[quote=Prime Time]

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

[/quote]

Prime, here's your answer:

The dems were in control for two years when Obama took over. Since you want to focus on congress and apparrently lay the deficit at the dems feet as they controlled the congress  from 2007, you should know that the repubs controlled congress from 1995 through 2006, handing control to the dems in jan 2007. Once free of having to compromise with a dem prez guess where the the spending went? It didn't go down.

 Bush came in with 4 trillion in national debt and a budget surplus on about a quarter billion dollars in 2002. When he left the national debt was 10 trillion and the deficit was about a trillion dollars. Despite having a healthy war economy for most of his whitehouse stay, the debt more than doubled. But, hey, it wasn't the tax cuts! Right?

It gets better - if the repubs gain control they will extend the Bush era tax cuts. Those tax cuts will reduce revs by 4 trillion. But, not to worry the repubs and tea baggers have got that base covered. They are proposing 700 billion in spending cuts to fill that gap. Let's see, 4 trillion less in revenue versus 700 billions in cuts? Yeah, that'll work!

Any more questions on how we got into this mess?

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, you realize that the biggest election issues of Western Europe have been about immigration, and the radical elements of muslims affecting their nations? So, are those folks all stupid too? France, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany...etc...

Avoid the word "stupid" BG, it isn't much of a discussion tactic that leads to anything other than an argument and hard feelings. I don't know, but maybe tomorrow you'll come to realize that liberal arrogance is what created serious election losses?

[/quote]

You're right. i should have skipped all that and just called you racist. But, i trying to cut you a break because, clearly, you are having trouble keeping up with the debate.

Big, the issue regarding the Christians trying to confront Muslims in Michigan is one of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.  Both guaranteed by the first amendment. It's a constitutional issue, not a religious issue. Yet, for stating just that you called me an Islamic apologist. You pulled religion out of my answer, plugged in your negative belief system, and tatooed me with it. All, when religion was incidental to the issue.

So you know, if it had been Muslims trying to disrupt a Christian assembly, same answer. I guess that would make me a Christian apologist?

Big we've been down this comprehension path before. If you aren't sure what the post says feel free to PM me. I promise i'll never use anything gleened from a private conversation to hurt you on the open forum.

Big, the issue regarding the Christians trying to confront Muslims in Michigan is one of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.  Both guaranteed by the first amendment. It's a constitutional issue, not a religious issue. Yet, for stating just that you called me an Islamic apologist. You pulled religion out of my answer, plugged in your negative belief system, and tatooed me with it. All, when religion was incidental to the issue.

I'm with Jon Stewart and Juan Williams on this one. Sorry.

Some day, progressives will look back and say, oh, it was a quality of life issue, my bad.

T7, your time is almost done here. Call me names if you like. You're the one who keeps popping up with new screen names every other week. What's up with that?

Tell ya what, prove to me that you are someone here who i recognise as a contributor  and i'll debate you until the cows come home. Until then, it's back to ignore.

BG, I apologize if you interpreted my response that way, and had debated briefly whether to disclaimer your statement from the part about Islam. That said, I am a bit disturbed that the Democrat party in many quarters, seems to be carrying the water for Islam. Call me whatever you'd like, but I do not want this nation to be heavily occupied by folks that are muslim or islamic. Those religions openly advocate hostility as part of their religion, and my own two eyes see the carnage that ensues when the Muslim faith even hits the 5% mark of the population.

When you come to America, you become American, and you don't bring your petty hatreds of other nations, or religions with you. This coming from me, a first generation immigrant. Muslims are MUSLIMS first, and they are clearly not assimilating the way a Hispanic Catholic does, or an Asian immigrant.

So again, call me a hater, racist, anything, go right ahead, but that is how I feel, and I believe I'm still in a country free enough to express that opinion of mine.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=MLGONELOVESDIK]

Bondguy STFU you arrogant prick

[/quote]

A reason not to join the other advisor forum. As if Times7 and the other knucklehead alter egos haven't already given me enough reason to stay way from that group.

ML, about your screen name, how old are you, 13?

[/quote]

You want to hear something really funny.  This ML dude/gal is actually the mod at AH named Primo trying to come across as someone else.   Not joking.  Also goes by the name Prime Time here.  Can't think of a better reason never to go there, this is the talent level over there.  You want him/her with access to your account?  lol what a sham.  Case closed.

[quote=BigFirepower]

BG, I apologize if you interpreted my response that way, and had debated briefly whether to disclaimer your statement from the part about Islam. That said, I am a bit disturbed that the Democrat party in many quarters, seems to be carrying the water for Islam. Call me whatever you'd like, but I do not want this nation to be heavily occupied by folks that are muslim or islamic. Those religions openly advocate hostility as part of their religion, and my own two eyes see the carnage that ensues when the Muslim faith even hits the 5% mark of the population.

When you come to America, you become American, and you don't bring your petty hatreds of other nations, or religions with you. This coming from me, a first generation immigrant. Muslims are MUSLIMS first, and they are clearly not assimilating the way a Hispanic Catholic does, or an Asian immigrant.

So again, call me a hater, racist, anything, go right ahead, but that is how I feel, and I believe I'm still in a country free enough to express that opinion of mine.

[/quote]

Big, i didn't misinterpret anything and you know it !

I agree that the Muslim faith is now being defined by the extremist. While the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, it is not this peaceful contingent that is in control. Or so it seems. This is similar to the pre war Germany in the 20's and early 30's. Germans were a peaceful people at that time. They gave little attention to a small group of extremist, the nazis, who would come to define them in less than a generation. So it is with islam. The peaceful inmans do not have control of their religion. Yet, that being the case, we need to suppress the inner lynch mob mentality that many of us may want to act upon. Right now it's tough to maintain a centered view of Islam.

For those who don't like Muslims the news isn't good. If current demographic trends hold the primary religion in America by 2060 will be Muslim. They are having over twice as many children as other demographic groups.

Personally, in my neck of the wood the non american born muslims are assimilating just fine. They have embraced the american way of life,some as small business people, and have learned to speak our language well. They want what we want, a better life for their kids. In my area it is the hispanics, specificlly mexicans, who seem not to want to assimilate. They have moved into targeted towns. As they replace the american population, they take over the downtown business areas by shunning american businesses in place for generations. As the american business owners are forced out mexican businessowners take over. The towns have tried to ban rentals to illegal aliens but have been  shot down by the supreme court. meanwhile in some of these businesses a curious sign has cropped up in store front windows "We speak english too." Hmm?

Times are changing whether we like it or not.

i'll debate you until the cows come home. Until then, it's back to ignore.

You don't debate, that's the problem. When you attack other people's reading comprehension, you project your own biggest fault.

I'm just saying, you can attack my character, or you can quit stinking up the forum with your negative BS. 'Most everyone is tired of your whiney liberal moralizing, and tomorrow it is going to be time to get back to the real work of selling.

A sales environment needs to rid itself of the pussies.

Stop being pathetic. Even the name of you thread is whiney.

Here is a special video for BG and you other whiney libs, to honor you on a  on a very special day.

THE WAY WE WERE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4kS4CWhRVM&feature=related

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

OK, I hadn't heard that one about Sharon Angle.  So, I went to the most trusted new source out there to get information on it:  The Huffington Post.  Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/sharron-angle-muslim-law-_n_755346.html

Did you actually read how she answered the question?  Or did you just get your info from Jon Stewart and figure he wouldn't lie/hype it up at all?  Wait, maybe it was the Daily Kos.  Your comments come almost verbatim from their write up on the issue:  http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/12/908879/-How-Dearborn,-Michigan-came-to-be-under-Sharia-Law!-And-how-Sharon-Angle-lurned-it-was-so. 

C'mon BG, you aren't really just taking the left's talking points and regurgitating them, are you?  That seems a little too Sarah Palin-esque for you.  I thought your area didn't have any non-thinkers like we do here in the simple old conservative mid-west. 

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

So, to answer your question about being OK with Sharon Angle getting the nod in Nevada?  Based on this alone?  Yep, perfectly comfortable. 

[/quote]

Space, are you kidding with this? Dude, try practicing your right to assembly and free speech while confronting union members on the sidewalk in front of their inflatable rat. After you get out of the ER see how interested the police or the courts are in helping your cause. Let me tell you how that will work. By approaching the lawfully assembled union members you are doing so for the unlawfull purpose of seeking to incite. Outside of the right to seek the immediate medical assistance you will need you have no rights at that point. Any rookie cop will tell you that.

I'll  watch the vid later. But, from the description, did the Christians provoke the Muslims or not? It reads as if they did. They entered the Arab festival with an anti arab agenda. It would be argued that they, the Christians, had given up their rights to assembly and free speech as their intention was to incite. There is that little word in the first amendment "lawfully" that covers that base. And, though i dispise any anti American rhetoric, the Arabs have first amendments rights to free speech as well. Later today, when time allows i'll watch the vid. If my opinion changes I'll let you know.

 And, as for the Arabs lying to the police, I thought you were Ok with lying?

Still, the issue isn't the event that caused Angle to respond. It's her racist and totally misinformed response that is at issue. That she's Ok with you and others is kinda scary. OK with me if guys like you want her for town council or state rep, but if you elect her to the senate then we all have to live with the consequences of a dumbed down upper house.

[/quote]

Here's the response she gave to the question she was asked copied from the Huffington Post article:

"we're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it."

"My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law. And I don't know how that happened in the United States," she said. "It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States."

Just so we're clear on what we're talking about, what part of that commentary would you call racist?  I keep looking, but not finding anything that I would call racist.  The Frankford, TX thing is confusing, but there is a case in the Dallas area of a Muslim couple getting a divorce and wanting to follow Sharia law, not Texas laws.  Where she got her info that it was in a city called Frankford, who knows.  But, it's obvious that you got your info from an AP reporter named Cristina Silva.  Funny, but I can't seem to find the whole transcript of what the whole question was and how Cristina pieced her response together. 

I'll wait until you watch the video to tell you what I think about whether or not the Christians were provoking the Muslims. 

Bond Guy, maybe you should start a new screen name. Come back as an American. Noboby remembers what you were before you went soft, anyway.

[quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Prime Time]

I have a question.  When Osama talks about the deficit he inherited, is he talking about the budget the Dem controlled Congress passed?  The spending he voted for?  Is this the deficit he is talking about?

[/quote]

Prime, here's your answer:

The dems were in control for two years when Obama took over. Since you want to focus on congress and apparrently lay the deficit at the dems feet as they controlled the congress  from 2007, you should know that the repubs controlled congress from 1995 through 2006, handing control to the dems in jan 2007. Once free of having to compromise with a dem prez guess where the the spending went? It didn't go down.

 Bush came in with 4 trillion in national debt and a budget surplus on about a quarter billion dollars in 2002. When he left the national debt was 10 trillion and the deficit was about a trillion dollars. Despite having a healthy war economy for most of his whitehouse stay, the debt more than doubled. But, hey, it wasn't the tax cuts! Right?

It gets better - if the repubs gain control they will extend the Bush era tax cuts. Those tax cuts will reduce revs by 4 trillion. But, not to worry the repubs and tea baggers have got that base covered. They are proposing 700 billion in spending cuts to fill that gap. Let's see, 4 trillion less in revenue versus 700 billions in cuts? Yeah, that'll work!

Any more questions on how we got into this mess?

[/quote]

You didn't answer my question, but I will talk about what you posted.  I am aware the Republicans controlled Congress from 95-06.  Let's look at debt during that time.  The debt at the beginning of FT96 was 4.973T and at the end of FY07 it was 9.007T for a dfference of 4.034T (Bush came into office with a 5.769T debt BTW).  The Dem controlled legislature went from a 9.007T to 13.561T at the end of FT10 for a difference of 4.554T.  That would be more deficit spending in 3 years for the Demo's than the 12 years from the Reps.  That should scare you.

My point in Obama complaining about a deficit he inherited when he voted for the spending is that it is intellectually dishonest, just as your initial post in this thread.  Both parties had their fingers in the economic mess we are in.  Saying it was all the faut of Bush is dishonest.

Of course, this is the primary reason the Rep's are making a comeback.  People are getting tired of Dem's running against a guy who hasn't been in office for two years.  They want to know what the Democratic party is going to do to fix the situation.  All they have heard is "we will  get to the economy right after we take care of _____" and vote for us because the other guys are  bad.  You don't hear any Dem's running on what they have done or will do.  People want our elected officials to lead, not blame.  So the Republican's will get another chance.  And before you start with the "party of no" garbage.  Sometimes preventing bad legislation is governing when you are the minority.

The House has returned to Republican control.  Now let's see what they do with it.

[quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]

Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.[/quote]

Correct, I would say BG is on a much lower level.

At least Times7 makes attempts to cite sources to back up his opinions. BG only resorts to calling people in disagreement with him a "liar", "stupid" and/or (my favorite) a "racist".

BG, your party's time has come just like it did in the 90's. It's time for Obama to move back toward the center just like the Repubs made Clinton do during his term.

[quote=BondGuy]

I like PJ O'Rourke but !!!!

Are you a Neoconservative?

Healthy cynic only. Far from giving up. Often a realistic view of the world is mistaken as cynicism. Epecially on a negative topic.

Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

[/quote]

Really? You think only Rep and TPs are "liars"?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm now starting to understand who will vote for the Angles, O'Donnells, and Paladinos.

What was that line from Forest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.  

[/quote]

Really +1? You think anyone that disagrees with you is "stupid"?

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

The term tea baggers, while derisive, isn't racist. Calling the prez Osama is racist as it's trying to play on Islamic fear. Look it up. I guess i expect too much from you? Space, are you a racist?

Speaking of racist tea baggers, all of you Ok with Sharron Angle getting the nod in Nevada? This woman claimed, outrageously, that Islamic Sharia law is being instituted in Dearborn Michigan and Frankford Texas. She demanded to know how that happened in the United States? That's a really good question since it didn't happen.   Good old fashioned American law rules in Dearborn. As for Frankfort Texas, would one of you tea bagger lovers please call Sharron and let her know that Frankfort Texas was annexed by Dallas almost 40 years ago, so, technically, no such place. Par for the course for the morons. Oh, and dallas? American law!

You guys really want people like that running the country?

[/quote]

Really +2? You think Space and anyone agreeing with the TP is "racist"? 

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

[quote=Spaceman Spiff]

Just to make sure we all know what 's actually being talked about here's another link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/special-report-sharia-comes-to-dearborn.html  This is the blog that started the whole thing.  So, BG, are you saying that it's OK for something like this to happen?  What kind of public outcry do you think there would have been had the religions been reversed?  What if a Muslim would have been even just verbally abused by a Christian?  How quickly do you think NBC, CBS, ABC, et al would have put that right in our faces?   

FWIW, I agree with Sharon that if it appears that Sharia law is being enforced over a constitutional right (the right to free speech in this particular case) then it needs to be stopped. 

[/quote]

I watched this video. Interesting stuff. Here's what i saw:

1. Christians with video cameras trying to agitate a peacefull well organized Muslim event.

2. Christian's clearly had a confrontational agenda. They show up wearing Christian shirts, armed to the teeth with video cameras, disingenuously asking for answers about a brochere, clearly looking to pick a fight for their ambush video.

3. Muslims may be many things, stupid is not one of them. Again, what is clear on the video to anyone with a centered POV, once the Muslims realized the Christians were there to agitate they asked them to leave. They asked them to leave several times.

4. The escalated events that follow are the fault of the Christians, who refused to follow the orders of event security when asked to stop video taping. When they refused to follow that order, they were asked to leave. If they had left, peacefully, there would have been no escalation of hostilities. If you really believe this escalation was caused by Sharia law, try this: This weekend go to a college or NFL football game. While there, be confrontational to those seated around you. Be a real pain in the ass. Disrupt the viewing of the game. Scream this is america, I have a right to free speech and will yell whatever i like. When security shows up to toss you, get in their face too! On Monday come on here and let us know how long it took you to get bailed out of jail.

5. When you ask someone to stop video taping you and they refuse, who's rights are being violated? Think about that for a minute. Yes, it's a free country. But your rights stop where my rights begin. You don't get to trample my rights, especially with a camera. In this age of cell phone cameras the courts are making this crytal clear to those who don't get it!

6. At the end of the tape, when the police are finally called in, it is the Christians who lie or lie first. They say "we were just trying to leave" before going to accuse security of assault. On the tape the entire escalation is caused by the Christian's refusal to leave. So, they've got a problem there.

Space, obviously you are anti Muslim to post this and believe it exonorates Angle or anyone else. No one's constitutional rights were violated. The Christains were clearly in the wrong chosing this event to record an ambush video. They caused the confrontation.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the Muslims at the table or security to ask the Christians to stop video taping. You show up, shove a camera in my face, and start firing questions I'm going to ask you to stop the tape as well. Even if only to find out your purpose and intent. The christians never gave the Muslims the respect to at least come to some agreement about taping.  

And while this America and we have rights to free speech and assembly, you don't have the right to come to my party and disrupt it because you don't like me.

Sadly,while this event was organized to foster greater understanding, it is instead being used by some to drive us further apart. Don't think for a moment that that doesn't fit someone's agenda.

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

Every time I look at the title of this thread I laugh and think about the Barbara Streisand movie. This guy (BG) is a commercial for hiding as much money as you can in your personal VUL policy. So is this guy:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/about

Now that the election is over, you have to admit the hard work begins. Thoughtful advisors will find ways for their clients to minimize taxes and increase personal wealth.

They will find comfort in thinking for themselves and avoiding distractions. 

[quote=N.D.]

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=Times7]BG, when did you become such a pussy? When you got rich or before?[/quote]Good debating skills. Clearly BG doesn't know how to "debate" as well as you do.

What has happened to this site? Wow.[/quote]

Correct, I would say BG is on a much lower level.

At least Times7 makes attempts to cite sources to back up his opinions. BG only resorts to calling people in disagreement with him a "liar", "stupid" and/or (my favorite) a "racist".

BG, your party's time has come just like it did in the 90's. It's time for Obama to move back toward the center just like the Repubs made Clinton do during his term.

[quote=BondGuy]

I like PJ O'Rourke but !!!!

Are you a Neoconservative?

Healthy cynic only. Far from giving up. Often a realistic view of the world is mistaken as cynicism. Epecially on a negative topic.

Let me reframe the debate:

We can all agree that lying is wrong. For example: Even though we only do right for our clients it's not OK under any circumstances, for us to lie to them to induce them to act. So, if lying is wrong, and it's not OK for us to lie,  why is it Ok for these TP and Repub candidates to lie?

Would you hire a professional who lied to you to get your business? Of course not!  Yet, these lying TP candidates get a pass? Someone's got to explain that one to me.

And, again, hanging your hopes for change on a group of liars is, at best, naive.

OK there you have it-the answer that seperates our points of view- I'm a cynic and you are naive. Settled!

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

Negative campaign ads? We're talking about out and out lies. Why is that OK?

You really trust the liars to change things?

How can you trust someone who lies?

[/quote]

Really? You think only Rep and TPs are "liars"?

In this campaign they clearly were liars. Or, did the bailouts fail to stabilized the economy? Because what i heard from TP/Repubs was speech after speech about the failed bailouts. So, since the bailouts worked but they claim they didn't, what would you call that? I call it a lie. But, maybe in your neck of the woods where you're Ok with lying, you've got some other name for it.

And, yes, Dems lie too. But the dems stepped up to save this country two years ago and yesterday got their asses handed to them by liars who misled voters as to the true naure of why we are where we are. Same thing happened to Bush in 92. We'll move on. Still, it is naive to think we are better off with liars in control of congress.

Honestly, ND, would you do business with a liar? Then why elect one to represent you?

[quote=BondGuy]

I'm now starting to understand who will vote for the Angles, O'Donnells, and Paladinos.

What was that line from Forest Gump?

Stupid is as stupid does.  

[/quote]

Really +1? You think anyone that disagrees with you is "stupid"?

Only when they say something stupid. The above is out of context, but obviously the repubs nominated unelectable candidates in these three. if they had put up more reasonable, and,yes, smarter candidates, in a year that saw a republican wave they could have picked up more seats. What do you call people who vote against their own self interest in primarys? I call them stupid.

Really about the most interesting stupid thing I read, or came to understand in these threads is that many of you truely lack an understanding of the collaspe of the bond markets two years ago. it's like some of you have bought into the campaign rhetoric,blame Goldman Sachs etc. And, again, what do you call someone who stops thinking for themselves and lets someone else do their thinking for them? Ah, my first choice isn't going to be anything synonymous with smart.

[quote=BondGuy]

Prime, it's Obama, not Osama. Your racist slip is showing.

[/quote]

[quote=BondGuy]

The term tea baggers, while derisive, isn't racist. Calling the prez Osama is racist as it's trying to play on Islamic fear. Look it up. I guess i expect too much from you? Space, are you a racist?

Speaking of racist tea baggers, all of you Ok with Sharron Angle getting the nod in Nevada? This woman claimed, outrageously, that Islamic Sharia law is being instituted in Dearborn Michigan and Frankford Texas. She demanded to know how that happened in the United States? That's a really good question since it didn't happen.   Good old fashioned American law rules in Dearborn. As for Frankfort Texas, would one of you tea bagger lovers please call Sharron and let her know that Frankfort Texas was annexed by Dallas almost 40 years ago, so, technically, no such place. Par for the course for the morons. Oh, and dallas? American law!

You guys really want people like that running the country?

[/quote]

Really +2? You think Space and anyone agreeing with the TP is "racist"? 

Only if they say or do something racist. If you don't think calling Obama Osama is racist try it out in an open room on one of your black co-workers. At the larger firms you could probably count your continued employment in days, no more than a week. But, don't take my word for it, try it yourself. 

Angle's comments were racist and stupid. Stupid on two levels, first, that she chose this subject to speak out against and two, because she picked a town in texas that no longer exists. Racist because of the outrageous anti muslim claims she was making. Space agree's with the racist POV espoused by Angle.

I don't think all TP members are racist. But, obviously, as the video tapes show, some are. What's interesting here, is that i've flagged racist comments and you are calling me out on it. What's up with that?

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

That's a weak ending. At least the other guy gave me a laugh by calling me a pussy. I know you've got better than that!

One other thing-  on the net +1 means you agree with a poster's comment. Even if you are the tenth person to agree it's still +1, as you are only one person. Following you on this post was a little confusing because of the +1 +2 stuff. I had to reread it to understand that you were incorrectly using +1 +2 to number your points. Just sayin' so you don't embarrass yourself when out there in the real internet world and not among those who love you here.

[/quote]

[quote=Times7]

BG, you are freakin EPIC!! Whatever dude, whatever.

Every time I look at the title of this thread I laugh and think about the Barbara Streisand movie. This guy (BG) is a commercial for hiding as much money as you can in your personal VUL policy. So is this guy:

http://www.jerrybrown.org/about

Now that the election is over, you have to admit the hard work begins. Thoughtful advisors will find ways for their clients to minimize taxes and increase personal wealth.

They will find comfort in thinking for themselves and avoiding distractions. 

[/quote]

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

Thoughtful advisors don't rip off their clients with VUL policies.

No, they cop an attitude about permanent protection early in their careers, and impose their own limited financial knowlege on every client equally, often leaving them unprotected or losing term policies right when coverage is needed most. Or vulnerable to (the expiration) of estate taxes.

Many advisors don't even bother to adequately protect their own families. They don't understand the implications of insurance in a changing economy.

But hey, pitching debt and imposing your progressive ideas for the redistribution of wealth is more fun.

You don't even have your CFP, do you? You're not a financial planner, you should consider investing in yourself before you advise others. Most planners, as they mature, begin to see the light about a lot of things, including the importance of positive peer leadership.

Be honest and note that as planners mature in their careers, they usually take a broader approach to hedging against the uncertainty of death, increasing taxes, health changes, job and benefit loss, family needs, bankruptcy protection for small business owners and others,  and so on. You don't know what you don't know.

Sitting here listening to Obama. Man does he sound defensive!

Reporter Savannah on the split screen looking at Obama as he defensively rambles incoherently in answer to her question on whether he's not getting it: she's a confused looking fox.

How can you seriously believe in this fellow? Everyone in the press room is starting to look pissed off. Now he's thinking about his answer to Savannah and lecturing us about how great his health care is - wow, this guy is over the top. Terrible politician.

The Clintons are off in some room far away laughing, bring on Hillary for 2012. Rambling, rambling about the specifics of paperwork for individual health care policies. Unbelievable waste of eveyone's time.