Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama: 'We Don't Believe Anybody Is Entitled to Success in This Country'

page: 12
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

1. According to a study of Federal Reserve data conducted by NYU professor Edward Wolff, for the nation’s richest 1%, inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989. (The 2001 number was the latest available.


blogs.wsj.com...


Less than 10% of today's "millionaires" inherited their money.


So you can read my posts?
Just not the ones addressing the stupid things you wrote in this thread?
Whatever.
So how many of them does that poster know? I did not see that stat in your post anywhere. I was curious how he knew so many rich people.

How about instead of answering for other people, you attempt to address ANY OF THE ON TOPIC POSTS written to you.

I am guessing you either cannot or are afraid to.




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun
How would you expect me to?

It's not the same as what I requested of buster. He would provide statistics from a legitimate source.

Me...you want...what, exactly


So you can just make any claims you want, but other people need to back theirs up?
Odd set of rules you gave yourself there.

He said something and you did not believe it so you asked him to back it up.
Are you asking me to trust you?
If you cannot back it up, what good is it to say to begin with?

I am just curious why in the same post you would ask someone else to back up something they wrote, then write something yourself you refuse to back up.
You must be entitled to answers while others are not.

Damn, I said entitled. I might accidentally get this thread on topic again and last time I got a post removed for it.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator
The reason America is failing is because the taxes need to be lower and lower (for the rich people)

For example when George Bush took office, gas was at $1.15 - the summer before he left office gas
was $4.50 - that nearly 400% jump is because when he lower taxes for them twice, he didn't lower them
enough. It is also because when Dick Cheney had those private meeting with oil companies he made
them sad and so they needed to charge 4 times as much money to pay for therapy.


Damn you and your logic, sense, and remembering what actually happened. Your ability to recall facts and put them together in a logical manner is totally #ing this thread up.


Who cares anyways?

Gas is cheap, it's not like people on ATS buy gas!
edit on 6-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)


I know I am building a perpetual motion machine and water powered harrier jet. This time it will work!!!!

I just talk about gas to toss around buzzwords that strike a chord with the random straggler that might happen upon ATS by accident and think - "Gas?" I buy gas, let me read this.

Personally, I feel really bad for the oil companies. Just because they raised prices with no correlating cause and just happened to make record profits does not mean they are doing ok. They need subsidies. And all us ATSers with our PM machines are not helping so it just makes sense to give oil companies tax money so they do not suffer.
How would you feel if they did not make record profits next year? Would you be able to sleep at night, you commie?!?!?!?!?!?!

Oil companies are entitled to money. That is the bottom line of this thread, right?
You take your facts and logic elsewhere. It really throws Neo off his game and Beezzers "wife" is not here to help him out apparently.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. The thread topic.

Neo, can you answer simple basic questions written in English? I need to know. If not, say so and I will avoid asking them and even try to hold back this pain in the ass that keeps tossing reality into your thread and ruining it.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by campanionator
He tried to work out healthcare with the Republicans, or do you forget?


How could they work with him on that atrocity called Obamacare? It was written by Republicans so they know they do not want any part of anything they came up with.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The Bush tax cuts only for the rich eh?

Then Why is Obama fighting to keep those tax cuts for incomes up to 250 thousand eh?

could be because those bush tax cuts benefited everyone.

www.huffingtonpost.com...





Who are you talking to?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter

Originally posted by Gridrebel
The blame game????again????? Yet you ignore the fact he had the first two years as an open book, anything he wanted. Why do people seem to forget this?


Because the Republicans with filibuster power used a record number of filibusters to stop anything and everything including bills sponsored and written by Republicans just to stop them.

Why do you pretend that did not happen?
Do you feel ENTITLED to your own set of facts?

Ha, see what I did there.
I tried to get back on topic again.



NOOOOO. Do you know what an open book is?? He had the house and the senate for two years. Please study your political science. How do you think he was able to get passed all that he did?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has embraced the argument that President Obama was able to pass every bit of his legislative agenda in his first two years thanks to large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It’s intended as a counterpoint to the President’s re-election strategy of attacking the congressional GOP as do-nothing obstructionists. But it’s also a revisionist history of the 111th Congress, during which McConnell more than any other Republican in Washington stood athwart Obama’s agenda to great effect.

The White House has “been trying to pretend like the President just showed up yesterday, just got sworn in and started fresh,” McConnell declared Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “In fact, he’s been in office for three years. He got everything he wanted from a completely compliant Congress for two of those three years… We are living in the Obama economy.”

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




So ATS is really just a place to say things that are not true, be partisan, and then ignore all responses and go off topic?
I am sorry. I attempted to discuss the topic of this thread within this thread.

That was my bad.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by Andcoulter

Originally posted by Gridrebel
The blame game????again????? Yet you ignore the fact he had the first two years as an open book, anything he wanted. Why do people seem to forget this?


Because the Republicans with filibuster power used a record number of filibusters to stop anything and everything including bills sponsored and written by Republicans just to stop them.

Why do you pretend that did not happen?
Do you feel ENTITLED to your own set of facts?

Ha, see what I did there.
I tried to get back on topic again.



NOOOOO. Do you know what an open book is?? He had the house and the senate for two years. Please study your political science. How do you think he was able to get passed all that he did?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has embraced the argument that President Obama was able to pass every bit of his legislative agenda in his first two years thanks to large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It’s intended as a counterpoint to the President’s re-election strategy of attacking the congressional GOP as do-nothing obstructionists. But it’s also a revisionist history of the 111th Congress, during which McConnell more than any other Republican in Washington stood athwart Obama’s agenda to great effect.

The White House has “been trying to pretend like the President just showed up yesterday, just got sworn in and started fresh,” McConnell declared Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “In fact, he’s been in office for three years. He got everything he wanted from a completely compliant Congress for two of those three years… We are living in the Obama economy.”

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...



All that he passed?

You guys cannot decide if he is a do nothing president or did way too much. It changes with each new argument. I cannot discuss the sky with someone who believes the sky is beige and made of fluffy cotton balls suspended in liquid.

Can we agree on what a fact actually is?


Yes or no.

Did the Republicans use a record number of filibusters to stop legislation in those two years?
This is a simple yes or no question.
The answer is a fact, not an opinion.
edit on 6-10-2012 by Andcoulter because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Those democratic congressman held power for longer than 2 years from 2006-2010 they held the majority.

Then for those 2 years they held all 3 branches, and some people think others will buy "the rights filibusters".

To someone else::

Learn some manners, lose the condescending attitude a conversation might be had.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter

Originally posted by moniesisfun
How would you expect me to?

It's not the same as what I requested of buster. He would provide statistics from a legitimate source.

Me...you want...what, exactly


So you can just make any claims you want, but other people need to back theirs up?
Odd set of rules you gave yourself there.


This is a lie. If I could reasonably back up the claim, I would. Your request is absurd. You're reasoning is illogical.


He said something and you did not believe it so you asked him to back it up.
Are you asking me to trust you?
If you cannot back it up, what good is it to say to begin with?


I don't care if you trust me. It's anecdotal evidence. You can choose to see it as invalid. I don't care.


I am just curious why in the same post you would ask someone else to back up something they wrote, then write something yourself you refuse to back up.


I have already given you an adequate response.

You have chosen to not accept my answer as valid. You have chosen not to reply to my question:

How would I reasonably do this?

You're just trolling.

Consider yourself cut off from feed.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
NOOOOO. Do you know what an open book is??


Do you?
An open book is something easily examined within.
How the hell does that relate?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter


The answer is a fact, not an opinion.



Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.


Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill

The game is played by both sides.



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


You really are trying hard to ignore me. I am guessing you are trying to get me banned as well because you are not at all happy with what has happened in your thread here.
You put it out there.
Why don't you just discuss the actual topic you started?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Andcoulter


The answer is a fact, not an opinion.



Senate Republicans want a 60-vote threshold for a debt-limit bill to pass the chamber, but it's actually Democrats who are enforcing the filibuster on their own legislation, insisting on delaying a vote until 1 a.m. Sunday morning.


Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill

The game is played by both sides.





Yeah because that makes any sense at all.
My question was DID THE REPUBLICANS USE A RECORD NUMBER OF FILIBUSTERS TO STOP LEGISLATION IN THOSE TWO YEARS.

Your answer "Democrats filibustered a thing."



Is yes or not too complicated?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Yeah I really do not even give a crap who you know. Honestly, it was not really a question I cared about. I do actually care about the thread topic though.
Do you know what it is?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Those democratic congressman held power for longer than 2 years from 2006-2010 they held the majority.

Then for those 2 years they held all 3 branches, and some people think others will buy "the rights filibusters".

To someone else::

Learn some manners, lose the condescending attitude a conversation might be had.


Oh, ok.
Neo, can you answer any on topic questions in this thread, please?
I am guessing polite does not work since it did not work way back in the beginning of the thread but whatever it takes to limit excuses.

I will go this far just for you.

I am so sorry for any of my posts that seemed rude. Having you respond as you did in the beginning of the thread kind of set me off. Then your buddy demeaning me rubbed it in. But hey, that is all on me. I apologize from the bottom of my heart and would just absolutely love to discuss this topic with you in a friendly and polite manner.

Can we now?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Those democratic congressman held power for longer than 2 years from 2006-2010 they held the majority.

Then for those 2 years they held all 3 branches, and some people think others will buy "the rights filibusters".

To someone else::

Learn some manners, lose the condescending attitude a conversation might be had.


Could you please tell me if the Republicans used a record number of filibusters to stop legislation in that time? Yes or no?



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter



I approve of this message




posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Andcoulter


Your answer "Democrats filibustered a thing."



Is yes or not too complicated?


Yes.

Then again, Harry Reid has WON 69% of all of them. I would say the Dems, have a great record, at winning them.

Here's something that i THINK is telling though......


On Dec. 18, McConnell took to the floor to highlight what he called majority Democrat’s “dubious record” of “denying the minority its right to amendment a total of 43 times.” McConnell noted that Frist, over a similar four-year period, used the procedure known as filling the amendment tree, only 15 times to prevent then-minority Democrats from offering amendments. “The current Majority has blocked the minority from offering amendments more often than the last six Majority Leaders combined,” McConnell asserted.


Reid Set a Filibuster Record


Heres some bipartisanship......




A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday. In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president’s blueprint. It’s the second year in a row the Senate has voted down Obama’s budget.


Senate rejects Obama budget in 99-0 vote


Obama is hopeless..............



posted on Oct, 6 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Andcoulter


Your answer "Democrats filibustered a thing."



Is yes or not too complicated?


Yes.


OK, how were they able to do that if the Dems had total control?
Sorry but I am avoiding the tap dancing so I can keep it simple and polite.
That seems best for all of us.
Even polite cannot help some people answer simple questions, that much is clear in this thread.

So let's keep it simple.

How could they do that if Dems had control to pass anything they wanted?









new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join