Which party has negatively influenced America the most in the past fifteen years?

Posted by: Rezamee

  • Democrats.

  • Conservatives.

62% 38 votes
38% 23 votes
  • I would have said equal, except that Obama has done more damage to this country than all the rest combined.

  • Past 15 years? So you're basically asking who was worse for the world, Obama or Bush. Well, Bush ended up getting into a war in the Middle East which for the first few years was completely supported, but we got stuck too long, due to rules of engagement. Then Obama took office, shot unemployment to 17.1%, took over 1/6 of our GDP by signing in the Affordable Care Act, killed UBL which created ISIS who took over the Middle East, allowed Russia to walk all over EVERYONE, is allowing China to walk all over everyone, North Korea testing dangerous missiles, Iran sanctions attempting to be lifted, domestically our unemployment rate has stayed above 10% since 2009, peaking at 17.1% unemployment rate, under employment rate staying steady around 19%, welfare spending increased 32%, 33% of the nation is currently on welfare of some sort, Illegal Immigration has gone horribly wrong with the directive from Obama to pretend Illegal Immigrants don't exist, refugees from the Middle East pouring out all over the globe, 7 years into his presidency and Obama has still yet to create a single regular budget, Obama spent trillions on bailouts for corporations, big businesses, banking industry, fannimae, freddy mac, the auto industry bailout, the cash for clunkers deal....my goodness I can keep going so yeah, definitely worse on Obama's end.

  • Democrats because of the whole ideology about making people depend on the government. As well as starting more conflict, than Republicans; who I will agree had their fair share of striking conflict. But between the two, I would pick Democrats.

  • There is no Conservative party, it's the Republicans. Conservatism is an ideology that is often taken by the Republican party. Democrats have created this race war, which I find to be more domestic conflict than anything else. Also their gun control laws have increased the homicide rate tremendously.

  • Liberals have ruined our society with all of this "political correctness" stuff. Equality is the first step towards Communism. But of course that's fine, as long as no one is offended!

  • 9/11 was funded by the saudi royal family... what did the Bush administration decide to do straight after the attack? ...I'm just saying... ;)

    Posted by: reece
  • http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/

  • I pick this one because in the last 15 years this country has gone to hell and while Bush can be blamed for most of it you can't say that the president that we have now is the reason for it. The reason for the the problems is bad decision making on everyones part so think about that.

  • It started a bit more recently, but the dominantly Conservative Congress/Tea Part has done absolutely nothing.

    Posted by: gabep
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
UtherPenguin says2015-10-12T02:48:08.4940897Z
*Waits patiently for flamewar*
Rezamee says2015-10-12T02:48:42.3770725Z
Note* I f*cked up and typed 'Conservatives', conservatives aren't a party, but rather an ideal. Just disregard that and pretend it says Republicans.
Rezamee says2015-10-12T02:49:45.1978698Z
@UtherPenguin I know right.
TBR says2015-10-12T03:30:22.0048502Z
This will just break on party lines, but it has been very lopsided for a long time now. Conservatives have built whole industry on being negative about the opposition. Liberals don't come close to the weight of poo the conservatives have flung over the years.
Forthelulz says2015-10-12T03:47:15.4125256Z
Well on one side, we have people taking a pocketknife to a problem that needs a chainsaw (Republicans). On the other, we have people creating problems out of whole cloth and making it out to be the end of the world to avoid looking at the very real problems plaguing the place (your average Democrat campaign). The conservatives are affected by the stigma of the insane religious nuts, but nuts of any caliber, creed, or calling are expected to appear anywhere anyone's voice can be heard, so they don't count. Also, last I checked, most of our government expenditures are going to... Paying for the Administratum. (massive bureaucracy that just seems to keep going on inertia, for all you heretics, I mean non 40k fans) However, the massive entitlement culture is the worst, and the Democrats have been pushing that since they realized they could. Here's a story depicting how it works. There was a guy I know through routine email correspondence and possibly an internship in the Orange County branch of his firm (I'm not going to name names or companies here) who attempted to hire unskilled labor for a project (one of the greatest letdowns ever was the fact that it wasn't even anything eldritch or human-sacrifice involving. Come on, we could make an awesome movie out of that.). He went up to Pershing Square (It's right above a LA Metro station and a major homeless hangout.) and attempted to hire a few people for a project (they needed live humans for some reason, probably because some suit was coming in presumably escorted with permit-granting/revoking bureaucrats.). He was (maybe hyperbole) brandishing money in their faces in exchange for work, and they went about their business ignoring him (except the one guy who tried to rob him in a back alley). Oh, and the one guy seemingly worth hiring he brought in? DEA agent looking for drug dealers (at least he was doing work protecting our most helpless adults, but offering those bums a fix would probably have them jump up for the project, because they know that it won't be money or food, but what they really want/"need", which is drugs). In short, unless their feet are being held to a (possibly literal) fire, the average welfare recipient will not work, or take opportunities to find work. If that made no sense, this will: People will go for the greatest gain for the least amount of work. The Democrats seek to increase the scope of those gaining benefits so their voting bloc increases in power, and so they will carry out their (evil? Well, at least several of them are legitimately well-meaning.) agenda. This includes the entire public sector. The Administratum is entirely in the public sector and the single biggest source of government expenditures, on the level of 70% of all expenditures. Kill that, and disenfranchise a large amount of votes, I mean people, simply making a living. Let it remain, and America will continue sliding into debt. Reduce it, and it grows right back two budget meetings later. The Democrats started it, and its cousin the culture of dependence, and have been nurturing them constantly for (forget 15) around 80 years. So the Democrats are the most damaging. The Republicans at least have glory days to look upon and say were better, and have a singular definable goal, unlike the Democrats, who have to juggle between what the SJWs who want the group they're championing to have the most help, the socialists who want to tax everyone into equality, the criminals who've realized that they'll get easier sentences with those in power, the welfare recipients who want more money from government and don't care where it comes from, the people who want other people to change, and tumblr, which contains all of the above.
Wylted says2015-10-12T03:58:09.5487049Z
@Reece, change your vote. Bush was a Democrat.
reece says2015-10-12T04:08:31.5794668Z
@Wylted Haha good one.
Berend says2015-10-12T04:58:00.9103410Z
Both are equally bad and bought by PACs and major companies.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T07:59:58.7949235Z
@reece -- First off, do you have a single shred of verifiable, FACTUAL PROOF to support your assertion about the Saudi Royal Family? To the best of my knowledge, there are currently only two sources stating this is a fact: 1) Zacarias Moussaoui -- 9/11 terrorist designated hitter 2) A single media source who apparently had "insider info" that Saudi Arabia Royals were funding Al-Qaeda through a front charity which was in no way verifiable. || There were apparently a few independent investigations completed which attempted for years to connect the royals to Al-Qaeda but all they ended up finding was a labored "connection" the investigators made from 2 individuals of royal family in Saudi Arabia donating to a charity that they were unable to connect to anything outside of charity work. Somehow those facts morphed in the investigator's report to insinuate there is some kind of evidence that the U.S. is documented on an investigation. Coincidentally, the report the investigators say have ALL of the evidence that just magically vanished is only available on 28 pages of the report that are kept Top Secret to this day...Convenient for the investigator right? So seriously, if you know of facts publicly available for review I want to study them. || Right after the attack? I'm pretty sure Bush went to ground zero to make a speech, they declared war on Al-Qaeda, mobilized military forces to occupy the Middle East.....What are you attempting to imply? Spit it out friend LOL.
reece says2015-10-12T08:23:27.0964057Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont Don't take what i say serious when i've added emojis.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T08:41:16.8245770Z
@komododragon8 -- LOL that's a HORRIBLE source which is COMPLETELY lying in parts as well as misleading readers by conveniently leaving very important facts from their statements. I'm gonna be the one to start the "flamewar" in a bit, I gotta structure this in a readable manner first though.....Stay tuned friends.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T10:44:53.3605180Z
@komododragon8 -- hey, I just realized I typed up a 6 page report on the American 20th Century LOL. So let's try a shorter version here: First, that article you cite is a horrid partisan trash piece "Oh my god, bend over so the authors and "researchers" can kiss your backside Dems." LOL. It seriously compares Obama to Reagan, calling them equals. This is horribly disrespectful to Reagan as will be described in a later post. Look, Obama will accumulate more debt in 2 terms than every other president in history combined. Every single piece of absolutely everything he has touched to this point has either killed our domestic economics even further, divided our nation's population by every conceivable category, made the illegal immigration issue even worse by giving orders to all law enforcement that if they come across any illegal immigrants to completely ignore them and act like you never saw them. Then there is the global nightmare currently unraveling before us as the entire world appears to be eating itself from the inside out. North Korea long range missiles created and tested, nuclear weapons being created, Russia doing whatever the heck it wants, China doing whatever it wants, Assad massacring his own citizens, Iran nuke deal, Middle East refugees, me about to bang my head off the table for a few minutes after typing all of this craziness up and having the ability to type a massive amount more......I mean seriously, where is the comparison here?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T11:08:01.7042189Z
@komododragon8 -- As far as the rest of the field within your cited resource: It completely fails to account for....Well anything outside of what it wants to display. Knowledge seekers tip for you here: If you open a document that reads like the world's largest hind side kisser or educational document such as the one you cited that literally does nothing but bash the Republicans while treating Democrats like trash.....Stop reading it, its way too biased for review. You're gonna need to present some facts on your own to backup your assumptions." What that source reported forgot to tell the key parts which are 1) WWI finished with the U.S. spending 4 years and $22,646,000,000, the world collapsed on itself as funds were completely wiped out. The global economic downturn from war costs began taking its toll on all nations including the U.S. which watched tens of thousands of businesses shut their doors. As we progressed through the 1920's, businesses continued closing, agriculture production started to dip down, As we got to 1929, businesses continued to close shop yet somehow with this massive downturn globally, the stock market did not show signs of the trouble ahead. Suddenly in October, the stock market crashed, pushing more businesses to close down, a second market crash occurred, closing more businesses. Home loans defaulted, adding to the plummeting market values until finally it tanked out. The unemployement rates skyrocket due to the mass closing of businesses. Then came the drought which barrened out the midwest farmlands. The addition of new mass farming abilities in addition to the lack of knowledge of soil tilling and rotational crop schedules led to all nutrients being sucked from the dirt; the drought sucking every drop of moisture from the exposed top soil; gusts of wind blowing topsoil as far as across state lines, leaving no nutrient rich topsoil to grow crops in. This led to a large food shortage and the long soup lines. This turned around eventually as we watched Germany preparing for war. As we finally started getting back on our feet, we were sucked into WWII. Where we destroyed Europe's enemy over a period of years. (More basic data to come...Need a break LOL)
ButterCatX says2015-10-12T11:16:48.7496406Z
I don't inherently like either that is why I am an independent. But Obama stinks. @tbr you mean republicans, not conservatives(there is a difference)
reece says2015-10-12T11:27:24.2753657Z
@ButterCatX The same difference between pantherinae and lions. I'm being rhetorical btw.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T11:33:22.7390591Z
@TBR -- Yeah it will be on party lines. But on the rest of your comment....Really? Are you sure you're identifying with the correct party and identifying the party members correctly? Every time we get within 18 months of an election, all you hear from the Democrats is how racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, etc. Republicans are...And for no reason at all with no facts to support it. I mean seriously, Mit Romney was labeled a racist because he adopted a black orphan...A wealthy and very honest man does a good thing and adopts a child in need and he gets labeled a racist because he didn't adopt a white baby? Then there is every black conservative on the planet who gets harassed and labeled as a disgrace to their race, a sellout, traitor, not black enough, etc. just for the simple fact that they are black conservatives. It's always the same thing; talk radio started about a month ago, warning listeners to prepare as we were about to start hearing the Democrats on TV avoiding discussing issues and instead spending 15-30 minutes at a shot in front of cameras and crowds yelling racist, throw granny off a cliff, war on women, take your birth control away, homosexuals, etc., etc.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T11:44:28.9405990Z
Not sure how so many people honestly think Bush is still worse at this point but tell you what: I will pay 135 Rupiah to each person on the Bush side who switches to the Obama side. Oh yeah....Political bribery baby
reece says2015-10-12T11:50:51.3444242Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont "Every time we get within 18 months of an election, all you hear from the Democrats is how racist, sexist, ageist, bigoted, etc. Republicans are..." You don't think republican candidates appeal to racists, homophobes, etc?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T12:21:28.1485738Z
@reece -- What's that have to do with the price of eggs? First off, how would a candidate know a person is racist or homophobic? Do they all walk around with a sign around their neck or something? (sarcasm intended) Secondly, just because a person does not agree with same-sex marriage does not mean they are homophobic if that is where you are heading with this one. Third, even if there is a person who is a racist who shares ideas with a candidate and even if that candidate says things to appease a racist, drawing them in for their vote, that does not make the candidate a racist; racists have the right to vote just as you and I do. Fourth, although a Republican may appeal to racists, homophobs, etc., I cannot recall a time right now where bigotry was used by a Republican candidate in the most literal and direct manner possible in order to win a group's vote; can you name a time?" Conversely, if you start watching Hillary and Biden from this point forward when they are directly addressing a crowd at a rally or a speech, a debate, or even a media interview; there is a 100% chance that you will witness them at least one time during every interaction with potential voters strongly appeal to the crowd by DIRECTLY, without remorse, without flinching, like its second nature to them, and as blatantly as possible; slander either the republican candidates as a whole or directly addressing a single candidate, call them a racist, a homophobe, a bigot, a sexist, or some other slanderous and derogatory term. I NEVER hear that from a Republican, let alone at EVERY SINGLE SPEAKING EVENT THEY ATTEND.
reece says2015-10-12T12:24:28.5724163Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont You didn't answer my question.
reece says2015-10-12T12:28:27.8498177Z
Are you taking the hyperbole defence?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T12:32:23.2739450Z
@reece -- Well, in what way do you mean "appeal to"? Like Biden just did last week seen here: || http://time.com/4060530/joe-biden-republican-gay-rights-homophobes/
reece says2015-10-12T12:40:13.0925798Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont You write a paragraph in response to my question without fully understanding it? Come on dude. Anyway, what do you mean.
reece says2015-10-12T12:40:44.8079897Z
reece says2015-10-12T12:43:19.3133609Z
Are you trying to red herring?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T12:46:28.3889969Z
@reece -- Again, what do you mean when you say "appeal to"? Appeal to could mean something as simple as holding firm to your religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman and voicing that opinion. Or, appeal to could mean to do what Joe Biden did in that link I provided previously where he flat out blatantly called the Republicans running for President homophobes in order to appeal to the gay rights extremist voters in attendance.
reece says2015-10-12T12:53:43.4345630Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont "gay rights extremist voters" Hahaha! That's a new one. But yeah, it can mean both.
reece says2015-10-12T12:55:08.9398073Z
Don't forget the appeal to racists as well.
1994XF04 says2015-10-12T13:22:19.4085694Z
Well, I'd say both for a tie but there is no both button. Two sides of same coin filled with ignorant people.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T13:26:52.2196206Z
@reece -- "gay rights extremist voters" Hahaha! That's a new one. || Yeah, haven't figured out what to call them yet. I like Intolerant bastages but not sure yet lol. You know those gay people that ran around yelling about how they just wanted people to be tolerant and let them be who they are and stop trying to force them to be straight and conform to what society wants. Yet now that gay marriage is legal, the same exact people are the ones being intolerant, suing the baker cuz he doesn't wanna participate in a gay wedding but now he HAS to have the specific baker and nobody else just because he said no....Those guys. || But yeah, it can mean both. Yeah, I know it can mean both, that is why I asked you which one you are referring to.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T13:29:36.4747679Z
@reece -- Yeah LOL, just give it some times. As soon as they get the right black audience, the slanderous remarks about how racist republicans are will start flowing like water. Right now it's all about LGBT and women's rights groups LOL.
reece says2015-10-12T13:41:46.4012036Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont It's alright to be intolerant of intolerance. You used two of the same examples of what i meant by "appeal to."
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T14:24:04.6480151Z
@reece -- Not wanting to participate is not intolerance. Intolerance is defined as being unwilling to allow the existence of beliefs or a behavior. So it IS intolerant for the gay guy to sue the baker for not wanting to participate in order to FORCE the baker to comply and change his behavior. It is NOT intolerant to for the baker to refuse to participate, as long as he is not attempting to stop the action the gay guy is performing by getting married.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T14:37:38.5716014Z
@17nikran -- Your vote comment explanation has got to be at the top of my list of most irrational rationalizations I have ever read....Wow.....LOL I mean it makes no sense at all. I would love to go item by item over the past 7 years of Obama's presidency and have you explain to me where fault lies and why.
reece says2015-10-12T14:38:04.0065563Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont There is a difference between "intolerant" and "intolerance."
reece says2015-10-12T14:39:13.2094871Z
You got the two confused.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T14:42:37.8410830Z
@reece -- LOL, not in this context. It holds the same definition, the difference in this context is that one is an adverb and the other is a noun...They mean the same thing though. However, I have now been awake 96 hours straight so if you want to hit me for using the adjective instead of noun or noun instead of adverb, go for...Enjoy it while you can ;)
reece says2015-10-12T14:42:56.1221738Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont Now, are you going to answer my original question?
reece says2015-10-12T14:44:48.8031407Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont WTF, yes i meant it in that context. We're talking about religious intolerance aren't we?
reece says2015-10-12T14:47:25.0089446Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont The words you type up are bs either way.
TBR says2015-10-12T14:48:47.5657322Z
Over the years, there has been a clear winner in mud-slinging ads. Media watch-groups consistently have the GOP putting out more negative ads. Further, you cant crow on the one-hand about the success of Rush, Hannity et al. The low ratings for the counters to them, then say "there is more negativity on the left". It just doesn't track. On a recent example, Trump has made a complete run on the fact that his is bombastic. I think that says enough.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T14:56:09.3753441Z
Yeah, republicans appeal to their base, which will include some of those crazies, this cant be avoided by either party. HOWEVER....While in the Republican's case, they appeal to these crazies indirectly by simply sharing base beliefs and values. Although the crazies take the base beliefs and values and press it to a socially unacceptable level with which the Republican does not share the same belief. Again, they share the BASE value such as being against late term abortions which appeals to the crazy, however where the republican stops at this point, the crazy may believe that ALL abortions should be banned. Again, the republican does not take it to that extreme and would not go there just for his vote; the APPEAL is the base value they share. || On the other hand, Democrats appeal to the crazies utilizing extreme methods such as the link I sent you previously for Biden calling Republicans homophobes
Wylted says2015-10-12T14:56:24.0773111Z
Donald Trump is a Democrat
Wylted says2015-10-12T14:57:29.7614274Z
Trump is a democrat. He is has on the one hand said he wants to abolish Obama care, but on the other hand he said he wanted to replace Obama care, with Obama care.
TBR says2015-10-12T15:04:53.9887169Z
@Wylted - Just saying <insert name of conservative I dislike> is not a conservative is no different than Christians who say other Christians aren't Christians. Or Muslims, or what have you. These are YOUR guys. You can't just toss them over the fence at us like a bag of poo.
reece says2015-10-12T15:04:57.4519835Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont But the defunding of Planned Parenthood just to appeal to "some" crazies? Orrrr?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T15:05:16.8899573Z
@TBR -- What do these groups DEFINE as negative? When I hear negative, I think of Obama, Hillary, Biden, etc. going out all the time on TV the way they do, using derogatory and slanderous terms to describe Republicans. For example, calling Republicans homosexuals, racists, etc.Sexist, etc.
reece says2015-10-12T15:06:36.6698915Z
@TBR It's the no true scotsman fallacy.
reece says2015-10-12T15:09:38.9437967Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont I don't doubt many of them are in the closet.
TBR says2015-10-12T15:09:46.1355350Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont - Sure you do. That is the problem with partisan politics. The partisan will hear the negative as righteous rather than simply more mud. When analysed as impartiality as possible - the right is very high on the negatives.
Wylted says2015-10-12T15:10:40.1880683Z
No, it's the very few true Scotsman fallacy, and conservative has a very narrow definition. Since I'm 100% conservative, anyone who agrees with me on over 75% of issues, is a real conservative, everyone else is a Democrat
TBR says2015-10-12T15:12:08.0950683Z
@Wylted - I am a true liberal. Obama does not express my every wish. He is therefor a conservative.
reece says2015-10-12T15:14:39.4679759Z
False dichotomy
Wylted says2015-10-12T15:18:17.5525566Z
TBR, I'm for a government that doesn't trample on people's rights, that makes me a conservative. You and Obama are pro trampling on people's rights and are therefore the same thing. Seeing as how most republicans also want to trample on people's rights, they're democrats. 100% of democrats are democrats 95% of Republicans are democrats masquerading as republicans
TBR says2015-10-12T15:23:17.7736321Z
You can say this all day long Wylted, it will not make it true.
Wylted says2015-10-12T15:41:18.4235053Z
How would you feel if pseudo intellectuals and welfare queens all of a sudden became only 5 percent of the Democratic Party and the other 95% all of a sudden wanted to have sensible policies and cherished freedom? You'd feel like only 5% was legitimate Democrats right?
TBR says2015-10-12T16:07:40.8345621Z
You are a funny guy Wylted.
komododragon8 says2015-10-12T18:21:25.5139248Z
Makesensepeopledont: Umm, a bunch of statistics from pre World War II US doesn't refute what Forbes has argued and supported.
Rezamee says2015-10-12T21:02:27.7405759Z
MakeSensePeopleDont's Motto: Making Several Paragraph Responses to One Sentence Comments Ever Since 2015! Also remember cites are bad! (No offense MSPD, but until you start citing your sources, your arguments seem highly opinionated.) Oh uh Fox News doesn't count... Well now that I think about it, don't cite any mainstream media source. <--- Joke Or is it a joke... I don't know.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T23:30:29.9273839Z
@dragon -- Sorry man, I just got annoyed reading that thing. If you REALLY want me to, I can continue on for you....But it honestly just seemed pointless if you didn't care to take the time to research the topic you put in play. For example: WWII segregated the U.S. from the rest of the world, so we were fine after the war while all of Europe was sent back to the stone age. This gave us 25 years with uninterrupted power growth through the industrial revolution while everyone else was busy shoveling up the piles of bricks that previously consisted of their houses. This meant that not only was America the go to nation for imports, but we had no competition which meant the entire landmass of Europe made us rich. During this time span, we also had a bunch of liberals push through tax increases on a massive level; It seemed like it was working to the citizens and shows as a plus on the stats sheet even today, but the fact that is left out of all of these as well as your time piece, is that there was literally ZERO competition in the world and no potential of anything suddenly popping up stealing the markets from us...The U.S. held a monopoly. Problem was, we got too comfortable and dependent on manufacturing and the industrial sector and forgot to watch the rest of the world as they advanced beyond us eventually knocking us back into reality. So in the late 60's, early 70', once Europe was finally rebuilt, they had rebuilt for the future, starting the migration of global economic control over to Europe. We fell behind then jobs were lost by the wave. Unemployment went back through the roof as we leveled out with the rest of the again emerging world. At this point, not only are we dealing with back tracking a bit to level out as Europe begins to reenter the world, but we also see the VERY quick rise of the global economy as we see it today...For the most part; this meant competing with the Asias now as well. Then came the struggles of a newly born global trade system in which the U.S. FED deregulated interest rates and finances during the 70's 80's and 90's which on its own would have hurt us; however, other nations began altering their currency rates which nobody knew how to deal with or even thought about at the time which led to the construction of the FED as we see it today which employs some VERY smart people to keep from having another roller coaster economy. Continuing into the 90's and early millennium, we see an outcry from low-income individuals about how they couldn't buy nice houses and cars; this led to the initial mortgage changes which rewarded banks for supplying mortgages to families who had no way of affording the rates once their new home buyer perks expired. This led to a small bubble burst and a mini housing market crisis; foreclosures and abandonment started picking up in volume and frequency as those low-income individuals left their homes. This led to the subprime mortgage handouts from the mid 1990's through about 2004 in which, in order for a bank to sell the houses it was paying the property taxes on so banks would not go bankrupt sitting on real estate, they lowered the bar once again...Even lower. Allowing families with poor credit ratings to gain a mortgage from them with low upfront costs then smashing them later on. By 2004, these all started foreclosing again and after research was completed, it was found that subprime mortgage lenders were the major cause. Regulators cracked down on this as well as Adjustable rate mortgages which were seemingly designed for failure. Then the housing bubble finally burst in 2008. Right after this, President Obama begins to implement the start of his plans to "level the playing field with the rest of the world...." [Insert classic Obama drama generating pause] "....America is no more exceptional than any other nation in the world. We aren't special, we aren't unique..." etc. etc. The plan that is still being used today is called "Cloward-Piven" which is an attack on a nation's stability and economic destruction from the inside one small piece at a time. Which is great explanation for how it is possible for Obama alone to out spend all 43 Presidents before him combined, driving our debt to a level that just 10 years ago was thought to be impossible to spend that much And there you go my friend, quick, short and dirty.The truth of the matter is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really did any of this, it was a period of massive world wars, advancement of technology, opened waterway, complete annihilation of an entire continent a new global connection between all nations of the world which took some getting used to, etc. Your time article you cite takes this opportunity to falsify information about the entire 2nd half of the 20th century, completely eliminating the true causes of the roller coaster of an economic ride we have been on here; instead insinuating it's all the Republican's fault and Dems are the heros of the universe at every turn....Which again....Is a lie. In the 239 year existence of this great nation, there has only been 1 president who has intentionally tanked the nation; the rest have been victims of unfortunate timing and circumstances...And this includes the Democrat party as well just so you know I'm being fair. || The only president to purposely tank our nation is the one in office right now, utilizing "Cloward-Piven" economic coup tactics to the letter of the written plan.
triangle.128k says2015-10-12T23:34:51.0608056Z
MakeSensePeopleDont, there's no reason to attempt to build the great wall of text.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T23:47:23.6660785Z
@Rezamee -- I cite my sources in Debates where it is needed. If I cited every time I took time out of my day to educate ill-informed and ignorant individuals on reality; I would have no time for anything else. For this reason, I use the theory of “You can give a man a fish and he eats for a day. You teach a man to fish and he will never go hungry.” In this context, that means I hand you the facts and the truth, you can either take it at face value which you obviously already do on a VERY regular basis with everything that you agree with at face value; OR you could do what you should be doing with all of your newly learned information which is vet it yourself utilizing multiple verifiable sources from both sides of the argument. For example, the “source” that komododragon8 cited in his argument, I was able to identify as lies and complete trash after about 120 seconds of reading. How was I able to do that you ask? Well the ENTIRE article literally states all of the “great” things Dems do to save our nation from all those “bad” things Repubs do. It also arrogantly enough right at the start states that although popular understanding in the political review world is that Dems spend money and Repubs try to save money through limited government, it is actually the complete opposite. Meaning everyone except that one person is lying…which any way you look at that statement…is a complete lie. If you actually read your own sources to vet them, you would have ALSO taken notice to the fact that there was not a single solitary crumb of verifiable, factual data in that entire piece. It was literally just the author promoting the book he tells you at the end that you so desperately need to buy if you want to know the truth. Just like those 1990’s infomercials with the little Asian guy with the supermodels in bikinis swearing that if you buy his VHS for $19.99, he will tell you how to become a millionaire just like him. Turns out to be a quick cash scheme for him where the first VHS is 7 minutes long and tells you to buy his full starter kit and you end up having to buy an entire set of 5 VHS movies, the 8 page manual, the planner guide, etc., etc., etc. In the end you have a trunk full of useless crap for $450 that just told you “Buy low and sell high”.
gabep says2015-10-12T23:51:32.3348605Z
TL;DR. Seriously, no on's going to read the whole thing and you know it.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T23:51:46.5532719Z
@triangle -- Yeah, I try not to, but if you don't then the pieces don't really fit together so you don't know what you're talking about; then you provide the great wall of information and you get a statement like yours.....Seems like a lose-lose to me.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-12T23:57:00.9550418Z
@gabep -- and that is the exact reason why you are so ignorant on everything you talk about ....Cuz you don't take the time to study the topic at hand. I spend every free second I have researching things which is why I am so knowledgeable with such a wide scope of topics here and am able to provide such detail off the top of my head. You on the other hand are too lazy to take 4 minutes to read the cliff notes version I provide of my years of research which is why you have no idea what you are talking about...In any of the posts I've read from you.
gabep says2015-10-13T00:02:55.5967999Z
The fact that I don't spend every minute of my life researching topics is irrelevant. You are an exception in that regard. I have the ability to reason and the right to have my own opinion. The fact that I disagree with you does not make me unintelligent.
Rezamee says2015-10-13T00:08:29.1470912Z
@triangle.128k I know right. Although I really like MakeSensePeopleDont's arguments, it opens new perspectives for me, which is needed to formulate better, stronger opinions. So keep making that great wall MSPD, hopefully the Mongols aren't around the corner.
komododragon8 says2015-10-13T00:51:40.1538403Z
Makesensepeopledont: Your just listing a bunch of events (which you also don't source at all). My source is simply showing that on average democratic presidents have had a superior economy to republican presidents. They aren't saying that republicans by their nature are bad for the economy, they are just noting a trend. For example they note that corporate profits grow 16% more under democratic presidents. In fact the authors actually argue that the best presidents economically, are the ones who adapt to the situation at hand, something Reagan did very well.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T00:54:22.1941564Z
@gabep -- But that is the problem buddy, you are NOT presenting an opinion to the community with your posts, you are presenting FACT; especially when citing a source as citing a source means "Hey, this is where I got my facts from, I am providing it to you the community so you can also see my statement is true." An opinion would be "Man, these hot wings are really hot!" Going into a public location such as this site and stating to everyone "Republicans are racists!" is called Defamation of Character, it is considered a factual statement and is a crime. Finally, making the same statement with the addition of cited resources showing the sources you have used to come to your stated conclusion is again defamation of character and considered fact.
gabep says2015-10-13T00:58:38.5792008Z
My overarching opinion is that the Tea Party and other extreme Conservatives are bigoted and have inaccurate views of minorities. My evidence would seem to support that, but since it's gone now I assume you've been butthurt and gotten them taken down.
gabep says2015-10-13T01:02:21.6849772Z
In addition, for something to be defamation, it must not be an opinion. I have given my opinion, stated above. That is open to debate and CAN be proven wrong, hence it is an opinion.
gabep says2015-10-13T01:04:10.7466745Z
A few examples I have given (that seem to have been banhammered from existence) does not make it fact.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T01:05:40.3088974Z
@komododragon8 -- I gotta say, I just smiled really big when I read your comment, seeing you read your article enough to present some quotes from it. Seriously, thank you for taking the time to do that friend. || However...I know, I'm killing the "moment", I'm sorry but I gotta show you the next step of vetting your source for future use. However, that is just a random number printed on a website. In order for me to respond to that number and accompanying statement, you need to present me with the data used to calculate that number; with out the data it's just a useless statement. I remember seeing a section in that article where the site's author listed a few categories that were used to perform the calculations, but even that had no facts. Scan that article and see if you find a section that shows the numerical data that was used to get that number or any other number, if not, see if you can find the formula they used listed in there as I didn't even see that. Even that bar graph they use in the center of the article showing their ranking of each president has absolutely no data on it. In reality it is simply a little illustration they put together with a background that gives the illusion of a populated bar graph in the hopes the reader does not catch onto the trick. || But hey, see what you can find and bring on back over.
gabep says2015-10-13T01:07:14.0174967Z
Says the guy who claims that 75% of immigrant women were raped, and doesn't provide the data that he loves to see.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T01:11:56.8836385Z
@gabep -- http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-american-dream/ || There you go.
Rezamee says2015-10-13T01:16:11.4805345Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont That source is talking about Central American Women, which lowers the population of the statistics drastically. Also they are referring to migrants not immigrants... Two different groups.
gabep says2015-10-13T01:22:08.9107602Z
In addition, this describes the scene in Central America and Mexico. That is precisely what immigrants are trying to escape from, and the vast majority of them do not participate in these acts.
komododragon8 says2015-10-13T01:23:21.2786963Z
Makesensepeopledont: You are correct that the article could have a lot of fake information or they might be interpreting the information incorrectly, after all economics is an incredibly complex subject. It is on Forbes so that does give it some credibility if what I've heard about that magazine is true. I will probably buy the book that this article is based on and see if there is anything suspicious, but it is important to note that the author probably has far more experience in studying economics than I do, hence the reason why I use him as a source.
TBR says2015-10-13T01:27:48.5965832Z
Forbes is a valid source. Anything can have problems with data, but no reason to dismiss that site.
Rezamee says2015-10-13T01:29:26.5654243Z
The Mongols... They are coming!!!
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T01:31:14.5464630Z
I think i'm part mongoloid..
Rezamee says2015-10-13T01:33:19.6495066Z
@triangle. 128k So you are part Asian?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T01:34:12.7451207Z
@gabep -- No, I wouldn't report your post, not only is it within scope, but taking it down would cause a hole in discussion which would make me appear psychotic LOL. It did just happen to me though too with one of dragon's postings, I had to refresh a few times for it to pop up, give it a go. || Finally, here is common law Defamation info for you to start with. || http://www.thebarcode.net/pdf/CheatSheetSamples.pdf || Also, understand that when attaching a derogatory term on a person or group - specially in the case of Libel or documented statements, even if stating this with the preface "My opinion" you are not protected by absolute privilege. The reason for this is because you have an audience. A judge would very simply ask "Why do you have this opinion of this person?" If you say "I don't know I just do.", that's defamation still. If you present sourcing for your the information that led you to publicly address someone as racist, even with opinion stated, the burden of proof of source is on your shoulders meaning that you must prove that the source you used, when performing reasonable research on the source and information, can reasonably be seen as true in order to be protected.
gabep says2015-10-13T01:34:20.1630703Z
Read his profile... He IS Asian.
triangle.128k says2015-10-13T01:37:51.9247157Z
@Rezamee I'm fully asian
gabep says2015-10-13T01:41:55.0990189Z
I would say that my evidence supports my opinion, while at the same time, it is open enough to not be considered defamation. I never said that I have that opinion "because I do"; I included evidence to reinforce my opinion. At the same time, said evidence does not conclusively prove that the Tea Party are racist; one could provide evidence that may support the contrary. From what I have seen, however, I believe my opinion is justified. You are perfectly entitled to yours.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T02:02:05.8695025Z
@Rezamee -- Correct, this is because it was 2014 during the height of the Obama sanctioned illegal immigration crisis where 69,000 unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. alone and were told by the President, if they step onto U.S. soil, they will not be deported. There was then a 100% capture rate for this reason of children that made the trip. This was a 1st for the nation and provided researchers and officers the ability to process each of them. During questioning and seeing a medical professional, they documented that 80% of those females that traveled were sexually taken advantage of. It holds no meaning at this point Mexico vs Central America, or whatever. That fact that 69,000 made it, 100% capture rate; the data gathered will never come again in opportunity. All other reports generated lose validity when it comes to the scientific method as you have an unknown variable which is "How many slipped by us?" Here, in that instance, not a single one attempted to evade, they walked right up and turned themselves in.
TBR says2015-10-13T02:03:00.5017531Z
Wait... Do I have this right? One user dismissing an article by Forbes while using "fusion.Net" as a source? Ok...
Rezamee says2015-10-13T02:08:37.4994337Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont Whether they come from Central America or Mexico matters. I don't care if Mexico is having illegal immigrant issues, meaning your source using Central Americans is quite irrelevant. Also may I have a source to your most recent argument?
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T02:24:31.4587707Z
@Rezamee -- Migrants vs Immigrants? Really? Didn’t you hear? It’s no longer “socially acceptable” to call an illegal immigrant an illegal immigrant, we must refer to them as immigrants or else the PC police will stage a 30 idi0t march outside your house at 2 am. Additionally, as this was part of an Obama “Don’t enforce the law, law enforcement officers.” Verbal directive which also accompanied multiple calls to Central American children specifically, informing them that if they make it they will not be deported; Obama changed their designations from Illegal Immigrants to Immigrants as Obama unilaterally gave them a fee pass.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T02:24:50.6934474Z
@gabep – Dude, the Coyotes and drug mules that act as their navigators are the ones that rape the girls. As they hit each town for the night, the navigator will start pimping the girls out even. Once they hit the border, what exactly do you think happens? The drug mules and coyotes just stop, drop their bundles and leave, completing their navigator duties as a volunteer act of kindness? A donation? These guys are Mexican Cartel, they aren’t Uniceff. They accompany them across the border, through the woods on the American side with Cartel Snipers watching the group from the Mexican side. The group runs a few miles to a designated meeting point on the side of the highway where they are picked up and everyone is stuffed inside. They are driven to a stash house where if you are lucky, you are let go, but most of the time, the Coyote will lock all the girls up, call your families within the states and demand another $5,000-$10,000 per head to get your daughter back. If you can’t pay, he will turn her out on the street, sell her to sex slave trades, or just flat out murder her. THAT is who you are dealing with. Quit being so naïve trying to prove me wrong. It’s not going to happen.
Rezamee says2015-10-13T02:31:03.4716578Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont Still I need your source. Also I'll give you a basic definition of migrant and immigrant. An immigrant, whether he/she is illegal or not, is someone that moves to a different nation to settle there permanently. While a migrant is someone that comes in and out of several nations, usually for a job. The source you used was talking about migrants from central america, NOT illegal immigrants from Mexico. Big difference mate.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T02:56:46.9001649Z
@TBR -- Wait, do I have this right? You didnt actually read the article which links to Amnesty Internationals own findings from the prior year? Are you trying to say you live in the U.S. and have no idea what goes on at your Southern Border? The southern border which for the past 7 years has been in the forefront of political arguments between the parties? Do you know that we have sanctuary cities in the U.S. where state governors are allowing illegal immigrants to simply walk across the border and head over to said cities, never to be bothered again? Are you unaware that during the unaccompanied minor crisis at the border, the Obama Administration ran out of room to house the illegal immigrants so they began calling states in secret asking if they would take them into their states care on the taxpayers dime? Are you aware that when this was denied by all but California and maybe one more state whos citizens were secretly informed of the transfer and quickly assembled at the secret drop off location and protested until the transfer was cancelled. Are you then also aware that after his plan to secretly sneak these illegals into different states whose governors agreed failed, the Obama Administration actually rented buses and sent them to the border detainment center in the middle of the night, quickly herded thousands of these illegal immigrants onto these school buses and about 1 am they all took off, attempting to secretly sneak these buses packed with the illegals into the states where senators already said no, going behind their back to drop the illegals off at some random place? Luckily, somebody close to the operation had already warned the governors or law enforcement locally about the plan to sneak by then Obama could say "I don't know how they got to your states, oh well, they are their now and you aren't able to deport them, so they are all your responsibility now." So the word spread, even news stations were at one location, filming the buses as they sped out got stopped and turned right back around by the local populations.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T02:58:35.4286692Z
President Obama seriously tried to SEAL Team 6 his own citizens all over the nation AND the governmental leaders of the states.
Rezamee says2015-10-13T03:01:28.2141616Z
@MakeSensePeopleDont Source to ^^?
TBR says2015-10-13T03:02:27.4479819Z
What I am objecting to, and commenting on is your arrogance in this thread. You may think it sounds good, but you have been very dismissive of another user. I also want to note... I went out side and screamed "illegal immigrants" and am waiting for this "PC police force" . If they don't show, I expect you will concede that was hyperbole?
Rezamee says2015-10-13T03:03:43.7782926Z
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T03:10:00.9174673Z
@TBR -- I don't care what you think, you're a forum troll that's all, every time I pop into a thread and prove you wrong, you start acting like a 12 year old child, you challenge me to a debate, I accept and list my point then you vanish gone. I keep trying to talk to you and you just randomly turn into a D!Ck for no reason at all so whatever dude.
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-10-13T03:44:24.8215570Z
@Razamee -- Here are a few links for you to start with: http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/us/california-immigrant-transfers/ || http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/09/number-of-unaccompanied-children-at-the-border-tops-68000-for-fiscal-year-2014/ || The following link is for a job posting in January 2014 by the Federal Government requesting escort drivers for 65,000 unaccompanied minors from Central America 6 months before Obama was "surprised" by it --- http://www.allenbwest.com/2014/06/feds-advertised-escort-services-unaccompanied-alien-children-january/ || Start with those, just google "Unaccompanied minor illegal immigration crisis. Make sure you read around cuz Obama has been caught a number of times altering data and presenting false data for all kinds of issues to make himself and his policies appear to be successful when they actually fail: For example: || http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370784/obama-administration-inflating-deportation-numbers-andrew-stiles || http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/15/lou-dobbs/lou-dobbs-obama-administration-manipulated-deporta/ ||
idoubtit says2015-10-13T13:22:56.5366069Z
Not much to say here except that I agree 100% with every single thing said by MakeSensePeopleDon't. There is one thing I'd like to respond to however. Someone mentioned that the Republican party appeals to racists etc. I assume it was meant racist whites. It appeals to some, and they don't represent the majority. In the meantime, the Democrat party appeals to racists just as much. Being anti-white is every bit as racist as being anti-black. The ones who want specialty accommodations, job preferences, welfare dole outs, etc based on race, favoring anyone not white. How do all the anti-white people in this country vote? Republican or Democrat?
Texas14 says2015-10-14T03:37:18.5344592Z
How about both parties

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.