Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
Obama isnt even in office yet,and he wants to give the U.N. billions of dollars.What a f***in joke.Before any money leaves this country for the U.N. or Africa or any other helpless group of losers,it should be out of debt!!The U.S. owes trillions to China,do you see China sending money anywhere for FREE?They are stupid for lending it to a country with no accountability.Who dreams up these stupid ideas of generosity?Ill tell you who.People that are wealthy enough that it doesnt faze their lives.Africa doesnt need money,they need sterilization of all their women.If adults are starving why would they have children to suffer the same life style?
Because they are stupid ,ignorant and dont have a clue of responsibility.
The U.N. has never supported the U.S. under any circumstance besides us sending money to their ignorant cause.Tell me what the U.N. has done for this country.Not a f***in thing.Now we have a clown wanting to send them money that doesnt exist.The big 3 facade posing as auto makers is absurd.Their products have been obsolete for 15 years now.The only reason they have lasted this long is the illegal Mexicans buy their trucks like hot cakes.But when they are done using them they are repossesed by banks that have to be bailed out.Only a complete idiot would think of this country sending money anywhere.
Obama gives away the country
|
Posted By: degaselli Posted on: Dec. 3, 2008 at 11:03 PM  32 Comments
|
3.0 / 5
Based on 4 ratings.
|
*This article was filtered, login or change your preferences to remove language filter.
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Dec. 4, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM
|
|
| They are stupid for lending it to a country with no accountability.Who dreams up these stupid ideas of generosity? Yeah. It's stupid to invest in good will. It's much better to inspire hatred of us by starting expensive preemptive wars and torturing people. Much better to go bankrupt in never-ending conflict while expanding the ranks of our enemies. Much better to pay people not to shoot at us. That's smart money, isn't it degaselli? You deserve a President Palin. In fact, you should be her UN Ambassador. Maybe then you can trot out your forced sterilization of poor people policy. But do the world a favor, and lead by example: sterilize yourself first. |
||
|
Dec. 4, 2008 at 03:38:42 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Dec. 4, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Dec. 4, 2008 at 02:26:12 PM They are stupid for lending it to a country with no accountability.Who dreams up these stupid ideas of generosity? Yeah. It's stupid to invest in good will. It's much better to inspire hatred of us by starting expensive preemptive... View this Comment Take your"good will" to the store,and let us know what you could buy with it...... |
||
|
Dec. 4, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
| We are broke! We don't have the luxury of helping out other countries. We have homeless starving people right here, lets stop being the sugar daddy to the world and first take care of our own.
|
||
|
|
Dec. 4, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by My 2 cents on Dec. 4, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM]
My 2 cents
Dec. 4, 2008 at 03:57:54 PM We are broke! We don't have the luxury of helping out other countries. We have homeless starving people right here, lets stop being the sugar daddy to the world and first take care of our own. ... View this Comment Who "broke" us 2 cents? We don't have the luxury of doing things the way we have been doing: at great expense and with the exact opposite of promised results. The "my way or the highway" foreign policy we have followed has failed us miserably, and now we can't afford it even if wanted to. I so much like it when neocons suddenly go all budgetary on me. Where was that fiscal responsibility when the guys you voted for were spending our billions and robbing our futures? Did they spend the money on infrastructure and education? Nope, they spent it on image-building wars and on tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. That's the neocon way. That's the way the Republicans chose to embrace. There is s*** spending that you Republicans do, which does nothing to add to our bottom line, nothing to protect us, nothing to improve our health or manufacturing base, and nothing to build important strategic relationships with the rest of the world. In fact, Republican spending seems to do the exact opposite: bleed us dry and turns the rest of the world against us. Then there is the spending that Democrats want to do, that rebuilds our long neglected infrastructure, keeps us healthy and educated (ready to compete with the rest of the world), heightens our security, enables diplomacy and mutually beneficial international cooperation, and actually gives us a return on our tax dollar. That kind of spending is an investment. That kind of spending costs pennies on the dollar that will be ultimately returned to us. You know what they say: You can't make money without spending it. It's not that spending is wrong in economic hard times; it's that wasteful spending is always WRONG, and smart spending is long overdue. And as for "sugar daddy" international aid, imagine if we had alloted a billion dollars aid to build western style schools in Pakistan during the 80s and 90s, instead of letting Wahabi-run madrasas fill the void. There wouldn't have been an Al Queda worth talking about, let alone a trillion plus war on terror. |
||
|
|
Dec. 5, 2008 at 01:43:35 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Dec. 4, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Dec. 4, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM Who "broke" us 2 cents? We don't have the luxury of doing things the way we have been doing: at great expense and with the exact opposite of promised results. The "my way or the highway" foreign policy we have... View this Comment For your information,the Clinton 8 year give away program started the "lets get poor people into owning houses.Clinton's neglect of foreign trade was another add on, that snow balled into the U.S. getting bombarded with cheap imports with no regulation.Iam no republican,but i can tell you that the demo way of "giving" is what hurts this country.Wait till all the illegal scum is granted citizenship.The Mexican invasion is always fueled by liberal sorry ass democrats,and they will eventually take over the U.S.Health care??All the illegals will have it for free,because the legal's will be paying for it just like they do now.. |
||
|
Dec. 5, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM
|
|
| i have to agree... being the leader of a country should mean only two things to the person in charge: the safety and well-being of the people that live in it as legal citizens, and improving the quality of life for them and only them. this country does not need to be run like a bank or business. it needs to be run like a country. |
||
|
|
Dec. 5, 2008 at 12:23:17 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by degaselli on Dec. 5, 2008 at 01:43:35 AM]
degaselli
Dec. 5, 2008 at 01:43:35 AM For your information,the Clinton 8 year give away program started the "lets get poor people into owning houses.Clinton's neglect of foreign trade was another add on, that snow balled into the U.S. getting bombarded with cheap imports with no... View this Comment It's nice to see a response from you that doesn't involve black dick. Clinton didn't instigate a policy of putting poor people in houses. He did push for making home ownership a reality for more people. That is, as we have been told, the American Dream, and Republicans were "elated" with this aspect of Clinton's economic policy. The Tax Reform Act of 1997 increased the tax incentive for home ownership, including allowing a $250K(single)/$500K(married) tax-exempt write off of capital gains from the sale of a primary residence every two years. Republicans fully supported this. Bush also spoke glowingly about the merits of home ownership; and when they are increasing in value, home ownership is a great thing. Too bad the deregulation of the banks and lenders that Bush promoted to put all Americans in homes, also allowed people that never should have qualified for a loan to buy homes they obviously could not afford if homes ever decreased in value. So Clinton created tax policy and incentives for home ownership, but he did not promote the giving away of loans for people to get these homes, just so the originators of these loans could pocket huge profits while the con-game lasted. That's Bush's doing, and the reason it all went bust. You have more of a case against Clinton when it comes to trade policy. Of course, eliminating trade barriers and entering into treaties like NAFTA and CAFTA were immensely popular with big business and Republicans. I didn't see Bush attempting to reverse what Clinton had started when he got in office. He expanded on it, in fact. I for one am all for intelligent tariffs and a reasonable degree of protectionist trade policy. We need to compete with foreign companies on a level playing field, and that can't be done when China has a labor force that will make a widget for 3 cents a day. That's where tariffs come in. So what does this have to do with giving it away until it hurts? Your attacking Democrats for groundless GOP revisionist history talking points, and not on the facts. Spending on a nation's workforce, infrastructure, technology, and education is a necessary investment, not an extravagance. The answer is not that this impoverished nation can't afford it, but that it must be done if we are to have any future. Spending a dollar today on real national security and worldwide goodwill will save us hundreds of dollars tomorrow. When millions of people grow up to hate you, there is no amount of military spending that will ever make you safe. But when these millions of people grew up admiring you for your good deeds, then you won't have to fight them. |
||
|
|
Dec. 5, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM
|
|
[This is a reply to comment by The Antichrist on Dec. 5, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM]
The Antichrist
Dec. 5, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM i have to agree... being the leader of a country should mean only two things to the person in charge: the safety and well-being of the people that live in it as legal citizens, and improving the quality of life for them and only them. this country does... View this Comment I'm all for improving the quality of life for Americans as the number one goal this country has. But the right kind of charity outside our borders is absolutely necessary to improving our quality of life. You can help others, and yourself as well. It's not all or nothing. I already gave the example of building western style schools in poor desperate areas of the world, instead of leaving the education of the next generation in the hands of Islamic fundamentalist outreach organizations. That way you teach these people the true merits of an open-society, and not the intolerant hatred of the infidels. I wouldn't even call such spending overseas charity; it is national security spending. The same is true for jobs programs in other poor areas, that are currently addressing their economic needs by growing opium or piratry on the high seas. There are hundreds of other examples. Charitable deeds like international aid are not a waste of time or a luxury we cannot afford. The international goodwill it generates is priceless. We must afford it, just like we must provide for the defense and welfare of our own people. In fact, they are the same thing. |
||
|
|
Dec. 5, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM
|
Rating for this article
|
[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Dec. 4, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM]
www.MoronInCharge.com
Dec. 4, 2008 at 06:18:19 PM Who "broke" us 2 cents? We don't have the luxury of doing things the way we have been doing: at great expense and with the exact opposite of promised results. The "my way or the highway" foreign policy we have... View this Comment I hate it when the Dimocrits don't tell you the entire truth...You failed to mention that congress runs this country. So who ruled congress when Clinton was in office? The Republicans! For 6 yrs..... Terrorists planned 9-11 when Clinton was in office then Bush was left to deal with it. The cost of two wars didn't help the budget... Lets see how Obama stops future attacks, keeps us safe, lower healthcare costs, cuts taxes, and balance the budget.....AS HE CUTS military spending!! But hey, if the Bush administration allowed another 9-11 we wouldn't be talking about the budget, would we? Lets also watch how the Dimocritic congress continues to destroy this country... According to the Dimo-critics we are the bad guys; we have to borrow money to give to other countries so they will "like us", instead we should be building up our military defense and looking out for people in this country first. Its going to be a challenge getting men and women to join the military when you have the progressives spitting on you, protesting against you, kicking you off campuses, and NOW you can't even count on your own presidents support!! BUT....maybe Obama didn't mean all those things he said when he was running for office, we can only hope! |
||
Report Abuse