PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Are the Democrats done for the next 4 years?


petegz28
01-16-2010, 06:49 PM
Have they effecitvely pissed off enough people to ensure they are booted and Obama is a 1-term President?

I know things could change to save Obama but if this health care bill gets rammed down our throats will the Dems essentially be signing their own death certificate?

And to address a more cyncical aspect, is passage of the health care bill among the other the Dems wish to ram through the beginning sparks to the 2nd revolt?

The Mad Crapper
01-16-2010, 07:22 PM
B.O. is a turd.

Saul Good
01-16-2010, 07:49 PM
4 years is a lifetime in politics.

Brock
01-16-2010, 07:50 PM
I think we're headed back to gridlock, thank God.

The Mad Crapper
01-16-2010, 07:53 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/POLITICS_136.gif

RedNeckRaider
01-16-2010, 07:54 PM
I think we're headed back to gridlock, thank God.

True it is best to have the left shibags and the right shitbags fairly balanced. That way they keep each other from from fucking things up too much~

Bearcat2005
01-16-2010, 08:41 PM
Was Clinton done in 94?

Hoover
01-16-2010, 08:44 PM
1 year is a lifetime in politics. Losing a chamber of congress would be a godsend for BO IMO.

RedDread
01-16-2010, 09:30 PM
B.O. is a turd.

A poignant insight.

BucEyedPea
01-16-2010, 11:41 PM
Well I don't think a lot of people hold the Rs in lofty regard either.

And I wonder if gridlock is really that true anymore. Both parties keep spending, and growing govt and having us police the world with more stupid wars.

Norman Einstein
01-17-2010, 06:46 AM
Well I don't think a lot of people hold the Rs in lofty regard either.



I don't think the republicans being held in high regard will have anything to do with it. What the country will be looking for in 2010 and 2012 is hope for change, and it seems like the democrats have not given us either so the republicans will have an even shot at regaining some foothold.

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 07:33 AM
The democrats are in trouble because they have made some major errors in political judgement. Republicans need to pay attention. This is a learning opportunity.

The decision to run a centerist sounding campaign and lead people to believe that Obama would right the wrongs in Washington was first. People do not react well to being misled. Essentially they bought a product that didn't function when they got it home. Don't mislead voters.

Second they misread their base of voters. They moved away from old line conservative democrats. Those older Americans who are generally pretty socially responsible and maintain a desire for fiscal responsibility. They moved away from people who desire a strong America that leads through effective diplomacy that puts American values first but understands we have to have the will to do what is right for the US not delegate our interests to the UN. And the majority of voters understand we need allies and allies need us and you do not throw your allies under the bus for a short term popularity hit.

They failed to understand that people are generally pretty common sense. By shifting the party/country to the the support of groups and organizations that stand for ideas and policy that is not supported by the general public they have caused further division in the party. They chose to align with ACORN, SEIU, the environmental fringes and others that make many people very uncomfortable. The republicans can learn here as well.

They over read their mandate and power. Instead of selling the people on approaches they could employ on the issues they picked, they went on a power rush to force into place bad legislation. What they didnt understand is that people are smarter than they thought. They chose to go it alone. They will posture that the republicans never wanted to participate. But the voter is smart enough to see this was grade school recess on a big scale. The 6th graders picked the team, made the rules, owned the ball and they told the first graders they could play but couldn't be on the team and would not have any say. It wont work, it never has, it never will. Pure partisanship is destructive and divisive.

This was made worse by the priorities they set for themselves.

People need Jobs. They took the tact of using government to create jobs ignoring that business, large and small are job creators. Government can only facillitate. They demonized business instead of finding ways to work with it. People go to work in the morning working either for themselves or for a business. Every employee knows if the business is good they have ajob. If the business goes down, they lose jobs. If you spend your working time working for business and every night on tv the news is businees is evil....add it up. We all know where our bread is buttered..and it aint washington.

People needed a feeling we were secure. They demonized the people who provide the security by attacking publicly the CIA, military, and justice department.

People need relief from imposed expences especially in tough times. They pushed Cap and Trade, a tax, that impacts the entire country and based it on the global warming claims that people generally dont believe and on the whole green movement that people find a bit hard to accept.

And last they had a myopic view of health care reform that instead of doing in pieces that were supportrd and understood, they took on the entire HC system and came out with an unsaleable product of bloat and control that people fear.

Being lied to and having policy forced down from the top and showing total disregard for the electorate will fail every time. The lesson is clear for the republicans as well.

The most devestating thing they have done is to take a generation of voters who bought the Omama magic and have dashed their vision to pieces. Those voters will be disillusioned for some time to come and will not be willing to be had again. We saw this same thing with Nixon in 72. Many Nixon voters were new to the process only to have to live through Watergate. And the older voters who have always voted democrat will be nearly impossible to bring back.

The real question is when the smoke clears, who will be left in the democrat party?

MarcBulger
01-17-2010, 08:05 AM
I want a fed gov that only spends 25% of my taxes, and a State Gov that spends 75% that is the only way you will ever have a say in Big Govt....I want States to Run Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other social programs. That way I have a larger say it what happens to my tax dollar..Never going to happen.

BucEyedPea
01-17-2010, 08:18 AM
The democrats are in trouble because they have made some major errors in political judgement. Republicans need to pay attention. This is a learning opportunity.
I think some are, but not the leadership necessarily. Leadership in both parties is corrupt. You see this in the same Ds and Rs paying off Wall street and spending money. The R leadership still trying some of the same old dirty tricks on those Rs that won't toe the line. Even Brown voted to increase government spending by $7.2 billion over a nine year period when he was in Mass govt.

Anyhow, like I posted during the prez election, Obama getting elected just may wake up the R party at least somewhat for some change there. Perhaps leading to another RR type just as it happened after Carter. But if you look at their record they've done nothing to roll back the size of govt. It's just tax cuts while spending still increases. Some of these Rs are just posturing as the Ds did for re-access to power. Need to know who that is.

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 08:46 AM
I think some are, but not the leadership necessarily. Leadership in both parties is corrupt. You see this in the same Ds and Rs paying off Wall street and spending money. The R leadership still trying some of the same old dirty tricks on those Rs that won't toe the line. Even Brown voted to increase government spending by $7.2 billion over a nine year period when he was in Mass govt.

Anyhow, like I posted during the prez election, Obama getting elected just may wake up the R party at least somewhat for some change there. Perhaps leading to another RR type just as it happened after Carter. But if you look at their record they've done nothing to roll back the size of govt. It's just tax cuts while spending still increases. Some of these Rs are just posturing as the Ds did for re-access to power. Need to know who that is.

I dont believe that everyone and evrything in either party is corrupt or that either cannot find their way back to good governing. Maybe the good to come from thiis administration is a return to Americanism and the focus on what makes us strong and a vibrant growing country, Time will tell but i tend to be an optomist.

Parties are made up of voters and voter blocks. The leadership will reflect the beliefs and voting patterns of the members..members is a loose term since there really is no membership as such.

The candidates are for the most part picked through elections and primaries. So who runs as a republican is not the leaderships decision, its the voters choice. I believe we will see far more involvement by the voter this time around and will see a different sort of candidte picked to run on the republican ticket.

That is how internal change in direction occurs.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 09:26 AM
Well I don't think a lot of people hold the Rs in lofty regard either.

Who knew who Scott Brown was, 6 months ago?

;)

banyon
01-17-2010, 09:40 AM
They failed to understand that people are generally pretty common sense. By shifting the party/country to the the support of groups and organizations that stand for ideas and policy that is not supported by the general public they have caused further division in the party. They chose to align with ACORN, SEIU, the environmental fringes and others that make many people very uncomfortable. The republicans can learn here as well.

This is false. They have done little to appease the fringes with their policy concerns. Instead they have aligned themselves with the same global corporate and financial concerns that Clinton did. You can't identify any substantial policy that was crafted by or to appeal to the fringe.


People need Jobs. They took the tact of using government to create jobs ignoring that business, large and small are job creators. Government can only facillitate. They demonized business instead of finding ways to work with it. People go to work in the morning working either for themselves or for a business. Every employee knows if the business is good they have ajob. If the business goes down, they lose jobs. If you spend your working time working for business and every night on tv the news is businees is evil....add it up. We all know where our bread is buttered..and it aint washington.

The strategy of doing nothing and allowing companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas for 2 or three burger-flipping jobs here isn't really working that well either.



And last they had a myopic view of health care reform that instead of doing in pieces that were supportrd and understood, they took on the entire HC system and came out with an unsaleable product of bloat and control that people fear.

Being lied to and having policy forced down from the top and showing total disregard for the electorate will fail every time. The lesson is clear for the republicans as well.

There's going to be a dual effect on this one, because once people realize that the health care reforms aren't the boogeyman that the Republicans made it out to be, they are going to be short on credibility too. Whether that is evident by 2012, is doubtful though, 2016 certainly.

petegz28
01-17-2010, 09:57 AM
This is false. They have done little to appease the fringes with their policy concerns. Instead they have aligned themselves with the same global corporate and financial concerns that Clinton did. You can't identify any substantial policy that was crafted by or to appeal to the fringe.




The strategy of doing nothing and allowing companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas for 2 or three burger-flipping jobs here isn't really working that well either.





There's going to be a dual effect on this one, because once people realize that the health care reforms aren't the boogeyman that the Republicans made it out to be, they are going to be short on credibility too. Whether that is evident by 2012, is doubtful though, 2016 certainly.

The current health care reform IS the boogeyman. Anyone with a fair mind can see it is going to fuck this country.

notorious
01-17-2010, 10:08 AM
There's going to be a dual effect on this one, because once people realize that the health care reforms aren't the boogeyman that the Republicans made it out to be, they are going to be short on credibility too.


The way that they are going about Health Care Reform is unbelievably devious. The fact that they can't vote on this particular bill without being bribed is beyond dirty.

The government has NEVER done a good job at running anything.


I agree with your last point:

Every politician is short on credibility. They are all scum.

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 10:37 AM
This is false. They have done little to appease the fringes with their policy concerns. Instead they have aligned themselves with the same global corporate and financial concerns that Clinton did. You can't identify any substantial policy that was crafted by or to appeal to the fringe.




The strategy of doing nothing and allowing companies to ship manufacturing jobs overseas for 2 or three burger-flipping jobs here isn't really working that well either.





There's going to be a dual effect on this one, because once people realize that the health care reforms aren't the boogeyman that the Republicans made it out to be, they are going to be short on credibility too. Whether that is evident by 2012, is doubtful though, 2016 certainly.

I guess "false" is in the eye of the beholder then. The shift to an all out support for the most radical of the environmental stands is pretty clear. And a pro union element in the Whitehouse to the extent we have today has not been seen for years. Clinton didn't come close to the current stand. To literally pit union vs non-union by coming forward with tax breaks for one group while requiring another to pay taxes cannot demonstrate this any more or any better. Clinton was a master at keeping business comfortable while appealing to the labor interests and not creating problems he would later have to fix.

I suspect most people would have a wider vision of job creation and business expansion than burger flipping jobs. This administration policy of adding tax burdens to business at a time when it needs to attract business development and expansion is a failure out of the gate. We cannot expect to attract business investment from overseas in the US or US companies expanding here as long as the climate is so anti business. And no business will make a move as of today to add people and infrastructure because every business is incapable of building an investment and business plan to support expansion until they understand their costs. As we stand today, government is the key to business being stagnant or actually expanding where their costs are known. With Health Care hanging over them, a move back to high capital gain taxes for business and individuals, and the threat of surtaxes and excess profits tax and the possibility of energy costs going through the roof with Cap and trade, and then the most recent move to assess "fees" just cause?

Maybe in your world of government employment you cant relate to the dollars and cents side of business planning, investment, and hiring.

The HC reforms are not a boogyman? The process sure says otherwise. You get a break cause you work for the government and wont have to pay tax on a cadillac plan. But the guy next door with a similar plan and works for XYZ corp has to pay the tax but the guy who works for XYZ in a plant is in a Union and does not have to pay tax. So the boogie man is there...Government mandates of HC, coverage, and standardization is always a move to average. People who want the care they have now dont want to be lowered. And the loopholes for abortion, illegals, and so many others...that doesnt seem like the boogie man is real? Backroom deals like Nebraska payoff with your tax dollars, Louisiana payoff wityh your tax dollars...and you still defend this total coruption of good governinmg proess?

What you and a few others may never understand is the process, visibly, publicly and in the light of day is being bastardized to create something the vast majority do not want and that this country cannot afford. And that is the pox on the democrat party today. They had the opportunity to do it right (so did the republicans a few years ago) and they blew it. The real art to maintaining power is to not abuse the power you have so that people will continue to trust you having it.

People lack trust and that is the boogie man.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 10:51 AM
The way that they are going about Health Care Reform is unbelievably devious. The fact that they can't vote on this particular bill without being bribed is beyond dirty.

The government has NEVER done a good job at running anything.


I agree with your last point:

Every politician is short on credibility. They are all scum.

I think that President Umar Barack Farouk Hussein Abdulmutallab Obama has taken scumbaggery to another level.

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:02 AM
The current health care reform IS the boogeyman. Anyone with a fair mind can see it is going to **** this country.

It's pretty minimal really. They've scaled it back so far, that I doubt many, except the portions of the population who gain coverage will even notice it.

I opposed it particularly because it was such a washed out toothless version of the real reforms that were needed.

petegz28
01-17-2010, 11:06 AM
It's pretty minimal really. They've scaled it back so far, that I doubt many, except the portions of the population who gain coverage will even notice it.

I opposed it particularly because it was such a washed out toothless version of the real reforms that were needed.

Minimal my ass. Mandated coverage still exists. And now the money they thought they would get from "Caddilac Plans" was just nixed for Unions. I agree it doesn't do jack shit for reforms that are needed.

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:14 AM
I guess "false" is in the eye of the beholder then. The shift to an all out support for the most radical of the environmental stands is pretty clear. And a pro union element in the Whitehouse to the extent we have today has not been seen for years. Clinton didn't come close to the current stand. To literally pit union vs non-union by coming forward with tax breaks for one group while requiring another to pay taxes cannot demonstrate this any more or any better. Clinton was a master at keeping business comfortable while appealing to the labor interests and not creating problems he would later have to fix.

You can't identify any substantial policy that was crafted by or to appeal to the fringe.

Big, big surprise.

I suspect most people would have a wider vision of job creation and business expansion than burger flipping jobs.

Er, so do I, that was the point I was making. :spock: Did you not understand my post?

This administration policy of adding tax burdens to business at a time when it needs to attract business development and expansion is a failure out of the gate. We cannot expect to attract business investment from overseas in the US or US companies expanding here as long as the climate is so anti business. And no business will make a move as of today to add people and infrastructure because every business is incapable of building an investment and business plan to support expansion until they understand their costs. As we stand today, government is the key to business being stagnant or actually expanding where their costs are known. With Health Care hanging over them, a move back to high capital gain taxes for business and individuals, and the threat of surtaxes and excess profits tax and the possibility of energy costs going through the roof with Cap and trade, and then the most recent move to assess "fees" just cause?

Didn't the Republicans lower these tax burdens and still it had no impact on the exodus of jobs?

Maybe in your world of government employment you cant relate to the dollars and cents side of business planning, investment, and hiring.

Cheap shot? Disingenuous? Check.

The HC reforms are not a boogyman? The process sure says otherwise. You get a break cause you work for the government and wont have to pay tax on a cadillac plan. But the guy next door with a similar plan and works for XYZ corp has to pay the tax but the guy who works for XYZ in a plant is in a Union and does not have to pay tax.

I have BlueCross/BlueShield and don't work for the federal government, so I'm not sure what exemption you are referring to and doubt it would affect me. Link? or just more BS off the top of your head?

So the boogie man is there...Government mandates of HC, coverage, and standardization is always a move to average. People who want the care they have now dont want to be lowered. And the loopholes for abortion, illegals, and so many others...that doesnt seem like the boogie man is real? Backroom deals like Nebraska payoff with your tax dollars, Louisiana payoff wityh your tax dollars...and you still defend this total coruption of good governinmg proess?

What about the people who don't have coverage? Are they content with the quality of their care?

What you and a few others may never understand is the process, visibly, publicly and in the light of day is being bastardized to create something the vast majority do not want and that this country cannot afford. And that is the pox on the democrat party today. They had the opportunity to do it right (so did the republicans a few years ago) and they blew it. The real art to maintaining power is to not abuse the power you have so that people will continue to trust you having it.

People lack trust and that is the boogie man.

Like I said, the faux outrage is pent up now, but much like the fervor over the health plan in 93' no one will care three years from now when the economy is likely chugging back along, even if average people's wages continue to gradually decline.

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:19 AM
Minimal my ass. Mandated coverage still exists. And now the money they thought they would get from "Caddilac Plans" was just nixed for Unions. I agree it doesn't do jack shit for reforms that are needed.

It's not universal care, it's not even close. It creates some credits for people below 300% of the poverty line and that's about it.

Saul Good
01-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Like I said, the faux outrage is pent up now, but much like the fervor over the health plan in 93' no one will care three years from now when the economy is likely chugging back along, even if average people's wages continue to gradually decline.

Who are the 60% of the people who don't support the plan trying to fool with said faux outrage?

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:23 AM
Who are the 60% of the people who don't support the plan trying to fool with said faux outrage?

Well, many of them are also people like myself who think it isn't close to what was promised and falls too far short. don't forget to count them in your calculations.

Also, it'd be interesting to see the poll question/pollster.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:25 AM
Who are the 60% of the people who don't support the plan trying to fool with said faux outrage?

White people who pay taxes. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:26 AM
White people who pay taxes. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

Everyone knows black people don't pay taxes. :rolleyes:

F*cktard.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:27 AM
Everyone knows black people don't pay taxes. :rolleyes:

F*cktard.

AND MY NAME IS BANYON BROWN!

WATCH ME NOW, I'M GOING DOWN!

ROFL

banyon
01-17-2010, 11:28 AM
AND MY NAME IS BANYON BROWN!

WATCH ME NOW, I'M GOING DOWN!

ROFL

There's football on, queer. I'm going to go watch that for a while.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:30 AM
There's football on, queer. I'm going to go watch that for a while.

Run boy! Run to the bathroom boy and comb your hair!
ROFL

Saul Good
01-17-2010, 11:30 AM
Well, many of them are also people like myself who think it isn't close to what was promised and falls too far short. don't forget to count them in your calculations.
Why would I forget that? Even if the bill did everything it was supposed to do, it wouldn't be worth it. The fact that we've got all of the negatives (plus a lot more) and nearly none of the positives that were promised just makes it worse.

Also, it'd be interesting to see the poll question/pollster.

Every poll I've seen has had pretty much the same results.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:32 AM
Big, big surprise.



Er, so do I, that was the point I was making. :spock: Did you not understand my post?



Didn't the Republicans lower these tax burdens and still it had no impact on the exodus of jobs?



Cheap shot? Disingenuous? Check.



I have BlueCross/BlueShield and don't work for the federal government, so I'm not sure what exemption you are referring to and doubt it would affect me. Link? or just more BS off the top of your head?



What about the people who don't have coverage? Are they content with the quality of their care?



Like I said, the faux outrage is pent up now, but much like the fervor over the health plan in 93' no one will care three years from now when the economy is likely chugging back along, even if average people's wages continue to gradually decline.

Who are the 60% of the people who don't support the plan trying to fool with said faux outrage?

Well, many of them are also people like myself who think it isn't close to what was promised and falls too far short. don't forget to count them in your calculations.

Also, it'd be interesting to see the poll question/pollster.

White people who pay taxes. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!

Everyone knows black people don't pay taxes. :rolleyes:

F*cktard.

So...

You are saying that black people are full of faux outrage?

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 11:39 AM
Big, big surprise.



Er, so do I, that was the point I was making. :spock: Did you not understand my post?



Didn't the Republicans lower these tax burdens and still it had no impact on the exodus of jobs?



Cheap shot? Disingenuous? Check.



I have BlueCross/BlueShield and don't work for the federal government, so I'm not sure what exemption you are referring to and doubt it would affect me. Link? or just more BS off the top of your head?



What about the people who don't have coverage? Are they content with the quality of their care?



Like I said, the faux outrage is pent up now, but much like the fervor over the health plan in 93' no one will care three years from now when the economy is likely chugging back along, even if average people's wages continue to gradually decline.



I remember when you were capable of some dialog. Where did that guy go? Substantial policy or appeal to the fringe would be clear in the attempt that failed in Copenhagen on Global Warming and the House Cap and Trade work that is hanging over us till the senate gets it. Mandates on the sort of lightbulbs we can buy would be a small example.

Per your burger flipping comment, yes i understood your point, I would hope that you understand mine. Perhaps if your points were made with some content rather than your normal smartassed you would have more sucess. There was nothing disingenuous about my reference to you working for the government. You do. It was not a cheap shot.

Regarding Republicans lowering taxes and job flight. You will have as much success validating that as Obama will have validating his saved jobs. The point that you and many like you fail to grasp is that businesses drive jobs. If you got no business....you got no jobs. Thats pretty damn simple. If Business is expected to add jobs in the US, how on Gods earth do you expect them to do that if they are under an attack by the politicians at every turn? I know you don't work in industry and have very limited understanding of how business makes decisions, what goes on in a businesses planning efforts and all that goes into the decision to expand or to not expand.

Jobs can move. That is where the issue gets real. Is outsourcing the result of government? Perhaps it is. Is it the result of lack of skilled workers? In fact it may well be in some cases. Is it a result of a better business climate somewhere else? Sure. Jobs leaving this country is not the fault of a political party and wont be solved by a political party and is not a partisan issue. Jobs leave for a host of reasons. If we want to develop high tech new job opportunities we have to encourage high tech development and if and when they need workers we have to have the workers educated to do those jobs. If they are not available here, the company that develops the idea/product will go where they have a stable productive workforce and a stable business environment. Today....that is not the US.

Thats not burger flippin.

You dont have top work for the federal government to get the benefit of the agreement they reached this week. It covers state and local government as well as federal all under the same deal they cut with the unions. If you don't have time or energy to keep up on the issue then at least understand it before you comment and expect a link or some other help. Maybe if you asked for the help with out the smartass reference to BS off the top of my head you would get it. As it is go look for it yourself and try to keep up.

Its been made rather clear the people who dont have coverage in the current state of affairs will still not have coverage for a good many of them with ObamaCare. Thats a mjor hole in the entire thing. Once again, they build a law that is supposed to fix a problem that in the end does not fix the problem at all while creating many many more.


The party better not believe as you seem to that what is going on is "faux outrage". People are upset with politics period. Both parties. they are upset with government at all levels. and if they believe its faux outrage, the election come November will be a bigger house cleaning than any of can picture.

petegz28
01-17-2010, 11:46 AM
It's not universal care, it's not even close. It creates some credits for people below 300% of the poverty line and that's about it.

Horse





Shit

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 11:50 AM
The decision to run a centerist sounding campaign and lead people to believe that Obama would right the wrongs in Washington was first. People do not react well to being misled. Essentially they bought a product that didn't function when they got it home. Don't mislead voters.



This just shows how little you paid attention. Obama has done almost everything he said he would.

RedNeckRaider
01-17-2010, 11:53 AM
This just shows how little you paid attention. Obama has done almost everything he said he would.

Total transparency, no more of the same old players playing the same old games in DC. Sorry I have to call bullshit~

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:55 AM
Total transparency, no more of the same old players playing the same old games in DC. Sorry I have to call bullshit~

Page by page...

Line by line...

5 days on the internet...

C-Span...

donkeys

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 11:58 AM
Total transparency, no more of the same old players playing the same old games in DC. Sorry I have to call bullshit~

That is why I said almost. ;)

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 11:59 AM
There's football on, queer.

Bigot.

:)

RedNeckRaider
01-17-2010, 12:02 PM
That is why I said almost. ;)

Well played :clap:

Saul Good
01-17-2010, 12:10 PM
This just shows how little you paid attention. Obama has done almost everything he said he would.

When did he say that he was going to cheerlead for windfalls for insurance companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers?

petegz28
01-17-2010, 12:24 PM
This just shows how little you paid attention. Obama has done almost everything he said he would.

LMAO......

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 12:29 PM
This just shows how little you paid attention. Obama has done almost everything he said he would.

I admit he has done what I expected but I was not in his base. I think it was the expectations of others that are most important.

mlyonsd
01-17-2010, 12:34 PM
I think what happens Tuesday in Mass. could be a huge determining factor.

If, and I'm only speculating here, Brown wins AND the dems decide not to seat him before the health care vote it could get very ugly for them in 2010.

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 12:37 PM
When did he say that he was going to cheerlead for windfalls for insurance companies, banks, and automobile manufacturers?

Are windfalls like waterfalls but not as pretty?

I admit he has done what I expected but I was not in his base. I think it was the expectations of others that are most important.

He has done for the most part what I expected but people had huge and sometimes wrong expectations for him.

But he never tried to hide what he was going to do which is what I think you were trying to say.

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Are windfalls like waterfalls but not as pretty?



He has done for the most part what I expected but people had huge and sometimes wrong expectations for him.

But he never tried to hide what he was going to do which is what I think you were trying to say.

Dirk, make no mistake. I was not trying to say it, I clearly said it. He misled the voters.

You may have had the right view and agree with him but the polls do not lie. The people who voted for him and think they got what they thought they bought are getting fewer by the day.

If the demo party takes the position that "people had too high expectations", they are doomed. It is not the customers fault. This is on the party to try to fix.

You have a ton of people who think they bought a pig in a poke. They dont like being misled subtly or in an outright lie. We got both.

Royal Fanatic
01-17-2010, 01:29 PM
If the demo party takes the position that "people had too high expectations", they are doomed.
Maybe it's time for Obama to trot out Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech.

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 02:53 PM
Dirk, make no mistake. I was not trying to say it, I clearly said it. He misled the voters.

You may have had the right view and agree with him but the polls do not lie. The people who voted for him and think they got what they thought they bought are getting fewer by the day.

If the demo party takes the position that "people had too high expectations", they are doomed. It is not the customers fault. This is on the party to try to fix.

You have a ton of people who think they bought a pig in a poke. They dont like being misled subtly or in an outright lie. We got both.

He really misled people? I will fully admit alot of people voted on pure emotion and didn't listen to what he was saying but that happens on both sides. He has done what he said he was going to do for the most part just like any other POTUS.

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/images/mainquote-obama-mug.gif
The Obameter Scorecard



Promise Kept (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/) 91



Compromise (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/) 33



Promise Broken (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/) 14



Stalled (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/) 87



In the Works (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/in-the-works/) 275

Not yet rated (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/not-yet-rated/) 2

HonestChieffan
01-17-2010, 03:16 PM
Dirk...how can so many people be so wrong? Its not numbs and figs...its about how people feel and what they see and what they hear. And if the election were today, he would not be elected. Why? Cause he has failed to be what the voters expected.
Rate the lies or track the promices dont matter sickum.
You hang in there loyal guy. He needs you. But shut out the lights when you leave cause no one else is gonna be home.

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 03:25 PM
Dirk...how can so many people be so wrong? Its not numbs and figs...its about how people feel and what they see and what they hear. And if the election were today, he would not be elected. Why? Cause he has failed to be what the voters expected.
Rate the lies or track the promices dont matter sickum.
You hang in there loyal guy. He needs you. But shut out the lights when you leave cause no one else is gonna be home.

LMAO You ask how can so many people be so wrong? What happened in 04 when Bush got re-elected and I am sure you voted for him. How can you be so wrong?

As I stated in 08 it is all about the economy. If the economy doesn't improve he is a 1 term POTUS, if it turns around and jobs come back he will be here for another 7 years.

BigRedChief
01-17-2010, 03:50 PM
LMAO You ask how can so many people be so wrong? What happened in 04 when Bush got re-elected and I am sure you voted for him. How can you be so wrong?

As I stated in 08 it is all about the economy. If the economy doesn't improve he is a 1 term POTUS, if it turns around and jobs come back he will be here for another 7 years.THIS!

RedNeckRaider
01-17-2010, 03:52 PM
LMAO You ask how can so many people be so wrong? What happened in 04 when Bush got re-elected and I am sure you voted for him. How can you be so wrong?

As I stated in 08 it is all about the economy. If the economy doesn't improve he is a 1 term POTUS, if it turns around and jobs come back he will be here for another 7 years.
Agreed

petegz28
01-17-2010, 04:00 PM
LMAO You ask how can so many people be so wrong? What happened in 04 when Bush got re-elected and I am sure you voted for him. How can you be so wrong?

As I stated in 08 it is all about the economy. If the economy doesn't improve he is a 1 term POTUS, if it turns around and jobs come back he will be here for another 7 years.

And how many Pubs lost in 06?

Mr. Flopnuts
01-17-2010, 04:07 PM
I long for the day that both parties gets tossed out on their collective asses, and hope that once it happens this country never looks back.

RedNeckRaider
01-17-2010, 04:11 PM
I long for the day that both parties gets tossed out on their collective asses, and hope that once it happens this country never looks back.
And we stand stead fast arms extended giving both parties the finger~

petegz28
01-17-2010, 04:11 PM
I long for the day that both parties gets tossed out on their collective asses, and hope that once it happens this country never looks back.

If I could have one political wish, it would be that the Party system would be abolished.

RedNeckRaider
01-17-2010, 04:14 PM
If I could have one political wish, it would be that the Party system would be abolished.

I am more of a selfish prick than you...I would wish to be the dictator :D

petegz28
01-17-2010, 04:19 PM
I am more of a selfish prick than you...I would wish to be the dictator :D

ROFL

dirk digler
01-17-2010, 04:34 PM
And how many Pubs lost in 06?

Fair point.

I will even point out that I said before the election if Obama wins he basically has 2 years to fix\improve shit.

petegz28
01-17-2010, 04:39 PM
Fair point.

I will even point out that I said before the election if Obama wins he basically has 2 years to fix\improve shit.

Well he better pray for a miracle because he wasted his 1st year and he is going to need just that to pull it out in his 2nd.

The Mad Crapper
01-17-2010, 06:44 PM
THIS!

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/obeach.jpg

Chief Faithful
01-17-2010, 06:55 PM
He really misled people? I will fully admit alot of people voted on pure emotion and didn't listen to what he was saying but that happens on both sides. He has done what he said he was going to do for the most part just like any other POTUS.

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/images/mainquote-obama-mug.gif
The Obameter Scorecard



Promise Kept (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/) 91



Compromise (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/) 33



Promise Broken (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/) 14



Stalled (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/) 87



In the Works (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/in-the-works/) 275

Not yet rated (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/not-yet-rated/) 2

The promises kept are the worst part.

TigerPig
01-17-2010, 10:33 PM
The Democrats are doing what they think is right for the country. They have the mentality that if they can get done what they want done while they still have the power, then they will have accomplished their goal. Even if this means Obama doesn't get reelected. If he does what he wanted to do in four years, then I think the party will be okay with that. At least, that's how it seems to be with the stances they are taking.

Although the Democrat party isn't up to snuff, it perplexes me how so many Americans can still side with the atrocious policies of the Republican party. I think its because America is getting old. I'd say until all of these Baby Boomers start dying off, we'll continue to see this trend of conservatism, followed by a somewhat steep inclination towards liberalism again.

alanm
01-17-2010, 11:18 PM
The Democrats are doing what they think is right for the country. They have the mentality that if they can get done what they want done while they still have the power, then they will have accomplished their goal. Even if this means Obama doesn't get reelected. If he does what he wanted to do in four years, then I think the party will be okay with that. At least, that's how it seems to be with the stances they are taking.

Although the Democrat party isn't up to snuff, it perplexes me how so many Americans can still side with the atrocious policies of the Republican party. I think its because America is getting old. I'd say until all of these Baby Boomers start dying off, we'll continue to see this trend of conservatism, followed by a somewhat steep inclination towards liberalism again.I take it you don't have to work for a living or have a family yet?

TigerPig
01-17-2010, 11:56 PM
I take it you don't have to work for a living or have a family yet?

I take it you've never been TRULY poor or lived in poverty. As a child I had to go years having cavities in my head that were rotting my teeth out. I went a whole year with horrible eyesight before my parents had the money to go get me glasses. Here in Arkansas employers don't give their employees health insurance unless you have a job with a big company or have a degree--I'd say 2/3 to 3/4 of the people don't have health insurance. So you're screwed unless you can devote about 1/4 of your pay to insurance. Some can and do, others can't and don't.

So yeah, I work one job for 40 hours a week. I work another for an additional six, and then go to school full-time, paying for my classes out-of-pocket. And I will always be a liberal because of this:

The important measure of success is not per-capita income, but quality of life.

In our capitalistic society its easy to think more money = happiness, but surveys from around the world show this to be untrue over and over again. Other nations realize healthy = happy. The US does not.

And to all these people who say you can get a job with insurance if you really try? That's a bunch of crap. One person can, but every person deserves health care in this day and age. There will always be a janitor or dishwasher. These people still deserve to be able to go to a physician when needed. And I don't think it should be totally free. I think it should be cheap, and based off of your income. You make 50k a year, its 50 bucks. Make 15k a year, 15 bucks. This would eliminate some of the incentive for people to go just because they can. And I don't know about you, but if you've ever been poor... 15 bucks is a LOT of money. I've gone 72 hours once without having the money to eat. After that I appreciate 15 bucks.

"Bob" Dobbs
01-18-2010, 12:28 AM
The Democrats are doing what they think is right for the country. They have the mentality that if they can get done what they want done while they still have the power, then they will have accomplished their goal.

Dude, are you actually suggesting that the ends really do justify the means?

Chocolate Hog
01-18-2010, 01:15 AM
Who are the Democrats and who are the Republicans?

TigerPig
01-18-2010, 01:23 AM
Dude, are you actually suggesting that the ends really do justify the means?

No, but maybe they are...

I think liberalism in this country at this point is a futile cause. Too many old people, and ex-hippies who turned into money grubbers. The conservative party is still riding the wave of Reagan to this day, and will continue to do so until probably around 2030 or so.

That being said I would still consider this term a success if they get the bills they want passed, passed. I don't care about approval ratings, because my approval rating for the American people is about 10%.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-18-2010, 01:39 AM
I take it you've never been TRULY poor or lived in poverty. As a child I had to go years having cavities in my head that were rotting my teeth out. I went a whole year with horrible eyesight before my parents had the money to go get me glasses. Here in Arkansas employers don't give their employees health insurance unless you have a job with a big company or have a degree--I'd say 2/3 to 3/4 of the people don't have health insurance. So you're screwed unless you can devote about 1/4 of your pay to insurance. Some can and do, others can't and don't.

So yeah, I work one job for 40 hours a week. I work another for an additional six, and then go to school full-time, paying for my classes out-of-pocket. And I will always be a liberal because of this:

The important measure of success is not per-capita income, but quality of life.

In our capitalistic society its easy to think more money = happiness, but surveys from around the world show this to be untrue over and over again. Other nations realize healthy = happy. The US does not.

And to all these people who say you can get a job with insurance if you really try? That's a bunch of crap. One person can, but every person deserves health care in this day and age. There will always be a janitor or dishwasher. These people still deserve to be able to go to a physician when needed. And I don't think it should be totally free. I think it should be cheap, and based off of your income. You make 50k a year, its 50 bucks. Make 15k a year, 15 bucks. This would eliminate some of the incentive for people to go just because they can. And I don't know about you, but if you've ever been poor... 15 bucks is a LOT of money. I've gone 72 hours once without having the money to eat. After that I appreciate 15 bucks.

Listen, I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything, but if you work 46 hours a week and have a full time class schedule in college, how on Earth could you be on pace for 20,000 posts a year at Chiefsplanet?

TigerPig
01-18-2010, 03:10 AM
Listen, I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything, but if you work 46 hours a week and have a full time class schedule in college, how on Earth could you be on pace for 20,000 posts a year at Chiefsplanet?

I sleep about 4-5 hours a night. I'm rather biphasic, and can go for a few weeks on only a few hours of sleep a night. Also, I'll be in the mood to talk football for a few weeks or so, then totally lose interest and stop posting completely.

If you notice, I'll post stuff about once every 30 seconds. I'm a total post whore. I stay on here basically all night from the time I get home to the time I go to bed. Usually that's about six hours. I do my homework, other things, and just hang out while coming on here once in a while, posting about 20 times in a half an hour and then leaving. You should see the fourms. People will talk, and there's me about every other post, sometimes posting two or three times before anyone replies.

I'll probably end up cutting down a lot with classes starting, my friends getting back from home (they go to school here) and stuff like that.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 06:19 AM
I take it you've never been TRULY poor or lived in poverty. As a child I had to go years having cavities in my head that were rotting my teeth out.

Obviously you've never been to Canada or Great Britain.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 07:35 AM
LMAO You ask how can so many people be so wrong? What happened in 04 when Bush got re-elected and I am sure you voted for him. How can you be so wrong?

As I stated in 08 it is all about the economy. If the economy doesn't improve he is a 1 term POTUS, if it turns around and jobs come back he will be here for another 7 years.

THIS!

LMAO Lay down your markers then. What does the economy have to do to improve to the level that will make you think Obama deserves a second term. And when does it have to do it? You realize that there's a business cycle independent of the actions of the President don't you?

He's already failed on the employment front by his own standards. Are you guys going to hold him to the 7% official unemployment that he promised by the end of 2010?

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/10/6/saupload_innocent_bystanders_stimulus_vs_unemployment_september_dots.png

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 07:38 AM
The Democrats are doing what they think is right for the country. They have the mentality that if they can get done what they want done while they still have the power, then they will have accomplished their goal. Even if this means Obama doesn't get reelected. If he does what he wanted to do in four years, then I think the party will be okay with that. At least, that's how it seems to be with the stances they are taking.

Although the Democrat party isn't up to snuff, it perplexes me how so many Americans can still side with the atrocious policies of the Republican party. I think its because America is getting old. I'd say until all of these Baby Boomers start dying off, we'll continue to see this trend of conservatism, followed by a somewhat steep inclination towards liberalism again.
Give youth the time to live under the policies of Obama and they'll change their minds. It doesn't have to take a long time. A lot of those boomers you refer to of the 60's embraced the same ideas and then became conservatives. It happens. It usually happens.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 07:42 AM
The Democrats are doing what they think is right for the country. They have the mentality that if they can get done what they want done while they still have the power, then they will have accomplished their goal. Even if this means Obama doesn't get reelected. If he does what he wanted to do in four years, then I think the party will be okay with that. At least, that's how it seems to be with the stances they are taking.

Although the Democrat party isn't up to snuff, it perplexes me how so many Americans can still side with the atrocious policies of the Republican party. I think its because America is getting old. I'd say until all of these Baby Boomers start dying off, we'll continue to see this trend of conservatism, followed by a somewhat steep inclination towards liberalism again.

With any luck, the foolishness of the young will decline with age and be replaced with wisdom. OTOH, maybe you're right and they're just lost causes.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 07:42 AM
Who are the Democrats and who are the Republicans?

..............................'tis the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to vote against a sea of troubles
And, by opposing, end them.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 07:52 AM
I take it you've never been TRULY poor or lived in poverty. As a child I had to go years having cavities in my head that were rotting my teeth out. I went a whole year with horrible eyesight before my parents had the money to go get me glasses. Here in Arkansas employers don't give their employees health insurance unless you have a job with a big company or have a degree--I'd say 2/3 to 3/4 of the people don't have health insurance. So you're screwed unless you can devote about 1/4 of your pay to insurance. Some can and do, others can't and don't.

So yeah, I work one job for 40 hours a week. I work another for an additional six, and then go to school full-time, paying for my classes out-of-pocket. And I will always be a liberal because of this:

The important measure of success is not per-capita income, but quality of life.

In our capitalistic society its easy to think more money = happiness, but surveys from around the world show this to be untrue over and over again. Other nations realize healthy = happy. The US does not.

And to all these people who say you can get a job with insurance if you really try? That's a bunch of crap. One person can, but every person deserves health care in this day and age. There will always be a janitor or dishwasher. These people still deserve to be able to go to a physician when needed. And I don't think it should be totally free. I think it should be cheap, and based off of your income. You make 50k a year, its 50 bucks. Make 15k a year, 15 bucks. This would eliminate some of the incentive for people to go just because they can. And I don't know about you, but if you've ever been poor... 15 bucks is a LOT of money. I've gone 72 hours once without having the money to eat. After that I appreciate 15 bucks.

:deevee: You had the chance to improve your life by going to college earlier in life as you've admitted in other threads. Don't whine now about having to work your way through as if you had no choice. You made a poor decision and you need to accept that it was YOUR poor decision not something someone else did to you.

Dick Cheney grew up poor. When he was a kid, he went on family driving trips in the back of a hand-me-down car that a relative had given them. He and his brother sat in boxes because for some reason the car's back seat was gone. Have you ever ridden anywhere in a box where the back seat of your parent's hand-me-down car should have been? I think not. Dick Cheney never forgot his roots. He knows that limited government is the best way to help working class Americans.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:00 AM
Dick Cheney grew up poor. When he was a kid, he went on family driving trips in the back of a hand-me-down car that a relative had given them. He and his brother sat in boxes because for some reason the car's back seat was gone. Have you ever ridden anywhere in a box where the back seat of your parent's hand-me-down car should have been? I think not. Dick Cheney never forgot his roots. He knows that limited government is the best way to help working class Americans.
No Cheney knows that attaching oneself to govt is a way to also make money from it, as any classic mercantilist aka cartel kind of capitalist would. I think Hamilton didn't grow up in the best conditions either including being born out-of-wedlock and later again orphaned.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 08:15 AM
No Cheney knows that attaching oneself to govt is a way to also make money from it, as any classic mercantilist aka cartel kind of capitalist would. I think Hamilton didn't grow up in the best conditions either including being born out-of-wedlock and later again orphaned.

Dick Cheney gave over $7 million of his own private-sector-earned dollars to charity when he decided to serve his country by running for VP. If making money was his goal, you wouldn't even know who he is.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 08:21 AM
Dick Cheney gave over $7 million of his own private-sector-earned dollars to charity when he decided to serve his country by running for VP. If making money was his goal, you wouldn't even know who he is.

Yeah, but he was able to because his firm benefits from govt spending. Lol!
I'd give that much too when markets are more or less guaranteed.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 08:33 AM
Yeah, but he was able to because his firm benefits from govt spending. Lol!
I'd give that much too when markets are more or less guaranteed.

He took at least a 7 figure cut in salary (not to mention bonus potential) in addition to donating over 15% of his net wealth to charity when he became VP and you're trying to sell a story about how he's in it for the money? You're laughable.

banyon
01-18-2010, 09:25 AM
I remember when you were capable of some dialog. Where did that guy go? Substantial policy or appeal to the fringe would be clear in the attempt that failed in Copenhagen on Global Warming and the House Cap and Trade work that is hanging over us till the senate gets it. Mandates on the sort of lightbulbs we can buy would be a small example.

Per your burger flipping comment, yes i understood your point, I would hope that you understand mine. Perhaps if your points were made with some content rather than your normal smartassed you would have more sucess. There was nothing disingenuous about my reference to you working for the government. You do. It was not a cheap shot.

You want to pretend like bringing up personal things about me in the discussion and in a snarky way like "well maybe if you weren't a government hack you'd be able to understand" (which was the tone of your comment) isn't insulting", well.. that's just another reason more people can transparently see you fotr what you are. 1.HonestChieffan attempts to begin discussion. 2. HonestChieffan resorts to cliches and insults and cheap shots. 3. Honest Chieffan gets called out on it. 4. HonestChieffan throws up his hands in fake innocence "what who me? I wasn't doing anything wrong." Whatever. Your act is there for everyone to see.

Regarding Republicans lowering taxes and job flight. You will have as much success validating that as Obama will have validating his saved jobs. The point that you and many like you fail to grasp is that businesses drive jobs. If you got no business....you got no jobs. Thats pretty damn simple. If Business is expected to add jobs in the US, how on Gods earth do you expect them to do that if they are under an attack by the politicians at every turn? I know you don't work in industry and have very limited understanding of how business makes decisions, what goes on in a businesses planning efforts and all that goes into the decision to expand or to not expand.

Businesses, particularly corporations, exist to make profit for their shareholders. As such, they will cut costs and seek to maximize profits wherever possible. What "nuance" of business is it that you think you understand and pretend that its somehow too complicated for someone else to?

As to the point about lowering taxes, you missed it entirely. That's a historical economic fact. Having a policy of lowered taxes doesn't result in an increase in jobs. Why not? Primarily because there's so much more in cost savings to be made by finding the cheapest and most desperate labor to work for pennies on the dollar. That will always be a larger cost savings than 10-15% on corporate income taxes. The point, then, is that you don't have a policy recommendation that actually shows promise of increasing the development of decent jobs in this country except to recommend that we sit on our hands and hope for the best, which has head us listening to Ross Perot's 'giant sucking sound" for the last 20 years as the job situation continues to degrade.

Jobs can move. That is where the issue gets real. Is outsourcing the result of government? Perhaps it is. Is it the result of lack of skilled workers? In fact it may well be in some cases. Is it a result of a better business climate somewhere else? Sure. Jobs leaving this country is not the fault of a political party and wont be solved by a political party and is not a partisan issue. Jobs leave for a host of reasons. If we want to develop high tech new job opportunities we have to encourage high tech development and if and when they need workers we have to have the workers educated to do those jobs. If they are not available here, the company that develops the idea/product will go where they have a stable productive workforce and a stable business environment. Today....that is not the US.

Thats not burger flippin.

I don't agree of course, because labor savings is quite obviously the primary driver in outsourcing, but again, this series of business-friendly platitudes isn't worth the bandwidth used to type them absent a policy that will get us from point A to point B.

You dont have top work for the federal government to get the benefit of the agreement they reached this week. It covers state and local government as well as federal all under the same deal they cut with the unions. If you don't have time or energy to keep up on the issue then at least understand it before you comment and expect a link or some other help. Maybe if you asked for the help with out the smartass reference to BS off the top of my head you would get it. As it is go look for it yourself and try to keep up.

So, no link? Shocking. I did look, and there was nothing that was germaine on a cursory glance, which since it came from you and was your point, ought to be worth enough minimal effort for you to simply point me in the right direction to locate it. But I'm guessing you're not going to, because it doesn't exist.


The party better not believe as you seem to that what is going on is "faux outrage". People are upset with politics period. Both parties. they are upset with government at all levels. and if they believe its faux outrage, the election come November will be a bigger house cleaning than any of can picture.

Yeah, the thread topic (and my post) were directed at 2012. I don't doubt the Republicans will gain seats this year, non-Presidential parties typically do in the first off-year election. This "teapartier" frothing at the mouth will be a historical anecdote by then (which was my point).

banyon
01-18-2010, 09:25 AM
He took at least a 7 figure cut in salary (not to mention bonus potential) in addition to donating over 15% of his net wealth to charity when he became VP and you're trying to sell a story about how he's in it for the money? You're laughable.

What's he making now?

petegz28
01-18-2010, 09:42 AM
What's he making now?

He isn't supposed to make money now?? WTF is Al Gore making off of all the "Global Warming" bullshit?

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 09:53 AM
LMAO Lay down your markers then. What does the economy have to do to improve to the level that will make you think Obama deserves a second term. And when does it have to do it? You realize that there's a business cycle independent of the actions of the President don't you?

He's already failed on the employment front by his own standards. Are you guys going to hold him to the 7% official unemployment that he promised by the end of 2010?



I don't have any firm standard though I would say unemployment needs to be back to around 5-7%.

memyselfI
01-18-2010, 10:09 AM
At least.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 10:13 AM
What's he making now?

I don't know for sure, but I believe he's unemployed. He's writing a book that's sure to be a big seller and his wife makes a decent living though so I don't think we'll be seeing him at any soup kitchens in the near future.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 10:15 AM
I don't have any firm standard though I would say unemployment needs to be back to around 5-7%.

I'll hold you to that. It's going to take some serious cooking to get the books to show 7% unemployment by the end of 2010.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 10:24 AM
I'll hold you to that. It's going to take some serious cooking to get the books to show 7% unemployment by the end of 2010.

A nasty surprise awaits Obama on the unemployment front. Since the 10% number doesn't include those who have given up searching for a job, once the jobs start to come back, the number will drop slightly and then all those who gave up will suddenly begin to become active again and the number will skyrocket.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 11:56 AM
I'll hold you to that. It's going to take some serious cooking to get the books to show 7% unemployment by the end of 2010.

I thought you were talking about him getting re-elected in 2012 because that was what I was responding too (see quote below).

Lay down your markers then. What does the economy have to do to improve to the level that will make you think Obama deserves a second term.

It won't get close to that this year.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 12:00 PM
I thought you were talking about him getting re-elected in 2012 because that was what I was responding too.

It won't get close to that this year.

:LOL: OK, I get it. No firm standards. You'll know it when you see it. I figured as much.

His administration told us we'd have 7% unemployment by the end of this year if we passed his porkulus bill. Anything short of that is failure. I was shocked when it looked like you were going to hold him to that, but I guess you just didn't understand the question.

LMAO Lay down your markers then. What does the economy have to do to improve to the level that will make you think Obama deserves a second term. And when does it have to do it? You realize that there's a business cycle independent of the actions of the President don't you?

He's already failed on the employment front by his own standards. Are you guys going to hold him to the 7% official unemployment that he promised by the end of 2010?

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 12:08 PM
:LOL: OK, I get it. No firm standards. You'll know it when you see it. I figured as much.

His administration told us we'd have 7% unemployment by the end of this year if we passed his porkulus bill. Anything short of that is failure. I was shocked when it looked like you were going to hold him to that, but I guess you just didn't understand the question.

Sorry I missed that question. If he misses the mark then he was wrong and that is a failure.

My 5-7% answer was in regards to him getting re-elected in 2012.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 12:11 PM
B.O. is a turd.

It's funny when we correctly called Bush the incompetent nincompoop that he proved to be You and your brethren would get all hot and bothered and up in arms about us insulting "The Office On Presidency."

You are a hypocrite. :shake:

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 12:12 PM
It's funny when we correctly called Bush the incompetent nincompoop that he proved to be You and your brethren would get all hot and bothered and up in arms about us insulting "The Office On Presidency."

You are a hypocrite. :shake:

What?!

ROFL

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 12:22 PM
nincompoop

Is that terrorist food or German food?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 12:27 PM
Is that terrorist food or German food?

President Umar Barack Farouk Hussein Abdulmutallab Obama eats terrorist food. Flunkie eats his ass.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 12:39 PM
Sorry I missed that question. If he misses the mark then he was wrong and that is a failure.

My 5-7% answer was in regards to him getting re-elected in 2012.

It's pretty damned generous of you to consider it success if he has unemployment at 7% by the end of his first term given that it was lower than 7% when he took office. I suppose you'll consider it a golden age if unemployment is under 8% in 2016. Sounds like fail to me.

patteeu
01-18-2010, 12:41 PM
It's funny when we correctly called Bush the incompetent nincompoop that he proved to be You and your brethren would get all hot and bothered and up in arms about us insulting "The Office On Presidency."

You are a hypocrite. :shake:

Your posts are making less and less sense these days, Frankie.

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 12:43 PM
Is that terrorist food or German food?

Sounds like a delicacy Franky likes.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 12:43 PM
Your posts are making less and less sense these days, Frankie.

The baseline wasn't all that impressive to begin with, either.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 12:49 PM
The Dems hold on the super majority is gone. Whether it happens tomorrow or in November it is over.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 12:52 PM
It's pretty damned generous of you to consider it success if he has unemployment at 7% by the end of his first term given that it was lower than 7% when he took office. I suppose you'll consider it a golden age if unemployment is under 8% in 2016. Sounds like fail to me.

Democrats: We're lost. It's 8:00, and we're 6 hours away from home, and we're going the wrong way. Give Obama the keys.

Obama: Yeah, give me the keys. If you do, I'll have things on the right track. By 11:00, I'll have us turned around.

Republicans: Hey Barack, it's after 10:00, and we're still lost only now, we're 10 hours from home. Also, you're going the same way that the last guy was going only you're driving faster, and you spent all of our gas money on beef jerky.

Democrats: If, by 12:00, we're only 7 hours from home, I say that Obama's a great driver and deserves another 4 hours at the wheel.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 12:59 PM
It's pretty damned generous of you to consider it success if he has unemployment at 7% by the end of his first term given that it was lower than 7% when he took office. I suppose you'll consider it a golden age if unemployment is under 8% in 2016. Sounds like fail to me.

What? February unemployment was 8.1.

The U.S. job market keeps weakening. According to the latest unemployment report (http://link.gs/p6st) released by the Labor Department this morning, U.S. employers slashed 651,000 nonfarm positions in February 2009, pushing the monthly unemployment rate to 8.1%, the highest level since December 1983. February marks the third straight month that job losses exceeded 600,000, the first time that happened since 1939. The monthly job losses of 651K are also the largest since 1949.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:02 PM
What? February unemployment was 8.1.

Dirk, you seriously want B.O. to get re-elected in 2012? Why?

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:03 PM
What? February unemployment was 8.1.

And here we are almost a year later and it is at 10%. I know, I know, the stimulus still hsn't all been spent, right?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:04 PM
And here we are almost a year later and it is at 10%. I know, I know, the stimulus still hsn't all been spent, right?

B.O. is saving it to buy votes in November 2010.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:06 PM
Dirk, you seriously want B.O. to get re-elected in 2012? Why?

Depends. Alot can happen in 3 years.

And here we are almost a year later and it is at 10%. I know, I know, the stimulus still hsn't all been spent, right?

The economy was and still in bad shape and I believe in worst shape than alot of people predicted. It is going to take time, Reagan went through something very similar to this.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:08 PM
Depends. Alot can happen in 3 years.



The economy was and still in bad shape and I believe in worst shape than alot of people predicted. It is going to take time, Reagan went through something very similar to this.

I don't remember the "Reagan Stimuls bill". Got a link?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:09 PM
Depends. Alot can happen in 3 years.


Only if B.O. does an about face on his agenda. don't hold your breathe.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:12 PM
And here we are almost a year later and it is at 10%. I know, I know, the stimulus still hsn't all been spent, right?

That's my favorite argument of all.

Republicans: We don't need this massive spending. Even if spending is done, it should be smaller and targeted.

Democrats: Oh no. It needs to be huge. A million gallons of water dumped at once will put out an inferno. If you pour the water on the fire one gallon at a time, it won't do any good.

Republicans: We just pumped our wells dry against our wills, and the fire is bigger than ever. Shouldn't we do something about your buddies over there who keep throwing logs on the fire?

Democrats: Of course not. We just need another million gallons of water.

Republicans: That didn't work last time, and now we've got nothing to drink and people are dying of thirst. Why would we do the same thing again and expect a different result?

Democrats: Shut up and get out of the way. I don't want to hear a lot of talking from you. Besides, we've been dumping water on it one gallon at a time, and we've only used 500,000 gallons so far.

Republicans: Didn't you say that it had to be all dumped at once in order to have an impact? Why should we let you keep making decisions when your plans are bad, and you can't manage them anyway?

Democrats: I can't hear you. I'm filling up my friends' swimming pools with water.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Sounds like a delicacy Franky likes.

Frankie loves that terrorist food. I think he especially likes fried infidel with with pig chutney.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:14 PM
I don't remember the "Reagan Stimuls bill". Got a link?

I was only comparing Reagan's first couple years to Obama's. Both had bad economies and both had dropping poll numbers. Reagan turned it around and we don't know about Obama yet.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:15 PM
I was only comparing Reagan's first couple years to Obama's. Both had bad economies and both had dropping poll numbers. Reagan turned it around and we don't know about Obama yet.

And Reagan did the exact opposite of what Obama is doing. :hmmm:

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:15 PM
I was only comparing Reagan's first couple years to Obama's. Both had bad economies and both had dropping poll numbers. Reagan turned it around and we don't know about Obama yet.

B.O. is employing an agenda that is the polar opposite of the policies employed by Reagan.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 01:15 PM
Frankie loves that terrorist food. I think he especially likes fried infidel with with pig chutney.

Sorry - correction -
"Frankie loves that terrorist food. I think he especially likes fried infidel with with conservative chutney."

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:16 PM
That's my favorite argument of all.

Republicans: We don't need this massive spending. Even if spending is done, it should be smaller and targeted.

Democrats: Oh no. It needs to be huge. A million gallons of water dumped at once will put out an inferno. If you pour the water on the fire one gallon at a time, it won't do any good.

Republicans: We just pumped our wells dry against our wills, and the fire is bigger than ever. Shouldn't we do something about your buddies over there who keep throwing logs on the fire?

Democrats: Of course not. We just need another million gallons of water.

Republicans: That didn't work last time, and now we've got nothing to drink and people are dying of thirst. Why would we do the same thing again and expect a different result?

Democrats: Shut up and get out of the way. I don't want to hear a lot of talking from you. Besides, we've been dumping water on it one gallon at a time, and we've only used 500,000 gallons so far.

Republicans: Didn't you say that it had to be all dumped at once in order to have an impact? Why should we let you keep making decisions when your plans are bad, and you can't manage them anyway?

Democrats: I can't hear you. I'm filling up my friends' swimming pools with water.

I do get a chuckle out of Republicans now talking about targeted spending and no massive spending especially after they passed a trillion dollar Medicare bill in 2003

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 01:18 PM
they passed a trillion dollar Medicare bill in 2003

Much to many conservatives dismay and bitching.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:19 PM
Sorry - correction -
"Frankie loves that terrorist food. I think he especially likes fried infidel with with conservative chutney."

Is curry terrorist food? That stuff is great to put on 3 day old chicken.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:19 PM
I do get a chuckle out of Republicans now talking about targeted spending and no massive spending especially after they passed a trillion dollar Medicare bill in 2003

The conservatives blasted Bush for that. Look up Rush Limbaugh's archives. That was the moment where Bush lost his base.

Calcountry
01-18-2010, 01:20 PM
Well I don't think a lot of people hold the Rs in lofty regard either.

And I wonder if gridlock is really that true anymore. Both parties keep spending, and growing govt and having us police the world with more stupid wars.no no no. Just the neocons. All the true conservatives, like you, are AOK. :thumb:

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:20 PM
I do get a chuckle out of Republicans now talking about targeted spending and no massive spending especially after they passed a trillion dollar Medicare bill in 2003

One of many sad moments in the Bush Presidency. And didn't the Dems blast him on it? Now look at them.

"Bob" Dobbs
01-18-2010, 01:22 PM
I'm in shock here. Did someone actually compare BO to Reagan???????? NOW I've seen it all.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:24 PM
Much to many conservatives dismay and bitching.

yeah that is why in the Senate they all voted for it. 35 Dems voted No while 42 Reps voted yes

LMAO

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:27 PM
One of many sad moments in the Bush Presidency. And didn't the Dems blast him on it? Now look at them.

I just don't want to hear how the Reps are all now high mighty about cutting spending. It is a load of crap.

Why don't we just all agree they all spend like whores once they get power.

bkkcoh
01-18-2010, 01:30 PM
it will be interesting if the republican wins the Mass senate seat, what excuses the MSM will make for the loss and how it isn't a reflection of Obama at all, but just a general disgust with politics.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:31 PM
yeah that is why in the Senate they all voted for it. 35 Dems voted No while 42 Reps voted yes

LMAO
And the base went into full on meltdown mode.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930297/posts

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33110

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/930099/posts

petegz28
01-18-2010, 01:31 PM
I just don't want to hear how the Reps are all now high mighty about cutting spending. It is a load of crap.

Why don't we just all agree they all spend like whores once they get power.

Dude, pay the **** attention. Why do you think the Pubs lost in 06 and 08? Now the Dems are outdoing anyting the Pubs did.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:33 PM
it will be interesting if the republican wins the Mass senate seat, what excuses the MSM will make for the loss and how it isn't a reflection of Obama at all, but just a general disgust with politics.

Something along these lines:

"Some thoughts on those angry voters. Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It's clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It's the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week....Parenting and governing don't have to be dirty words: the nation can't be run by an angry two-year-old."
-- ABC World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings in his daily ABC Radio commentary, November 14, 1994.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:37 PM
it will be interesting if the republican wins the Mass senate seat, what excuses the MSM will make for the loss and how it isn't a reflection of Obama at all, but just a general disgust with politics.

Racism. Book it.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:43 PM
B.O. is employing an agenda that is the polar opposite of the policies employed by Reagan.

That's because Reagan had ice-water in his veins and Obama is warm blooded and cares.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:45 PM
That's because Reagan had ice-water in his veins and Obama is warm blooded and cares.

ROFL

Remember all the "homeless" stories back in the 80's? And then when Clinton took office, it's like "Homelessness" just vanished.

It truly was a miracle.

ROFL

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 01:46 PM
That's because Reagan had ice-water in his veins and Obama is warm blooded and cares.

Only about himself. He is a Narcissist that cares for little other than how things impact him.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 01:48 PM
ROFL

Remember all the "homeless" stories back in the 80's? And then when Clinton took office, it's like "Homelessness" just vanished.

It truly was a miracle.

ROFL

Yeah, I remember those. I also remember how the surveys on how prevalent it was came from college towns too. ROFL

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Dude, pay the **** attention. Why do you think the Pubs lost in 06 and 08? Now the Dems are outdoing anyting the Pubs did.

I will fully admit this and I stated this a year ago I wanted Obama and the Dems to spend money. We have alot of shit that is broken, not working and has been pretty much neglected for 20-30 years that needed to be taken care of.

I also understand the economy sucks and people are out of work and people are pissed off because we are spending alot of money.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 01:57 PM
I will fully admit this and I stated this a year ago I wanted Obama and the Dems to spend money. We have alot of shit that is broken, not working and has been pretty much neglected for 20-30 years that needed to be taken care of.

And alot of money got spent and everything is still broken.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 01:59 PM
I will fully admit this and I stated this a year ago I wanted Obama and the Dems to spend money. We have alot of shit that is broken, not working and has been pretty much neglected for 20-30 years that needed to be taken care of.

I also understand the economy sucks and people are out of work and people are pissed off because we are spending alot of money.

Is it just me, or did that post end abruptly? It sounded like there might be a moral to the story, but then it just went to dead air.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:02 PM
Is it just me, or did that post end abruptly? It sounded like there might be a moral to the story, but then it just went to dead air.

You're right. I'll finish it:

IT'S GRODY! GRODY TO THE MAX!

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:04 PM
Is it just me, or did that post end abruptly? It sounded like there might be a moral to the story, but then it just went to dead air.

LMAO My brain went into dead air.

I guess the moral of my story is we always seem to kept pushing things off and keep finding reasons why not to fix shit then complain when people die because we didn't fix shit.

BucEyedPea
01-18-2010, 02:06 PM
LMAO My brain went into dead air.

I guess the moral of my story is we always seem to kept pushing things off and keep finding reasons why not to fix shit then complain when people die because we didn't fix shit.

Politicians are cowards more interested in power than in making difficult choices....especially when some of those difficult choices work better. This is how the welfare-state corrupts the people and eventually the political process making reform difficult.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:09 PM
yeah that is why in the Senate they all voted for it. 35 Dems voted No while 42 Reps voted yes

LMAO

So what you are saying is that you are only conservative if you can vote on a law? This is not only simple but is stupid as well.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:09 PM
LMAO My brain went into dead air.

I guess the moral of my story is we always seem to kept pushing things off and keep finding reasons why not to fix shit then complain when people die because we didn't fix shit.

I guess so. The one positive you always hear about the old Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany is that the trains ran on time.

Half of us won't have jobs, but the other half won't have to worry about being late to work.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:11 PM
Is curry terrorist food? That stuff is great to put on 3 day old chicken.

Curry is only considered terrorist food if it is drizzled on a fine bed of Julian-ed conservatives.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:13 PM
Politicians are cowards more interested in power than in making difficult choices....especially when some of those difficult choices work better. This is how the welfare-state corrupts the people and eventually the political process making reform difficult.

I actually agree with most of that

patteeu
01-18-2010, 02:13 PM
What? February unemployment was 8.1.

OK, I stand corrected. It was 7.6 (7.7 revised) in January according to your source. You've still established a pretty low bar for the guy who campaigned on creating millions of jobs (before he revised and disemboweled his promise by adding 'or saved'), but at least it would be a minor net improvement after governing over 4 disasterous years. One thing is certain though, he won't deserve the fawning praise that you will no doubt give him if he achieves that modest goal.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:14 PM
I actually agree with most of that

Can I count on your support for candidates who support term limits?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:14 PM
Curry is only considered terrorist food if it is drizzled on a fine bed of Julian-ed conservatives.

Thanks! I'll have to update my cookbook recipes!

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:14 PM
I'm in shock here. Did someone actually compare BO to Reagan???????? NOW I've seen it all.

It like dividing by zero - end result - "full fledged cluster fuck".

Calcountry
01-18-2010, 02:17 PM
Dude, pay the **** attention. Why do you think the Pubs lost in 06 and 08? Now the Dems are outdoing anyting the Pubs did.There are a lot of Democrats that are going to vote for Brown in Ma tomorrow. That, or they won't vote. The independents have all swung towards the position of throwing a trap block on Obama, RIGHT NOW, as they are terrified of his unchecked power.

Republicans, will show up, through rain, sleet or snow and vote.

That is my take on what looks like, right now at least, Brown winning in Ma.

Obama, will blame Coakley, because, "it couldn't be moi? No, massachusetts loves me!!! They voted overwhelming for me. They didn't vote AGAINST Bush, they voted for ME. " Keep fuggin doubting the American people Mr. President.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:18 PM
OK, I stand corrected. It was 7.6 (7.7 revised) in January according to your source. You've still established a pretty low bar for the guy who campaigned on creating millions of jobs (before he revised and disemboweled his promise by adding 'or saved'), but at least it would be a minor net improvement after governing over 4 disasterous years. One thing is certain though, he won't deserve the fawning praise that you will no doubt give him if he achieves that modest goal.

How about if Obama, Nancy, Harry, et al. are able to get the number down to what it was when the Dems took over Congress in 2006? (I believe that it was somewhere around 4.5%, so it's only at 220% of what it was when Republicans were in control.)

Calcountry
01-18-2010, 02:19 PM
It like dividing by zero - end result - "full fledged cluster ****".Infinite minds want to know.

Let the answer to your question be the number of places that pi is to be calculated to.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:19 PM
So what you are saying is that you are only conservative if you can vote on a law? This is not only simple but is stupid as well.

You know what is funny is that alot of the same "conservatives" that voted for that bill are now complaining about the health care bill.

Calcountry
01-18-2010, 02:20 PM
How about if Obama, Nancy, Harry, et al. are able to get the number down to what it was when the Dems took over Congress in 2006? (I believe that it was somewhere around 4.5%, so it's only at 220% of what it was when Republicans were in control.)Nancy cannot do without her botox and private jet. No chance in hell of that happening.

Calcountry
01-18-2010, 02:21 PM
You know what is funny is that alot of the same "conservatives" that voted for that bill are now complaining about the health care bill.It really is that simple, isn't it?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:21 PM
You know what is funny is that alot of the same "conservatives" that voted for that bill are now complaining about the health care bill.

Extending medicare entitlements to senior citizens is a little bit different than extending medicare entitlements to...

Oh,

Everybody?

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:21 PM
OK, I stand corrected. It was 7.6 (7.7 revised) in January according to your source. You've still established a pretty low bar for the guy who campaigned on creating millions of jobs (before he revised and disemboweled his promise by adding 'or saved'), but at least it would be a minor net improvement after governing over 4 disasterous years. One thing is certain though, he won't deserve the fawning praise that you will no doubt give him if he achieves that modest goal.

PBJPBJ I finally pointed out something pat was wrong about. :p

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:22 PM
It really is that simple, isn't it?

It is!

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:22 PM
Can I count on your support for candidates who support term limits?

I have always been for term limits

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:24 PM
You know what is funny is that alot of the same "conservatives" that voted for that bill are now complaining about the health care bill.

Then they either saw the light in 2006 or they are/were hypocrites.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 02:25 PM
It really is that simple, isn't it?

It is ironic to say the least

Extending medicare entitlements to senior citizens is a little bit different than extending medicare entitlements to...

Oh,

Everybody?

Well too bad the current health care bill doesn't cover everybody or you would have a point.

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 02:26 PM
It is ironic to say the least



Well too bad the current health care bill doesn't cover everybody or you would have a point.

Maybe the point is that they can't even come up with a bill that will never work that even pretends to solve the problem.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:27 PM
I will fully admit this and I stated this a year ago I wanted Obama and the Dems to spend money. We have alot of shit that is broken, not working and has been pretty much neglected for 20-30 years that needed to be taken care of.

I also understand the economy sucks and people are out of work and people are pissed off because we are spending alot of money.

But you support it anyway. That's like getting a DWI and, just to show the cops, you drink more and crash you car into the police station. That will show them. Am I missing something here?

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:29 PM
Infinite minds want to know.

Let the answer to your question be the number of places that pi is to be calculated to.

Pie is 8 slices?

Frankie
01-18-2010, 02:30 PM
Your posts are making less and less sense these days, Frankie.

Are you denying that the "you are insulting the office of U.S. Presidency" card was played over and over and over again and them some by the posters from the Right during the 8 years of Bush?

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:30 PM
You know what is funny is that alot of the same "conservatives" that voted for that bill are now complaining about the health care bill.

NEWS-FLASH - they are not conservative.

Frankie
01-18-2010, 02:34 PM
The Dems hold on the super majority is gone. Whether it happens tomorrow or in November it is over.

There was NEVER a Super Majority. As long as there are guys like Lieberman and a few DINOs are in the senate, that will hold.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 02:34 PM
ROFL

Remember all the "homeless" stories back in the 80's? And then when Clinton took office, it's like "Homelessness" just vanished.

It truly was a miracle.

ROFL

In the eighties, I used homeless people for fuel. I wish that was still legal.

petegz28
01-18-2010, 02:35 PM
There was NEVER a Super Majority. As long as there are guys like Lieberman and a few DINOs are in the senate, that will hold.

RRRRRIIIIIGGGHHHHHTTTTT.....

TigerPig
01-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Give youth the time to live under the policies of Obama and they'll change their minds. It doesn't have to take a long time. A lot of those boomers you refer to of the 60's embraced the same ideas and then became conservatives. It happens. It usually happens.

This will probably get me neg repped, but IMO 90% of the people who are out there are sheep. I wholeheartedly blame Carter and Reagan for the conservative trend we experience now. When young people were starting to take to politics more, they looked around, saw horrible inflation and a crappy economy, and a Democrat on it. Ride in Ronald, with a personality only Hitler couldn't like, with his trickle down theories, and it was all over.

I TRULY believe if it had been the other way around, with a Republican in the mess and a charismatic Democrat following him our country would be a lot different today. I don't think Obama has the same chance Reagan did, though. Because the media is a lot harder on him than they were Reagan, even from the get-go (and all most people go on is what others tell them), and the HUGE impressionable audience of the 80s known as the Baby Boomers are already set in their ways.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 02:55 PM
This will probably get me neg repped, but IMO 90% of the people who are out there are sheep. I wholeheartedly blame Carter and Reagan for the conservative trend we experience now. When young people were starting to take to politics more, they looked around, saw horrible inflation and a crappy economy, and a Democrat on it. Ride in Ronald, with a personality only Hitler couldn't like, with his trickle down theories, and it was all over.

I TRULY believe if it had been the other way around, with a Republican in the mess and a charismatic Democrat following him our country would be a lot different today. I don't think Obama has the same chance Reagan did, though. Because the media is a lot harder on him than they were Reagan, even from the get-go (and all most people go on is what others tell them), and the HUGE impressionable audience of the 80s known as the Baby Boomers are already set in their ways.

Holy shit that is some hardcore moonbattery right there!

ROFL

Saul Good
01-18-2010, 03:01 PM
Holy shit that is some hardcore moonbattery right there!

ROFL

When I think of the time in history when young people got involved in politics, I know that I always think of the 1980s.

"Bob" Dobbs
01-18-2010, 03:03 PM
This will probably get me neg repped, but IMO 90% of the people who are out there are sheep. I wholeheartedly blame Carter and Reagan for the conservative trend we experience now. When young people were starting to take to politics more, they looked around, saw horrible inflation and a crappy economy, and a Democrat on it. Ride in Ronald, with a personality only Hitler couldn't like, with his trickle down theories, and it was all over.

I TRULY believe if it had been the other way around, with a Republican in the mess and a charismatic Democrat following him our country would be a lot different today. I don't think Obama has the same chance Reagan did, though. Because the media is a lot harder on him than they were Reagan, even from the get-go (and all most people go on is what others tell them), and the HUGE impressionable audience of the 80s known as the Baby Boomers are already set in their ways.Seriously? Holy shit!


I suppose that if there'd been a dem through the 80's instead of RR, things WOULD be different, though. At the very least, the Soviets would still be around.

"Bob" Dobbs
01-18-2010, 03:06 PM
Plus if there'd been a republican in office during the Carter years, we'd still have the Panama Canal. And Iran probably wouldn't have ever fallen to the imams, which was indirectly caused by Carter stabbing the Shah in the back.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:13 PM
Plus if there'd been a republican in office during the Carter years, we'd still have the Panama Canal. And Iran probably wouldn't have ever fallen to the imams, which was indirectly caused by Carter stabbing the Shah in the back.

Whoot!

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 03:16 PM
This will probably get me neg repped, but IMO 90% of the people who are out there are sheep. I wholeheartedly blame Carter and Reagan for the conservative trend we experience now. When young people were starting to take to politics more, they looked around, saw horrible inflation and a crappy economy, and a Democrat on it. Ride in Ronald, with a personality only Hitler couldn't like, with his trickle down theories, and it was all over.

I TRULY believe if it had been the other way around, with a Republican in the mess and a charismatic Democrat following him our country would be a lot different today. I don't think Obama has the same chance Reagan did, though. Because the media is a lot harder on him than they were Reagan, even from the get-go (and all most people go on is what others tell them), and the HUGE impressionable audience of the 80s known as the Baby Boomers are already set in their ways.

kOZ is back?

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 03:20 PM
But you support it anyway. That's like getting a DWI and, just to show the cops, you drink more and crash you car into the police station. That will show them. Am I missing something here?

Where I have I stated I support this health care bill?

I have stated many times I am for Medicare for all which this bill isn't even close.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 03:23 PM
I have stated many times I am for Medicare for all .

How would you pay for it?

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 03:25 PM
How would you pay for it?

with money

ROYC75
01-18-2010, 03:28 PM
I will fully admit this and I stated this a year ago I wanted Obama and the Dems to spend money. We have alot of shit that is broken, not working and has been pretty much neglected for 20-30 years that needed to be taken care of.

I also understand the economy sucks and people are out of work and people are pissed off because we are spending alot of money.

Do you still believe in spending money we do not have and will not have for the next 100 years to fix something in the next 20 years ? What happens in say, 40 - 60 years, what money do we use then ? We are already tied up paying back money we didn't have ?

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:31 PM
Where I have I stated I support this health care bill?

I have stated many times I am for Medicare for all which this bill isn't even close.

Where did I say you supported the health bill? I stated you support the spending and still do regardless of what it is on. FYI - there is a shit load more spending than the healthcare bill. And you support it. That is all I'm saying.

Additionally, if you knew anything about how screwed up and uncontrolled MediCare is you may have a different opinion. I really think you would.

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:32 PM
with money

Obama Money?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 03:33 PM
with money

YOu and B.o. have the same idea.

Where you gonna get the money?

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 03:33 PM
Obama Money?

From his stash!

ROFL

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:36 PM
From his stash!

ROFL

Yes - definitely.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 03:38 PM
You guys are rich so you are going to volunteer it

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:39 PM
From his stash!

ROFL

See it used to be "A friend with weed is a friend indeed". But now its "A friend with a stash is a friend with cash". Things have changed man. Dude. Man.

Norman Einstein
01-18-2010, 03:40 PM
This will probably get me neg repped, but IMO 90% of the people who are out there are sheep. I wholeheartedly blame Carter and Reagan for the conservative trend we experience now. When young people were starting to take to politics more, they looked around, saw horrible inflation and a crappy economy, and a Democrat on it. Ride in Ronald, with a personality only Hitler couldn't like, with his trickle down theories, and it was all over.

I TRULY believe if it had been the other way around, with a Republican in the mess and a charismatic Democrat following him our country would be a lot different today. I don't think Obama has the same chance Reagan did, though. Because the media is a lot harder on him than they were Reagan, even from the get-go (and all most people go on is what others tell them), and the HUGE impressionable audience of the 80s known as the Baby Boomers are already set in their ways.

Neg repped? Not necessarily, but it surely will put you on the list of those that don't have a grip on reality. Maybe you should talk to Jenson, he's the board expert, he's had 4 years of political science classes that was taught by the extremely liberals and was drinking some of the same koolaid you have been sampling.

The Mad Crapper
01-18-2010, 03:40 PM
See it used to be "A friend with weed is a friend indeed". But now its "A friend with a stash is a friend with cash". Things have changed man. Dude. Man.

If I help him out, he gwana help me out!

MMM MMMMM MMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM!

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:42 PM
You guys are rich so you are going to volunteer it

Define rich. I got a black man in a leisure suit holding his hand up like and waving like the queen of England for a avatar and you got some big old jubblies fixin' on fallin' out the woman's top. Sounds like you are the rich man.

dirk digler
01-18-2010, 03:43 PM
Define rich. I got a black man in a leisure suit holding his hand up like and waving like the queen of England for a avatar and you got some big old jubblies fixin' on fallin' out the woman's top. Sounds like you are the rich man.

You should update your look it is not like you can't afford it

Velvet_Jones
01-18-2010, 03:49 PM
You should update your look it is not like you can't afford it

See - I can afford it and choose not to. You spend you money on big ass hooters that will eventually be 36 longs and I'll just sit back knowing I can afford to pay someone to properly hike those saggers back to their normal position and you are going to be sitting on a bucket in someone else's garage drinking malt liquor wondering what you did with your life.

Can't you see that man?

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 08:27 AM
Have they effecitvely pissed off enough people to ensure they are booted and Obama is a 1-term President?


Yes.