DescentBB

Then why are so many people collecting food stamps:

Despite the unemployment rate being at an eight-year low (4.9 percent as of January 2016), the number of people on food stamps remains near an all-time high which was 47,636,000 in 2013.

Yup Obama, unlike Reagan, has given us a wonderful economy. All the more reason to vote for someone who actually understands how to succeed...like Trump.

There are different types of success, Trump only knows how to succeed by driving the less fortunate into poverty. I can guarantee you he would only make this worse.

this speaks, largely, to Sanders message,if we have to tie this to politics. We've moved to a point where a LOT of people, working full or nearly full time, still make too little to NOT be eligible for food assistance. As for the economy, it's doing fine overall. However, unless dividends and other capital gains are your source of income, you might not realize it. Hence, the whole thrust of Sanders' message.

And we should put another Dem in power that really has not clue as to how America can become great again? After 8 years I think we need to radically shake things up by putting Trump in power. If he turns out to be a complete ass like Obama then we can un-elect him in 4 years.

woodchip wrote:And we should put another Dem in power that really has not clue as to how America can become great again?

there is precisely where you loons go off the rails. America IS great, never stopped being so. We have the strongest economy, strongest military, most wealth, and decent living conditions overall. We are merely suggesting a re-alignment so as to no allow that strength to concentrate solely into the hands of a few. You are selling gloom and doom, and declaring some sort of horrid decline in the US. It just isn't so, but, ironically, the people feeding you that pablum are HEAVILY vested in that narrow concentration of wealth at the expense of over 90% of the public.

After 8 years I think we need to radically shake things up by putting Trump in power. If he turns out to be a complete ass like Obama then we can un-elect him in 4 years.

sorry, but 4 minutes of that incompetent boob is too long to trust him.

Sorry slick, but by all appearances, you are a part of the controlling elite looking to keep a grasp on influence. You are terrified of Trump winning because then you lose all your influence. A shake up is coming and you will not be part of it.

woodchip wrote: Yup Obama, unlike Reagan, has given us a wonderful economy.

first off, if you think the economy of 2016 resembles that of 1986, that might explain some of your daily confusion. Reagan, by the way, sent
us into the recession that required Bush I to tax us to overcome budget shortfalls, and led to the Clinton election wherein we DID manage to figure out how to grow the economy and balance the federal budget.

All the more reason to vote for someone who actually understands how to succeed...like Trump.

most out-of-jail jewelry thieves succeed, too, until they get caught. Winning without ethics is not the nation I wish to see, nor the principle I'll ever accept.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote: Yup Obama, unlike Reagan, has given us a wonderful economy.

first off, if you think the economy of 2016 resembles that of 1986, that might explain some of your daily confusion. Reagan, by the way, sent
us into the recession that required Bush I to tax us to overcome budget shortfalls, and led to the Clinton election wherein we DID manage to figure out how to grow the economy and balance the federal budget.

All the more reason to vote for someone who actually understands how to succeed...like Trump.

most out-of-jail jewelry thieves succeed, too, until they get caught. Winning without ethics is not the nation I wish to see, nor the principle I'll ever accept.

And yet you accepted Obama. So throwing your minister of 20 years under the bus is a sign of the ethics and principles you so ardently want in your candidate?

woodchip wrote:And yet you accepted Obama. So throwing your minister of 20 years under the bus is a sign of the ethics and principles you so ardently want in your candidate?

that man was no more 'his' minister than was any other of the several dozen ministers Obama listened to along the way. It always struck me that he wasn't a real regular church-goer anyway, so I never have put any stock in that nonsense. Yet, you seem fixated to this day?

Obama himself said Wright was his minister for 20 years and was his spiritual adviser. Honestly slick, I don't know why you spew the BS you do. I guess you have a lot of uneducated followers who believe everything you post. Must be a heady experience having such clueless followers.

woodchip wrote:Obama himself said Wright was his minister for 20 years and was his spiritual adviser. Honestly slick, I don't know why you spew the BS you do. I guess you have a lot of uneducated followers who believe everything you post. Must be a heady experience having such clueless followers.

no, I've met the man, and he is no more influenced by Wright than he is by any of about 50 other sources. You forgot to mention Saul Alinski and those radical professors at Chicago. You're slipping.

Well Obama certainly does not avow any influence after he threw Wright under the bus. And I'm sure Obama would confide anything of a personal nature to the likes of you.

woodchip wrote:Well Obama certainly does not avow any influence after he threw Wright under the bus. And I'm sure Obama would confide anything of a personal nature to the likes of you.

doesn't require some sort of confessional to read another human being. Barack Obama is a fine man, with a keen intellect. Did he absorb the Rev Wright's opinion as he likely does a few hundred others? Of course. What the slow-witted amongst us never seemed to get is that multiple, diverse viewpoints GROW THE MIND, and far too many folks just want to deal with minds closed in the same fashion as their own.

Trying your hand at proselytizing now slick?

woodchip wrote:Trying your hand at proselytizing now slick?

nope, mainly watching you try to rationalize the indefensible, the ignorant and the flat-out wrong.

Preaching to the uninformed yet again.

woodchip wrote:Preaching to the uninformed yet again.

yup, not that you actually absorb much knowledge, but I try.

Can't absorb anything if nothing is there

woodchip wrote:Can't absorb anything if nothing is there

hmmmm, I can see your point, maybe not in the context you hope those words are read, but still........