homewrecker

best thing I've heard someone say from this site yet!

I am getting a little bored. I figured i would come on here and make bens day by stirring people up a little

No it wont. Go back to the great depression. Roosevelt tried the same thing. It didnt work then and it wont work now. The only thing that worked for Roosevelt was going to war. For that matter if you really do your homework you will find that Roosevelts efforts is why we had a "great" depression. The rest of the world ony had a depression. We were in a depression twice as long as the rest of the world because of everything Roosevelt did. The exact same things that Obama is trying to do now. Also who do you think these government employed construction workers are going to be. If your thinking anything besides illegal immigrants you need to have your head examined. How does employing a ton of illegals to build roads stimulate the economy? Explain that to me.

A lot of people would say wilkipedia is biased. So who gives a shit. Facts are facts. Who cares where they come from. dont read the commentary just look at where the money is going. If you cant see it for yourself that its a do nothing stimulus package then I dont know how you are even smart enough to breathe. Let alone read or make educated decisions.

Or read this one http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20639/

The so called stimulus package passed by house democrats is a joke. It will fix nothing. It will not create jobs. Only 12 cents of every dollar from the 800+ billion might actually stimulate the economy or create jobs. The rest of the money is nothing but earmarks and pork barrel spending. And I specifically remember Obama saying that he would end earmarks and frivilous government spending. I guess its not change we can beleive in after all. Read this link to find out more. http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/stimulus_pork_spending/2009/01/29/176503.html

Lets say hypatheticaly (sp.) you are a criminal about to rob someone or rape a man or woman whichever you prefer. Would you be more likely to attack someone that could kill you or someone that can't defend themself. There have been several studies on the subject. There was even a city in Georgia that passed a law saying that everyy homeowner in that city had to own a gun. They passed that law immediately after chicago passed there ban on guns. Since the passing of the two laws there have been more crimes in chicago. However there has not been one single violent crime in the city in Georgia. It has been proven time and time again that when people can properly defend themselves against criminals that are always going to have guns no matter what ban you pass crime levels go down. Every single man should own a gun to protect his family. He should be properly trained how to use it and keep it in a safe place where children can't get at it but have it close at all times. You can disagree if you want but these are my opinions and the facts.

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=2&subcatid=30&threadid=259326#259326 Or maybe this is the change. I don't agree with all of this one but it has a lot of good points.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080228?hub=TopStories Or maybe this is the change he speaks of.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4365942&page=1 I wonder if this is the change that he talks about all of the time. I would like to know what change he can bring. He has been in politics in chicago and illinois since the 90's. Nothing has changed in chicago since he entered politics. Chicago is still filled with poor, uneducated, sick, uninsured, criminals, and all other forms of social degenerates and lower levels of society. What has he changed. I am in Chicago once a week for work and it only gets worse. No improvement, no change. Just more of the same.

I disagree with any ban on guns because it only promotes violent crimes. When people can't defend themselves they become bigger targets. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

Not to be too sarcastic but if soooooo many people seem to want social med. because of price why not social gas as well. Then we could all depend on the gov. for everything. Everyone would have a full tank and be healthy all at the same time what a wonderful world that would be. The gov. in reality should have lowered or suspended taxes on fuel for stimulus instead of the checks we are supposed to get this summer.

I didn't figure you could find a link supporting your 17%. And I listed a lot more than new york times. She is a pundit for fox news channel. She also occasionally works for cnn, msnbc, and most other major media outlets. I never said you should have heard of her just that you shouldn't try to discredit someone without knowing anything about them. THAT is lowering the intelligence of this forum.

ok at this point we are just:beathorse:. I am never going to agree with you and you are never going to agree with me so I don't see the point in arguing over nothing. I will simply agree to disagree.