.8 percent in 1966. And while estimates projected federal revenues would drop, income tax revenue actually increased. In 1963, before the bill was passed, federal income tax revenue was $69.2 billion. In 1964, the first year after the bill took effect, revenues jumped to $72.2 billion, and hit $85.5 billion in 1966."

But, sadly, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan, nor, as have learned, a Jack Kennedy, nor even an LBJ. Which means we won’t likely see a real economic boom until we get someone who is."

Obama needs to be more like Reagan, and raise taxes a few more times.

The Birchers, who were the Tea Party of that time, referred to Kennedy as a traitor, and carried protest signs with statements like "Kennedy-Kastro-Kruschev".

And Johnson, like Reagan, cut taxes at a time when they were much higher, and could actually generate lower unemployment rates. Bush II cut taxes when already quite low, which didn't accomplish jack shit.

HydroCabron says

Bush II cut taxes when already quite low, which didn't accomplish jack shit.

Just give it time.

Sooner or later this country will fall into utter chaos. We are Russia but only worse.

It only goes downhill from here.

sbh says

The conservatives advocate financial ruin in order to protest the outcome of Congressional process and elections and the Supreme Court, or suppressing the voting rights of students, women and darkies.

you have issues with the founders of the nation and the US Constitution as it was written which sets the age of voters and who
can and cannot vote based on legal Citizenship requirements and sound/safe protocols..... seems you are in odds with the US Constitution.

... this cannot be true can it...

sbh says

You either cannot or do not read. There are no sound and safe protocols being violated there are only too many Americans voting against the conservatives and the conservatives want to end that freedom. Conservatives hate any freedom that allows people not to be conservative.

if we are to apply the same regulations Govt imposes on Business and render an opinion on the safeguard of votes, govt would fail such a test...

To lie about such events would actually put Business owners/ Company officers in Jail and fined millions of dollars. Of course some in Congress can lie and impede regulations to further their own cronyism.

‘We Don’t Have Any’ Problem of Illegal Immigrants Voting in U.S., Dem Congressmen Say -

At a discussion panel on voter identification (ID) laws held at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 17, CNSNews.com asked Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.): “What should be done in regards to illegal immigrants voting?”

Lewis replied, “I don’t know of any. I don’t know of any case in any -- in Georgia, in Alabama, in North Carolina, Mississippi or any parts of America -- that some illegal person, some person who’s not a citizen had cast a vote and I just think that’s a lot of say-and-do about nothing. That’s not happening.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/we-don-t-have-any-problem-illegal-immigrants-voting-us-dem-congressmen-say#sthash.Z4AMGvSc.dpuf

While tracking illegal immigrant voting is difficult, according to a report issued by the Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005, the Justice Department has conducted more than 180 investigations into election fraud since October of 2002. Federal prosecutors have charged 89 individuals and convicted 52 for election-fraud offenses, including giving false voter-registration information.

Bap33 says

What is frustrating me now is watching America slide into a shit hole.

When you're over 50, it doubtless seems comforting if humanity is joining you on your decline towards death.

It isn't true, and the youngsters around you will laugh about crotchety ole Bap.

adding...

"Recent events also suggest at least the strong possibility of non-citizens voting.

In 2011, Colorado’s secretary of state found by comparing drivers’ licenses that Colorado had potentially as many as 16,270 non-citizens on its voting rolls.

In 2007, the Dallas Morning News ran a piece titled “Non-citizens likely voted in Bexar County” which explained how 330 non-citizens were discovered on voting rolls after they were summoned for jury duty.

The 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election was decided by 133 votes while 1,678 illegal votes, mostly by felons, were cast. The election was upheld because there was no accurate way to determine which candidate was the recipient of the illegal votes.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, currently 31 states require some form of identification to vote, with eight having strict photo ID requirements. Another 29 states have no ID requirement to vote.

- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/we-don-t-have-any-problem-illegal-immigrants-voting-us-dem-congressmen-say#sthash.Z4AMGvSc.RtaV1Xb3.dpuf

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) says

I just think that’s a lot of say-and-do about nothing.

there are many in my field (corp accounting) who said the same about
Sarbanes Oxley.. but certainly Congress made a show trial and voted
to have the laws enacted. If its good governance can pe applied to Business
I so no reason why it should not be applied to Congress as well.

But as we see.. when it comes to the so called the progressives such
practices dont exist.

lol... seriously ?

yes...74...Dem 53 Rep 21
No...19....Dem 9 Rep 10
Present...Dem 1 Rep 0
NoVote...Dem 1 Rep 1

you need to ask why the 9 Dems voted NO... what they didnt believe in LBJ or cutting the budget.

at the end of the day, you should be more concerned why dropping the tax rates and shrinking

the govt as LBJ ( Liberal GASP) created more jobs and increased Govt Tax Revenues...

So do you have examples where increase in Taxes Rates will create jobs and increase tax revenues ?

sbh says

You spineless conservatives are too weak, simply unable to stand up for yourselves and be counted.

words of wisdom from a former radical Marxist youth who saw the way...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/5KHdhrNhh88

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2GklCBvS-eI

thomaswong.1986 says

Believe It! Democrats Once Demanded Tax And Spending Cuts

Yes and republicans back then were afraid of cutting taxes, because they were conservative then.

Now they're just selfish.

THe laffer curve only suggests revenues are increased when taxes are lowered from being too high.

HydroCabron says

And Johnson, like Reagan, cut taxes at a time when they were much higher, and could actually generate lower unemployment rates. Bush II cut taxes when already quite low, which didn't accomplish jack shit.

IT accomplished blowing the deficit up and essentially redirecting the SS surplus in to the pockets of the rich.

That's good news to the evil assholes who want to undue our safety nets (entitlements) and take us back to the gilded age.

To them the social advances that occurred under FDR and LBJ were the worst things that ever happened to the U.S. SO starving the beast by undertaxing the rich and the corporations is seen as a way to take us back to those wonderful times when children worked and when there was no middle class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Bap's true frustration: justifying being a republican.

He doesn't even concern himself with the biggest most real differences between democrats (who aren't even liberal these days) and republicans.

To him issues like taxation of marginal parts of income over 200K isn't the real issue.

He's been brainwashed to think that everything in human nature that he doesn't like is a "liberal" attribute. He worships at the alter of some of the biggest assholes in the entertainment world, and meanwile manages to arrogantly feel holier than thou.

IT's a mighty fucked up and strange combination, but hey, it works for him.

No wonder he's frustrated though.

thomaswong.1986 says

So do you have examples where increase in Taxes Rates will create jobs and
increase tax revenues ?

Clinton 1993 increase, 1994-2000 unemployment fell from 6.6% to 3.9% and government revenues increased from as follows in 2005 dollars:

1993: 1,154B
1994: 1,258B
1995: 1,352B
1996: 1,453B
1997: 1,579B
1998: 1,722B
1999: 1,827B
2000: 2,025B

And the Bush tax cuts lowered goverment revenue to $1782B by 2003, and unemployment rose to 6.3%

Obama 2013 increases:
2012: 2,450B
2013: 2,712B

Unemployment Start 2012: 8.3%
Unemployment today: 7.2%

Is that the Thomas Sowell of "Your granddaughters will be living under Sharia law" and the following nugget?

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

Conservatives: Please get better leaders. Your current crop of Hannitys and Corsis ain't cuttin' it

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

Here's the question that will help organize your thoughts. Is jelly-spined
programmatic progressivist pseudo-socialism really what produced the current
endless meltdown? I suggest really rock-ribbed conservatives and stalwart
lefties are mostly in agreement on the basics but the only barrier is the
overwhelming influence of campaign money from the financial crimes industry
which has been directly influencing regulation - or its roll-back - since the
1970s or so.

good. thanks.

Bap33 says

But now the gov, allows dope to be smoked, and it's a much more dangerous drug with much worse health effects.

Do you have any proof of this?

Come on, that should be EASY if marijuana is so much worse than "tabacco".

Can't find it? I wonder why?

Oh, here it is:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2605-z

Oops, my bad - that study indicates NO ill effects whatsoever from smoking marijuana.

How about this one?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23648372

Damn, nope. That one shows smoking marijuana CURES Crohn's disease. With no side effects no less!

So what do you have? If marijuana is as you say so much worse than "tabacco" there must be decades of non refutable evidence proving your point.

control point says

Clinton 1993 increase, 1994-2000 unemployment fell from 6.6% to 3.9% and government revenues increased from as follows in 2005 dollars:

have a good read...

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

Flashback: Clinton Said He Raised Taxes on the Rich ‘Too Much’

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335049/flashback-clinton-said-he-raised-taxes-rich-too-much-eliana-johnson

“Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.” - Bill Clinton.

Did you forget about the tax cut in 1997 ?

and result was nearly $ 150 Billion flowing into new start ups and creating jobs...

which part of the 90s do you recall the most.. the early 90s or the late 90s...

the boom was toward the end..

control point says

Obama 2013 increases:

2012: 2,450B

2013: 2,712B

Unemployment Start 2012: 8.3%

Unemployment today: 7.2%

your living in a Obama dream world.. the long term unemployment which NO ONE ON THE OBAMA TEAM wants to talk about has skyrocketed.

http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/jobs/number-of-long-term-unemployed-workers-swells-as-hiring-lags-1.6241369

New Renter says

Bap33 says

But now the gov, allows dope to be smoked, and it's a much more dangerous drug with much worse health effects.

Do you have any proof of this?

Come on, that should be EASY if marijuana is so much worse than "tabacco".

You don't understand, duckie. Marijuana is really, really bad because hippies do it. Tobacco is good because cowboys do it, and cowboys never do any wrong unlike those dirty, oversexed hippies.

Can I make it any clearer?

HydroCabron says

Conservatives: Please get better leaders. Your current crop of Hannitys and Corsis ain't cuttin' it

did you enjoy the part of the disintegration of the black family .. only 12% and now it skyrocketed to 35%... at which percentage will you finally admit your policies has created more poor people... how about 48% or 65%.... will that be enough to tell you how horribly your policies have failed.

Dan8267 says

Can I make it any clearer?

Mexico drug wars: graphic pictures illustrating Mexican gang violence!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/7506688/Mexico-drug-wars-graphic-pictures-illustrating-Mexican-gang-violence.html?image=7

Funny how you dislike Wall Street Gangster.. but give Card Blanche to the Criminals to take over the streets... the spice must flow...

New Renter says

Damn, nope. That one shows smoking marijuana CURES Crohn's disease. With no side effects no less!

So what do you have? If marijuana is as you say so much worse than "tabacco" there must be decades of non refutable evidence proving your point.

you can certainly explain that to the 1970s generation that lost their lives deep in the Drug Culture... You have no idea how many parished..

Decades of Drug Use: Data From the '60s and '70s

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx

ThreeBays says

More bullshit selective analysis. Those prosperous years were still punctuated by taxes on the rich that were a lot higher than they are now.

There's little to justify keeping tax revenues at historic lows or go even lower.

so what did the Govt do with all the Collected money to spur the economy ?

have a good read...

The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase

http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/

Flashback: Clinton Said He Raised Taxes on the Rich ‘Too Much’

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335049/flashback-clinton-said-he-raised-taxes-rich-too-much-eliana-johnson

“Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.” - Bill Clinton.

Did you forget about the tax cut in 1997 ?

PCGyver says

Many point to the Mexican drug cartels as a reason to legalize drugs! Is that your point Twong86?

how bout you try being sober for once.. ever try being sober ??

ThreeBays says

There's little to justify keeping tax revenues at historic lows or go even lower.

The dangerous myth is that the Republican's agenda actually has YOUR interests at heart, and not just making the rich richer.

of all people someone from San Mateo asks why rich people who have lots of cash..

get either taxed more or invest more in Start Ups near San Mateo...

Gosh charlie... why do you have so many start ups in your county ?

Why do people have jobs, income and some kind of life ?

You think its all Govt tax money creating jobs in the SFBA ?

https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTPublic/ns/nav.jsp?page=historical

ThreeBays says

I read it.

He raised taxes too much. Created a tax surplus, and then was able to lower taxes in various useful ways.

If we were in a position where we were taxing too much, we should cut taxes. We are NOT in that situation. We have record low tax revenues as a % of GDP, and a big deficit.

We've had those low taxes for a while now, and what has trickled down? The economy is still shit, deficits are shit, and income inequality is at record highs.

your so called Clinton surplus was announced in 2000... during the Stock bubble and higher capital gains... the "new Economy"... where were the fabled gains down the years afterwards as the stock prices fell by 90%.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88866

where was Clinton in prior years on budgets....

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan — a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as “pure demagoguery.”

It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that “balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------

BILL CLINTON, DEFICIT HAWK

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1995-06-25/bill-clinton-deficit-hawk

The great Battle of the Budget is over. The hawks have won. Oh, there are details to be thrashed out. And there probably will be another crisis or two before President Clinton signs a Deficit Reduction Act of 1995.

But faced with overwhelming pressure from the GOP majority in Congress and a dramatic shift in public opinion, Clinton quit fighting on June 13.

In his six-minute prime-time speech, he joined the balanced-budget crowd, producing a plan to eliminate the deficit in 10 years. "Finally," says American Standard CEO Emmanuel A. Kampouris, "the President is coming forward."

PCGyver says

Do you remember a person called Al Capone? It didn't work then just like it doesn't work for other drugs now.

like i said.. ever try being sober... what the point of having nation full of addicts.

you remember the 1970s.. I do.. what a pathetic drug culture we had...

ThreeBays says

While Clinton forecasted $1.9 trillion in budget surplus over 10 years, Bush came in and proposed $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.

there was no budget surplus as there was no "new economy" with 1000 new companies each valued into billions of dollars with industries/markets valued into the trillions $$..

therefore there were no capital gains that would fuel this fabled surplus.

as for Bush.. no one saw the recession and terrorist attack.

we did not start the wars ...

ThreeBays says

Yet the 1.3 trillion in tax cuts were planned, and carried out despite the realities that hit us.

sure.. we should increase taxes in a middle of a recession...

sure.. thats going to spur investments and business spending...

good going !