Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Obama Spent More Money Then Any President And Now He Calls For A Spending Freeze? Who here Believes Him?

During the 2008 elections, Obama repeatedly ridiculed John McCain for proposing a spending freeze.

This video tells us a lot about the BS spending freeze.


  1. Chris, I actually agree it's a BS spending freeze. It's exactly what stupid Hoover did to get us into the Great Depression.

    We need more spending, not less.

  2. Chris as usual you Republicans want it both ways. You want spending freezes but you don't want them to be enacted by a Democrat. I will have to watch your video when I am done with work and then I can comment more on this subject.

  3. Come on Bruce, I'm as progressive as the next guy, probably even more so, but even I know we are spending way too much and it's going to cost us dearly both this year and probably in 2012. Not to mention down the road economically.

  4. Bruce Fiscal Responsibility Spend All The TAX PAYERS Money and then Say Hey lets FREEZE Spending! This Nobama speaks Out of BOTH Sides of his Mouth And its CATCHING Up to Him! The Voters, Bruce NOW Have the Hatchet! Ask Coakly How having Nobama Campaign for Her Worked OUT! Coaklys Under the Bus Right Now another Thing This Administration is Good AT,SHIFTING BLAME! Nobama Doesnt Have Coat Tails To pull Along Canadates EVEN in the Blueist State of ALL!

    Noabma And You Libs Have Greatly Underestimated Citizens Bruce MOST Do Not Want Government in Their Lifes the Way LIBS do and that Bruce Will COST Progressives BIG TIME! You Guys Pissed Off the Citizens bruce,Shame on Ya and REALLY Stupid TOO!

  5. If Obama doesn't start spending more money we will never get out of this depression Bush put us in. Obama is going too far the the right and it will ruin any progress that is being made. The only way to get real change is to cut the head off of the Republican party and get a one payer system. If we don't make this happen it's over for the Democrats and the progressive movement. Stop pussy footing around and lets get'er done. Everyone gave up on health care when Brown got elected.

  6. Per CNN, 70% of Americans laughing at loser Hypocrats:

    CNN Poll: Most Americans applaud Democrats' loss of supermajority

    January 25th, 2010

    Washington (CNN) - Americans are divided on whether Democratic control of Congress is good for the country, according to a new national poll.

    A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.

    Forty-five percent of people questioned in the poll said Democratic control of Congress is a good thing, with 48 percent disagreeing. The margin is within the survey's sampling error. But the results are a shift from last June, when 50 percent felt that Democratic control of both chambers of Congress was good and 41 percent felt it was bad for the country.

  7. This gentleman explains, quite succinctly, how Bruce "EPIC" FAILk and the rest of you lieberal Hypocrat loons hate freedom of speech and The Constitution of These United States of America. Plus he's writing in The HuffPo, so it's twice as sweet! LOL


    Citizens United and the Commentariat

    Nothing is quite so inspiring as the sight of journalists, in high dudgeon, trashing the First Amendment. Such has been the rule since last Thursday, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the campaign finance case, Citizens United.

    For the uninitiated, the cause of the hysteria, at places like The New York Times and the Washington Post, is the Court's entirely correct decision to liberate political speech from the clutches of the Federal Election Commission, such that labor unions, for-profit and nonprofit corporations will hereafter be able to spend general funds on the placement of issue ads and other kinds of what the FEC refers to as "electioneering communications."

    Read more at the link above ...

  8. Many on the left today call themselves “progressive,” and they do so not just because it’s a nicer way of saying “liberal,” but also because they very much intend to revive the political principles of America’s original Progressives, from the Progressive Era of the 1880s through World War I. Why would leftist politicians, like Mrs. Clinton, purposely identify themselves with this Progressive movement?

    The reason is that America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals. Most people point to the New Deal era as the source of big government and the welfare state that we have today. While this is perfectly accurate, it is important to understand that the principles of the New Deal did not originate in the New Deal; rather, they came from the Progressives, who had dominated American politics and intellectual cultural a generation prior to the New Deal.

    We have no less an authority on this connection than Franklin Roosevelt himself. When FDR campaigned in 1932, he pointed to the Progressives – and in particular to Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the source of his ideas about government.

    In terms of the personalities who made up the Progressive movement, some are familiar to us and others are less so. The movement was comprised of well known politicians like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt; but it was also comprised of intellectuals and writers who are less well known but who have been very influential in America. There were folks like John Dewey, who was America’s public philosopher for much of the early 20th century. Even less well known was Herbert Croly, but Croly was highly influential, since he founded and was the first editor of The New Republic – which became the main organ of Progressive opinion in the United States, and is still one of the most important journals on the Left today. I should add here that Woodrow Wilson actually fell into both of these categories – he was both a well known politician and president, but also was, for decades prior to his entry into politics, a prominent intellectual (a college professor and president of Princeton) who wrote many books and influential articles.

    As I’ll explain in my next piece, these Progressives wanted a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills. Here’s the order of the points we’ll consider in the pieces to follow:

    1) What did Progressives think about the American founding, and why did they want to eradicate its principles?

    2) How did we get today’s excessively powerful presidency from the Progressives?

    3) What was the connection between Progressivism and Socialism? Were the Progressives actually Socialists?

    4) What are some of the critical connections between Progressivism and what’s going on in our country today?

    For more on the Progressives, two of my books may be of interest:

    1) American Progressivism, which I co-edited with American historian William Atto, contains a basic introduction to progressive ideas written by Professor Atto and me, and then several selections from the actual writings of Progressives like Wilson, TR, Dewey, Croly, and others.

    2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, which is a much more in-depth look at Woodrow Wilson and how he was central to originating the liberalism that dominates America today. This is for those who are really interested in history and political theory.

  9. I tell you Chris, this is the best blog because I get a kick out of Brucie's insanely asinine comments. They actually bring me to tears of laughter sometimes.

    "We need to spend more." Just when you think he can't get any dumber, he does! Remember, it's easy for people who don't pay taxes, to love it when other people have to pay taxes (for them).

    He's completely feeble minded when he doesn't recognize what happens to all countries when they keep on printing more and more money.

    Keep the posts coming though Brucie - they're so entertaining.

  10. Very well said Anon. I'm laughing my butt off. Thanks. I see the 'Progressives' are out in full force. Maybe they think they can make a change in Obamas State of the Union address. I seen some of the left wing blogs and they are plenty made at Obama. Somehow they think he is catering to the right. It looks like they will start their rallies/riots to try and make Obama and Congress do their bidding. One blog said they will see if he talks like a progressive or a moderate tomorrow for the address. I just hope they haven't lost hope and do something stupid. They sound desperate to me. Maybe it's their liberal death roll.

  11. It's not just me saying we need to invest more, it is respected economists. You silly conservatives can deride me all you want. There is a difference between what is the politically right thing to do and what is right to do as economic policy to bring us out of what is essentially a depression.

  12. Laughing with tears in my eyes again!!!

  13. An economist says some of President Obama's plans to help the middle class are important, while others are mere "window dressing," yet unfortunately none of the proposals address the country's out-of-control spending binge.

    President Obama reportedly will use his first State of the Union speech tomorrow to outline a plan to help middle-class families. According to the New York Times, the president will call for doubling tax credits for childcare, capping some student loan payments, and a requirement that all employers provide the option of a work-based retirement savings plan.

    A senior Obama administration official says the main themes of the president's address will be "creating good jobs, addressing the deficit, helping the middle class, and changing Washington."

    So why is Obama doing this if it means nothing? Obama still has $500 billion in stimulus that hasn't been spent. I voted for the man and if you think that is OK then you are on crack. We are dieing on the vine and there is still money not spent. What is he waiting for? How about bitching to Obama who is in charge to start spending that money or give it back. Because if he keeps waiting it will be too late for the Democrats come election time. 3/4 of Americans think that the Democrats did a bad job with the stimulus. I agree. Bruce stop being an idealogue and try to get the money we already have coming to us before you ask for more. It only makes you and the Democrats look dumb when you ask for more money when they haven't spent what they have yet. I've never been so ashamed of the Democratic Party as I am right now. And don't get me started with the health care bill. The Democrats had a clkean shot of having a public option and they screwed it up.

  14. Bruce Would a Economist in HIS Right MIND Advise a Person Facing Bankruptsy to SPEND More Money and That Will Make your FINANCIAL Situation BETTER! Bruce Please Tell Me Your Not a Teacher!

    Most Citizens are Depressed Bruce Because Nobama Cared MORE about HIS Agenda Nobama Care than he DID Citizens Regarding JOBS and Economy! Nobama Just Started talking About JOBS after Massacusetts Voters Spoke! Now Blue Dogs are Paying MORE Attention to Citizens Bruce Something Nobama could Give a Rats Ass About!

    Also understand that Several Democratic and Republicans in Congress Have Sent a LETTER to Holder Requesting He Revisit his Plan to Try Terrorist in Criminal Court. Citizens are United in their Opposition to these CIRCUS Trials! I Believe Holder will Disregard the Letter and will Grant These Terrorist there Platform to Spread there Hate Around the World! Bruce These Trials Will Assure Nobamas Legacy as ONE TERMER, Citizens Will Really be Pissed Once these Political Pay Back Trials Begin Bruce SO keep Your Kool Aide Handy!

  15. Al, thats a simple way of looking at things, but not a correct way. Yes, many economists have said the stimulus was too small, that we need more, that we should have learned the lessons from Japan and started early and often.

    You can come up with whatever simple little analogies you want but the field of economics is deeper than personal bancruptcy.

  16. i looked at the faux story and there's no data in it. The report things, but they don't source their data or even graph it.

  17. Actually Al, John, Chris, if you look at the facts, President Obama's economic policies have been a success.
    President Obama's Economic Policies a Success

  18. Chris, I happen to agree with you the the spending freeze is just a gimmick, not to mention the absolutely wrong economic policy at this point in time.

  19. President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs — but the government still needs to do more USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

    Unemployment would have hit 10.8% — higher than December's 10% rate — without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
    USA Today Economic Survey

  20. Why would the economist say the stimulus is too small when $500 billion of it hasn't been spent yet? It's not too small. It's too slow and it's not going to the right places. The economist must think that all $787 billion of the3 stimulus has been used. But they didn't give the biggest variable in the equation. They only used $287 billion so far. So when the economist are saying its too small what they are really saying is that the Stilmulus bill wasn't designed right. And the govt isn't using the money efficentlly. And this BS about saving jobs is just that. Reality is we have LOST over 2 million jobs since the failed Stimulus bill. But you keep decieving the populus about the Stimulus Bill not being big enough so you can get the TARP money. But I think if we are starving for money and we haven't spent enough like you say they better get on the ball and push the other 70% that is on their plate before asking for more. It only looks dumb to say you are still hungry and NEED more when your plate isn't empty. Unless you just want to spend for the sake of spending the future generations money. Then keep asking for more money by all means. Maybe the world is coming to an end in 2012 and they need the money to build an ark. BWAAAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAAHA.

  21. This is right out of my local paper.By Mitch Hotts, Macomb Daily Staff Writer

    Several dozen activists on Tuesday endured below-freezing temperatures in Oak Park in a rally aimed at pressuring Senate Democrats to push forward with health care reform.

    About 50 people attended the event organized by MoveOn.org, a liberal action group, on Coolidge Highway in front of Oak Park High School during the afternoon rush hour.

    "We want to let Democrats know we're watching them and what they do," said Marcina Cole of Oak Park, one of the organizers.

    The rally was one of more than 150 events held across the country, including four others in Michigan.

    Holding signs with messages such as "Dems — Time to Fight" and chanting slogans like "We can't wait, the risk is much too great," the activists were greeted by motorists honking their horns as they drove by.

    Cassandra Ford, 55, a retired General Motors worker from Eastpointe, said she was willing to brave the cold weather to rally for people such as her mother, who has to spend more than $200 each month for her medications.

    "We sent the Democrats to Washington to work for the American people," Ford said. "I see them backing up on this

    issue when they should be going forward."

    The rally was designed to kick start the health care debate following last week's election of Republican Scott Brown to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat.

    With Brown's election, the Democrats have lost their filibuster-proof supermajority which could bog down the progress of health care legislation.

    Carolyn Apsey, a retired nurse from Royal Oak, said her message to the Democrats was simple: "I think we need to kick them in the butt a little to get them going."

    Rally participants hope President Obama's State of the Union address tonight will help revive the momentum of an overhaul of the nation's health care system to provide universal coverage.

    Joanne Braund, 70, a retired secretary from Warren's GM Tech Center, said she and her retired husband are fortunate enough to have health care coverage.

    "But what really bothers me that so many others have nothing and nowhere to go. I think the Democrats need to stand tough on this issue and if they go down, they should go down fighting," said Braund, a Royal Oak resident.

    Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, both Democrats, did not immediately respond to phone calls for comment.

  22. Did you notice Moveon.org had to organize it? Does that mean its not a grass roots movement?

  23. Sounds to me like another union member want to stick someone for her medicine bills. It's nice to see they had all union people there as they know they wont have to pay for the health care bill but they will get free meds.

  24. Chris, you really are a moron. MoveOn is grassroots, not supported by corporations.

  25. Bruce If You Measure Success by JOBS theres ABOUT 7 Million Citizens that are ASKING What the HELL you Talking ABOUT! I DONT Beleive Unemployment Checks is a Measure of Success!

    JoeC If Economics is a Little DEEPER Than Personel BANKRUPTSY than You have JUST Stated WHAT is the Disconnect Between CITIZENS and This Administration Joe! Citizens WANT Jobs! This Administrations EXCUSES are WEARING Thin on ALL Citizens and Massachusetts was the FIRST Chance Citizens Have HAD to VOICE there Displeasure With Administration! Cant Wait to Hear NOBAMA Tonight and HEAR What he has to SAY. Seems Like JOBS/ECONOMY have Almost Over Night Become IMPORTANT to the Administration!

  26. Bruce it's a joke. You can dish it out but you can't take it. Movementon.org is funded by Soros and other Uber rich progressives and progressive organizations like the federaly funded ACORN.
    Bruce did you go to the Oak Park BM rally?

  27. AL very well said. I hope they keep disconnected till 2012.

  28. Al, that's not true. Jobs have been a main focus since day one. The stimulus passed less than a month after he took office.

    MoveOn is mostly funded by people giving small amounts of money from almost 5 million members.

    Chris, I noticed you haven't posted anything about James O'Keefe and his cohorts getting arrested for trying to plant bugs in Senator Mary Landrieu's office and facing 10 years minimum in jail.

  29. Wow Bruce, $787 Billion to save 1.2 million jobs. Impressive. That translates to $655,833 per job. Way to go Obummer. He's an economic genius.

    Well it's going to be interesting isn't it Bruce when your granddaughter and probably her kids have to pay for this spending spree. But let's not think about that.

  30. Look at FAILk lying again. ALMOST 5 million members??!?! Well then if 4.2 million is almost 5 million members then Bush beat Gore by a landslide in Florida. Dumbass.

    Al is absolutely right. Obummer have not been a focus. Socialist policy has been the focus. Grabbing whatever power they can and paying off their Big Insurance, Big Pharma, Unions and Trial Lawyers, as well as all their other Big Corporation bribers ... er... lobbyists has been their focus. Give us a break FAILk with your lies.

  31. Bruce If O'Keefe is Tried He is Entitled to the Same Rights AS the Terrorist and Should Not be PreJudged as YOU of All People SEEM to Be Doing! If in Fact Hes Found Guilty BY a Jury of HIS Peers than Indeed HE Should Be Punished to the Full Extent of the LAW! By the Way are ANY Charges Pending YET Regarding that ACORN Thingy,You Know Whore House and Under Aged Forgein Girls with TAX PAYERS MONEY!

    Bruce if JOBS WERE Number ONE on this Administrations Agenda I Guess if You Count Big Banks and Auto Companies WELL DONE. If Your Speaking About the 7 Million Citizens UNEMPLOYED ooooPs!

  32. If jobs where the main focus from day one like you say then why has only $287 billion of the $787 billion been spent with an aditional 2 million people unemployed? Aren't those jobs created or saved union jobs Bruce? Bruce there are a lot of things I haven't posted on Bruce. So what? The kid did something dumb and he is an idiot. Did you post anything about the guy that killed himself and made it look like Republicans did it? Or what about the pro life march in DC? Did you post anything on the Rally in Oak Park? In the scope of everything going on Bruce I don't care about some idiot i-spy kid going too far and breaking the law. You think it is a big deal because you want it to be. Have your laughs about him and lets talk about Obama saying he would rather be a "good one term President then a bad two term President". Where are my posts on that Bruce? Obama says one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from an American President and I didn't make a post on it? You really are a political dinamo Bruce? If you want to cover all the anicdotal stuff that is going on in this country have at it. Or just quote Mao and Maddow's show every day. PS I made an open thread so you can talk about anything you would like Bruce and everyone else.

  33. Aw, poor FAILk, somebody isn't posting something on their blog that he wants to talk about. Hey FAILk, last time I checked you had a circle-jerk blog where you can post anything you want to. What's the problem, nobody reads your rag?!?! ROFLMAO ... maybe it's because you block anybody who has valid points and arguments against your radical leftist BS. Why don't you post something about O'Keefe on your blog and then you and djpothead, vomamike, J. Higgins and Drew can lick each other's nuts about how great you all are?

    And besides, the last time you wanted Chris to blog about something he accommodated you and then suddenly you wanted to stop talking about it when it was revealed what a hypocrite and idiot you were. But then again, that never stopped you in the past! BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

  34. Hey FAILk, why don't you want to talk about Rock the Vote which is using government grants to push their regressive ideology on college and high school campuses? Wanna talk about that?

    What a hypocrite.

  35. I like this. Obummer says he wants a spending freeze and then right after his SOTU he's going to announce an $8B giveaway for high-speed rail lines. That nobody needs. And then, after the boondoggles are built, who pays to maintain them? What a farce this guy is. EPIC FAIL (Again).

  36. John, are you seriously saying nobody needs high-speed rail. Japan just announced the fastest rail in the world.

    I think just about everyone would disagree with you about the need for high-speed rail.

    What is it about you regressives? You don't want anything new, do you.

    Why don't you go back to the 18th century where your ideas were popular, before cars, before the Internet, before television.

  37. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... look at you FAILk, stealing my "regressives". You truly have NEVER had an original thought of your own, have you?

  38. I can give you BILLIONS of reasons why this high-speed rail line is a boondoggle. There isn't enough room. But I already led with one reason: Once this boondoggle, which will be built with favors being handed out, and will favor one construction company over another (choosing who wins and who loses), who pays to maintain? Just like the government currently subsidizes the REGULAR rail system and it is now MORE expensive, LESS reliable, and literally SLOWER than 20 years ago! Just like the BUS system that constantly requires GIVErnment subsidies and loses money hand over fist. There is NO NEED for the high-speed rail system. If there WAS it would have been BUILT by an entrepreneur you F**KING IDIOT FAILk.

    See, if people see a NEED, the FILL that need and make a BUCK. If the GIVErnment THINKS there is a NEED they use YOUR tax dollars to build it and then KEEP using your tax dollars to SUBSIDIZE it to keep it GOING.

    Try to use your head for more than just a hat-rack you dumbass.

  39. We are not Japan. Our country is not as dense as Japan or Europe. We have a rail system right now that is useless and very costly to the American tax payers. But you aren't one of those tax payers are you Bruce Fealk? I thought the future was electric cars? And how will people get around in the burbs and vast urban areas? America isn't one big city like Japan is.

  40. Hey EPIC FAILk, why don't you tell me one reason that a high speed rail system IS a good idea you dumb f**ker. Other than "because Japan is doing it". Because remember, Japan are the ones who still don't have gas pedal technology figured out on their Toyotas. So I'm not sure if you want to hold them up as the paragons of intelligence. Oh yeah, and what was it they called the 90's in Japan, oh yeah it was the lost decade because of their economic policies that Obummer is now trying to copy. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

  41. Thank you Anonymous, you are right on!

    These effing regressives still think that losing 2.2 jobs for every 1 green job produced is going to help our economy. They will flaunt the 1 million jobs that Obummer saved but they have a tough time making mention of the 2.2 million that his policies have cost.

  42. Whoops, that should have read They will flaunt the 1 million jobs that Obummer "saved" because we all know that number is a bunch of BS.

  43. John didn't Bruce say that it was a floor mate recall not a gas pedal recall from Toyota?

  44. Bruce said,,,

    "Why don't you go back to the 18th century where your ideas were popular, before cars, before the Internet, before television"

    Lets examine that statement; Al Gore & Co. including B. Hussein want to rid the world of cars,so THEY in fact want to "go back" and Bruce loves these guys.

    Al Gore "invented" the internet and B. Hussein wants (like communist China) wants to limit it crushing free-speech.Also a move backwards.

    As for TV, well that might not be bad once and until this communist leaves or is removed from office and takes CNN and msnbc with him.
    Keep in mind though that B. Hussein loves what his other socialist buddy Chavez is doing by SHUTTING down TV Broadcast stations in Venezuela.

    So no Bruce, not even close, almoet everyone DISAGREES WITH YOU. We do not "need" high speed rail. We need communists out of the way so we can move FORWARD.

  45. AMEN Christopher!

    Chris, yes FAILk did say it was the mats. I don't know if that was a previous problem, or if the previous problems were being attributed to the mats. But now Toyota has STOPPED all production of the (I believe it was 8) models affected and I believe they have stopped selling them until they can figure out why the gas pedal is sticking. So it might have been the mats before, or they might have mistaken the mats as being the problem. Either way FAILk is safe because Prius' are not one of the models from what I heard. But the Japanese still can't figure out gas pedal technology, which really hasn't changed much. And now there will be a massive recall and jobs across the world are affected, including jobs in the U.S.

  46. Christopher - I want to plug your blog here because you have a great idea to boycott Dear Reader's speech tonight: http://christopher-conservativeperspective.blogspot.com/2010/01/just-boycott-speech.html

    Although it would be interesting to watch and see if his pants do indeed catch on fire .... LOL

  47. Hey John ,Thanks, spread the word JUST BOYCOTT THE SOB.

    p.s. How can the devils pants catch fire,are they made for such conditions?

  48. John, I'll tell you why, idiot. Studies have proven that for every dollar spent on mass transit, it produces $6-7 in economic development. I think that alone is good enough reason. Not to mention the greenhouse emissions from all the cars on the road and the congestion.

    I visited New York City recently and stayed with my niece in Larchmont, about a 30 minute train/subway ride into the city. It cost less than driving and parking and I got to read the newspaper on the way into the city.

    You ought to try it sometime, John. Mass transit rocks.

    Want to find out more?
    The Economic Benefits of Mass Transit

  49. Wow you dumbass FAILk. Is your problem that you can't READ or that you can't COMPREHEND? Or a little of both. Where was I talking about mass transit in general?

    But okay, now you want to talk about mass transit. If it's so great, why must the government subsidize it (and do you yet know where subsidies come from FAILk? They're taxes chump). So you are paying for a system that you might not even use. And then when you DO use it, you pay again. Now the Detroit buses, which I have taken, are in terrible shape, the whole system is a mess, so guess what is going to have to happen dipshit Bruce? Throw more money at it. More taxpayer money. Again, if something is so great, then someone will find a way to develop it and make a buck at it. Otherwise the government has to subsidize it, in the form of TAXES.

    For instance, in New York an immigrant family started a business, much like Europe's maxi-taxi's, where they would pick you up at a certain time and drop you off in various spots, much like a taxi or bus but cheaper and more efficient. The transit union worked to get their business shut down. See, the government doesn't much like competition, especially if the competition is cheaper and cleaner and better. Too much competition in competition.

    Listen dumbass, I have no problem with buses and recognize their use. If I could take a bus I would, and I have taken buses in places you have never heard of. My problem, a-hole, is building a useless high-speed rail when we have an existing rail line that the government, through restrictions and subsidies, has steadily made worse. Worse shape, worse conditions, and the trip duration has gotten SLOWER through the years! I looked at taking a train to visit my brother, and it was crazy expensive and crazy slow. And now you want yet ANOTHER waste of money that we will, through the years, have to subsidize with our tax dollars to maintain? GET A F**KING CLUE FAILK. We're building roads right NOW that we can't afford to maintain!

    Like I have said, time and again, if it will make money it will get built and the jobs will come with it. If it WON'T make money, and will LOSE money, well then that's where your Hypocrats show up to fund it. Dumbasses.

    So FAILk, you might want to try THINKING sometime Bruce. Thinking about things ROCKS! Dumbass.

  50. Oh, and FAILk, which do you think is more fuel-efficient, a bus with the driver and two passengers on it, making multiple stops, or my car with just me in it cruising at 70mph on the highway? I bet you think it's the bus. Idiot.

  51. Bad news for more of FAILk's lies:

    Commuters are leaving mass transit for their cars, and they have their reasons

    By Mike Rosenberg
    Bay Area News Group
    Updated: 01/10/2010 12:41:41 PM PST



    Is green U.S. mass transit a big myth?

    As part of my research for an article on robotic cars and how they change so much of the world, I've been looking into the energy use of various forms of transportation.

    What I learned about public transit in the USA shocked me. I've been a fan of public transit, taking it where it's practical for me, and feeling green about it. That transit is a significantly greener way to get around than private car travel almost goes without saying in our thoughts and discussions.

    Disturbingly, this simply isn't true. I started by pulling out various numbers on the energy used per passenger mile of various forms of transportation. These numbers can be found in places like the U.S. government bureau of transportation statistics figures and the Dept. of Energy Transportation Energy Data Book (Especially table 2-12). I've also found tables broken down per city.


  52. Bruce, if it mass transit made that kind of money then why hasn't the private sector picked up on it yet? Does the people mover make money in Detroit. What about Amtrak? I also like mass transit and used it when I lived in Japan. But this isn't New York and America isn't one big city you bobblehead. Are you planing on moving everyone into the city so we can have mass transit? Why don't you take a bus Bruce instead of you Toyota Pius? Why doesn't your wife and kids and everyone in your family? Because it would be dumb wouldn't it?

  53. Once again John thank you for educating Bruce. Have you ever thought about teaching special ed. John? Because you are good at it with Bruce.lol

  54. Political pundits often call the Republican party the fiscally responsible party. However, as this post will prove, that's a lie, a big fat one.

    Question 1: Which modern President added $4.9 trillion to the national debt?
    If you guessed Carter or Clinton, you'd be wrong.

    Correct Answer: George W. Bush (Republican)

    Question 2: Which modern President turned a deficit into a surplus? George H.W. Bush? Wrong. It was Democrat, Bill Clinton.

    Question 3: Which modern President nearly tripled the national debt? Jimmy Carter? Nope. Ronald Reagan

    In fact, President Carter increased the national debt by 42%

    Ronald Reagan increased the national debt 189%

    George H.W. Bush 55%

    Bill Clinton 36%

    George W. Bush 89%

    So, the next time you hear pundits saying how Republicans are the party that does better handling the deficit and the nation's credit card, know that it's a lie, a big fat one.


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.