[babelfish669]

(11-30-2011 04:32 PM)kosko Wrote:  

As for Romeny, he is Obama without the swag and tan. But I don't bet my dollar that America will elect a Mormon. Nothing against Mormons, but I just don't see it. The Republican field is painfully weak for a reason... Obama wouldn't stand a chance if the field produced even the slightest of a legit candidate.

For the Fundamentalist Christians (probably a couple million, and they do vote), a Mormon is no different than a Muslim or a Satanic cultist. A good segment will also put Catholics in that same group. That's why its so important for Republicans that Christian church attending Democrat candidates to be painted as anti-Christian.

[kosko]

The radical right has been silent of late. Word is they flamed out and lost a lot of cash in the 2008 credit crash. their money isn't flying around like it used too. Even the Tea Party was backed mostly by other interests seen though it had a heavy religious component whiten the movement.

About Iraq. Obama didn't remove the troops by choice. He was indeed forced by a chest pumping Iraq regime and basically the fact that if/when the USA dives into to bush of thorns called Iran. Iran would literally start pegging of troops like gophers. The distance between what would amount to old school classic boots ground war is short. It would Vietnam all over again. It would be the same mess that the IDF faced in 06 when Hezbollah fucked around heavy with Israeli ground troops.

Its a shame, America could be so great if it didn't dick its self around so much. Americas best years was when it isolated its self in 20's and told the World to go fuck its self. It built up its internal bones and economy and was able to pounce on shit when stuff started popping off over in Europe.

[tenderman100]

(11-30-2011 09:10 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The radical right has been silent of late. Word is they flamed out and lost a lot of cash in the 2008 credit crash. their money isn't flying around like it used too. Even the Tea Party was backed mostly by other interests seen though it had a heavy religious component whiten the movement.

About Iraq. Obama didn't remove the troops by choice. He was indeed forced by a chest pumping Iraq regime and basically the fact that if/when the USA dives into to bush of thorns called Iran. Iran would literally start pegging of troops like gophers. The distance between what would amount to old school classic boots ground war is short. It would Vietnam all over again. It would be the same mess that the IDF faced in 06 when Hezbollah fucked around heavy with Israeli ground troops.

Its a shame, America could be so great if it didn't dick its self around so much. Americas best years was when it isolated its self in 20's and told the World to go fuck its self. It built up its internal bones and economy and was able to pounce on shit when stuff started popping off over in Europe.

Wow, it is astonishing how you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would enlighten you, but I think it would be a complete waste of energy.

[kosko]

(11-30-2011 10:33 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 09:10 PM)kosko Wrote:  

The radical right has been silent of late. Word is they flamed out and lost a lot of cash in the 2008 credit crash. their money isn't flying around like it used too. Even the Tea Party was backed mostly by other interests seen though it had a heavy religious component whiten the movement.

About Iraq. Obama didn't remove the troops by choice. He was indeed forced by a chest pumping Iraq regime and basically the fact that if/when the USA dives into to bush of thorns called Iran. Iran would literally start pegging of troops like gophers. The distance between what would amount to old school classic boots ground war is short. It would Vietnam all over again. It would be the same mess that the IDF faced in 06 when Hezbollah fucked around heavy with Israeli ground troops.

Its a shame, America could be so great if it didn't dick its self around so much. Americas best years was when it isolated its self in 20's and told the World to go fuck its self. It built up its internal bones and economy and was able to pounce on shit when stuff started popping off over in Europe.

Wow, it is astonishing how you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I would enlighten you, but I think it would be a complete waste of energy.

Go hard.

.....

America had one of the most restrictive trade policies in the 20's? virtually banning almost all imports? They had some of the most rigid tarrifs on earth.

Or that in 2006 Hezbollah wiped out a whole ground unit of the IDF?

Or that America whom has been trying to go after Iran for years would no be so foolish to leave boots in such a hot territory if things were to pop off. The only American boots present whiten the Shia Crescent. Whom do you think they would attack first if America did strike Iran? It would be sitting ducks, Obama would be an idiot not to move those Men out of harm.



Nothing I stated was false, it simply didn't line up with your world view.

Good night.

[speakeasy]

God, this thread reads like a fucking Rush Limbaugh rant. It gives me a headache arguing with people who already had their minds made up the day Obama was sworn into office.

I voted for Obama but I'm not an Obama worshiper. I never expected him to be a messiah. I'm not even a Democrat, I'm an independent, though I may switch to Democrat at some point. It's my staunch belief that if McCain were in office, the economy would be in no better position than it is now. I ask people to stop believing in Fox News talking points and just look for the facts. Obama is not a reckless spender as he is portrayed by the right:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...umber.html

The deficit is largely a result of years of tax cuts to the wealth(in his case inability to raise them due to Republican shenanigans) + unfunded wars + recession taking away tax revenue + bailouts. Since the libertarian ass kissers in this forum want taxes low for the rich, were the staunches supporters of the war, and also supported bailouts(McCain would have bailed out Wall street as well), what the fuck are you complaining about?

Maybe rather than one-sided criticism, you can explain how more fucking tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be good for the country when the wealthy are already wealthier than ever, when wages as a percentage of the GDP are the lowest they've been since WWII, while corporate profits are the highest. Maybe you can explain why it's a good idea to cut people off unemployment. Maybe you can explain to us 99% why cutting social spending is better way of balancing the budget than raising taxes on the 10% of people who hoard 90% of the fucking wealth. Maybe we can start there...

[kosko]

I hear you.

But the main argument against Obama should be that he never chose any different routes. He continued or accelerated the main points that structurally were messing things up.

But you brought up a good point. Things wouldn't off been much different under McCain.

Both Obama and Republicans want to gut entitlement spending, but neither knows how to do it without facing political suicide.

Its a game of musical chairs here. Massive deficit cuts (austerity) never fix the core budgetary problems. Yo simply are just cutting the wound deeper and deeper each time. On the flip side miss allocated deficit spending does not work either. Instead of cutting taxes and giving banks money Obama should be repairing crumbling roads plus investing in education and technology. That's how you rebuild a Nation that's on the ropes.

Blame can get tossed around all over. The Republicans sit on their hands hoping Obama self-implodes while Obama panders to the right that he has morphed into nothing more than Bush 3.0.

[babelfish669]

I don't think anyone has praised Republicans in this thread.

The Democrats are desperately trying to point the finger at Republicans, when Obama has failed to follow through with any significant promises he campaigned on. I don't care about what Republicans will or won't do. I don't care about what policies will or won't work. I am interested in people who do what they say they are going to do. Because, if they don't, does anything they say or claim to represent matter anymore than the color of their suit?

Perhaps we bring this to a larger point, Presidents are only allowed to follow through on promises for which they are permitted to follow through on.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1...mas-visit/

[speakeasy]

Promises are nothing more than goals and statements of values. That's how I take them. A million things can derail goals, such as an obstructionist congress, supreme court, etc.

This is a great site for tracking his promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/.../obameter/

[The_CEO]

(11-29-2011 01:23 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Why is Obama going to go down as one of the worst presidents in our country’s history?

Simple. He is an incompetent lazy hypocritical petulant charlatan.

That’s right, Obama is a charlatan, with neither the temperament, attitude, or intellect -- yes, I said intellect -- to be president. Because in the end, Obama is simply not that bright.

I don't know about you, but when he got up and said "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and "this is the day the planet began to heal" my bullshit meter was redlining. Or when he says during the BP fiasco, "we won't rest until..." -- gimme a break. Astonishingly pretentious because, you know, we won't be resting because we will be playing a lot of golf. Or raising a lot of campaign money. If the speechifying isn't pompous, or arrogant, it's exploring new depths of banality and demagoguery. And the quantity of speechifying! For a while there he was on TV giving an address or news conference more often than Seinfeld reruns.

Meanwhile, he's supposed to be this intellectual giant, compared to Chimpy Bush McHitler, but then winds up shooting his mouth off about the Cambridge police and the cost of diabetic amputations without having any facts at hand, among other examples too numerous to mention. He lies about his mother not getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

Then there are his rhetorical gaffes -- 57 states, the constitution was written 20 centuries ago, “corpseman” Austrians speak Austrian -- that pass by unnoticed by the fawning media but would be front page news if uttered by Dubya or, the media’s favorite whipping girl, Sarah Palin, or the favorite whipping boys, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. Of course, even when the teleprompter provides him fully formed sentences, virtually everything Obama says has a "sell-by" date -- Guantanamo, status of Jerusalem, the ground zero mosque, health care negotiations on CSPAN, shovel ready projects, -- you name it, he'll take one side, and then the other, or ignore what he promised, and then give us the "HOPE" upturned look, pretending that he's actually thinking.

Of course, the apologists put it down to other qualities -- too aloof, too technocratic, too businesslike -- matters of style, not substance. Of course, that's what OBAMA thinks too - in his delusion or pretense (I'm not sure which is worse) the "shellacking" he and his party got in the 2010 mid-term election was all about not getting the message out well enough. Of course, that's total drek. The Democrats got their asses handed to them because (1) they spent too much money -- the stimulus was about as effective as dropping $100 bills randomly out of airplanes -- and (2) they rammed through a 2700 page baroque health care bill whose intended and unintended consequences have yet to unfold but which reflect a kind of governmental intervention that the American electorate is, with some justification, suspicious of.

Top that off by the fact that people are waking up to the horror that state and local governments have spun out of financial control -- largely under the reign of Democrats -- and for Democrats, you've got a 3-part formula for being summarily shown the exit door, and told not to let it hit them on the way out.

You know, sometimes, in my most cynical moments, I think folks are swayed because Obama looks good in a suit -- see the covers of Rolling Stone -- especially when he does that swagger walk. 40 long is my guess. If nothing else, he has a future career as a Ralph Lauren model, which may come sooner that he wants. It's the "glamour."

But when you cut through it all, Obama has revealed himself: he's a narcissistic petulant hypocrite ("They talk about me like I am a dog.") And then there's the pettiness -- it's like there's nothing else out there that rivals the menace of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the state of Arizona and its immigration policies -- or that most insidious of organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce(!!). Holy crap. Attacking the Supreme Court during the state of the union while they have to sit there, stone faced. It brings new meaning to the word “crass.”

His policy and management mistakes are taking on epic proportions. He outsourced his legislative agenda to the Assistant Vice Principal Harry Reid and the frozen-faced Speaker Pelosi ("We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" “The health care bill will create 400,000 jobs)...if both of them had IQs any lower we'd have to water them twice a day. And then we get Cash for Clunkers, bailing out GM with money the taxpayer will never see...rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

And virtually every senior person he has put into his administration has been a joke; (the only decent one, Gates, was a Bush leftover, and now his competent replacement, Panetta, is making noises about resigning). Salazar on the oil spill; Holder, he of the deaths from Fast and Furious, and who makes Alberto Gonzales look competent; Romer promising an amazingly unrealistic unemployment rate; Geithner the tax cheat and Goldman lackey; Napolitano and the TSA and the airport hand groping fiasco; Chu the nobel prize winner who should be getting the economic BOOBY prize for flushing a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the Solyndra toilet….and on and on and on. His chief space guy thinks his main mission is outreach to the Islamic world. Really, it's fucking endless.

His foreign trips have been humiliating embarrassments: running around the Copenhagen conference, trying to broker a meaningless climate deal, while everyone avoids him; pitching Chicago for the Olympics and getting voted off the island in the first round; in the Far East, selling stimulus when no one's buying and failing to get a trade agreement that should have been signed and sealed before he left the country. Bowing to foreign leaders. Raising his hand in the middle of a group picture of world leaders. Idiotic.

Bottom line? Incompetence and embarrassment run wild in the clusterfuck that is the Obama administration.

God I hope there’s change coming. Frankly, a Pentecostal snake charmer would be an improvement over this guy.

sounds like you better stockpile prozac for 2012 onward

[Pusscrook]

(12-02-2011 10:54 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(11-29-2011 01:23 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Why is Obama going to go down as one of the worst presidents in our country’s history?

Simple. He is an incompetent lazy hypocritical petulant charlatan.

That’s right, Obama is a charlatan, with neither the temperament, attitude, or intellect -- yes, I said intellect -- to be president. Because in the end, Obama is simply not that bright.

I don't know about you, but when he got up and said "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and "this is the day the planet began to heal" my bullshit meter was redlining. Or when he says during the BP fiasco, "we won't rest until..." -- gimme a break. Astonishingly pretentious because, you know, we won't be resting because we will be playing a lot of golf. Or raising a lot of campaign money. If the speechifying isn't pompous, or arrogant, it's exploring new depths of banality and demagoguery. And the quantity of speechifying! For a while there he was on TV giving an address or news conference more often than Seinfeld reruns.

Meanwhile, he's supposed to be this intellectual giant, compared to Chimpy Bush McHitler, but then winds up shooting his mouth off about the Cambridge police and the cost of diabetic amputations without having any facts at hand, among other examples too numerous to mention. He lies about his mother not getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

Then there are his rhetorical gaffes -- 57 states, the constitution was written 20 centuries ago, “corpseman” Austrians speak Austrian -- that pass by unnoticed by the fawning media but would be front page news if uttered by Dubya or, the media’s favorite whipping girl, Sarah Palin, or the favorite whipping boys, Rick Perry and Herman Cain. Of course, even when the teleprompter provides him fully formed sentences, virtually everything Obama says has a "sell-by" date -- Guantanamo, status of Jerusalem, the ground zero mosque, health care negotiations on CSPAN, shovel ready projects, -- you name it, he'll take one side, and then the other, or ignore what he promised, and then give us the "HOPE" upturned look, pretending that he's actually thinking.

Of course, the apologists put it down to other qualities -- too aloof, too technocratic, too businesslike -- matters of style, not substance. Of course, that's what OBAMA thinks too - in his delusion or pretense (I'm not sure which is worse) the "shellacking" he and his party got in the 2010 mid-term election was all about not getting the message out well enough. Of course, that's total drek. The Democrats got their asses handed to them because (1) they spent too much money -- the stimulus was about as effective as dropping $100 bills randomly out of airplanes -- and (2) they rammed through a 2700 page baroque health care bill whose intended and unintended consequences have yet to unfold but which reflect a kind of governmental intervention that the American electorate is, with some justification, suspicious of.

Top that off by the fact that people are waking up to the horror that state and local governments have spun out of financial control -- largely under the reign of Democrats -- and for Democrats, you've got a 3-part formula for being summarily shown the exit door, and told not to let it hit them on the way out.

You know, sometimes, in my most cynical moments, I think folks are swayed because Obama looks good in a suit -- see the covers of Rolling Stone -- especially when he does that swagger walk. 40 long is my guess. If nothing else, he has a future career as a Ralph Lauren model, which may come sooner that he wants. It's the "glamour."

But when you cut through it all, Obama has revealed himself: he's a narcissistic petulant hypocrite ("They talk about me like I am a dog.") And then there's the pettiness -- it's like there's nothing else out there that rivals the menace of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the state of Arizona and its immigration policies -- or that most insidious of organizations, the US Chamber of Commerce(!!). Holy crap. Attacking the Supreme Court during the state of the union while they have to sit there, stone faced. It brings new meaning to the word “crass.”

His policy and management mistakes are taking on epic proportions. He outsourced his legislative agenda to the Assistant Vice Principal Harry Reid and the frozen-faced Speaker Pelosi ("We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it" “The health care bill will create 400,000 jobs)...if both of them had IQs any lower we'd have to water them twice a day. And then we get Cash for Clunkers, bailing out GM with money the taxpayer will never see...rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat.

And virtually every senior person he has put into his administration has been a joke; (the only decent one, Gates, was a Bush leftover, and now his competent replacement, Panetta, is making noises about resigning). Salazar on the oil spill; Holder, he of the deaths from Fast and Furious, and who makes Alberto Gonzales look competent; Romer promising an amazingly unrealistic unemployment rate; Geithner the tax cheat and Goldman lackey; Napolitano and the TSA and the airport hand groping fiasco; Chu the nobel prize winner who should be getting the economic BOOBY prize for flushing a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money down the Solyndra toilet….and on and on and on. His chief space guy thinks his main mission is outreach to the Islamic world. Really, it's fucking endless.

His foreign trips have been humiliating embarrassments: running around the Copenhagen conference, trying to broker a meaningless climate deal, while everyone avoids him; pitching Chicago for the Olympics and getting voted off the island in the first round; in the Far East, selling stimulus when no one's buying and failing to get a trade agreement that should have been signed and sealed before he left the country. Bowing to foreign leaders. Raising his hand in the middle of a group picture of world leaders. Idiotic.

Bottom line? Incompetence and embarrassment run wild in the clusterfuck that is the Obama administration.

God I hope there’s change coming. Frankly, a Pentecostal snake charmer would be an improvement over this guy.

sounds like you better stockpile prozac for 2012 onward

More like a thorazine drip, with morhpine, as a back up, in case it gets to painful.

[hydrogonian]

Getting that worked up over Obama is a clearly not seeing the forest for the trees. As long as you believe that it matters who is in office, nothing will ever change.

Your rant was a more than a little off-center in terms of bias. If you believe that the supreme court didn't deserve public admonishment after legislating from the bench the way that they did, for the benefit of corporate power at the expense of the democratic power of everyone in this country, then you are likely one to believe anything that your favorite party tells you. Hence, all of the inane emotion toward Obama (was that also there for dubya?).

I agree that he sucks, but there also isn't anyone better that has a chance of winning. And this is from a conservative. I'd sure as hell rather have someone who's IQ is demonstrably above average then the C student clowns, international sellout traitors (they all are but its a matter of degree and demonstrated willingness), and beauty queens that the republican party seems intent on offering. And that's hard for me to say given the fundamental distaste I have for many of Obamas platforms. However, the truth is, I believe that they all share the same objective, on both sides of the isle. Therefore, give me the higher IQ guy who can at can comprehend his treacherousness and might make some moral decisions along the way. Those other morons are clearly convinced that they are doing the right thing while selling out this country toward social and economic oblivion. Not to mention the warhawk behavior that continually drains our coffers and kills our boys for no discernible benefit for the USA whatsoever. Fine. You have to wage continuous war. But don't smile and tell met that its for my own good while making my ears bleed with your rhetoric toward the next 'terrist' nation du jour.

In the USA, the sky is always falling.
As long as you think that 'someone else' in office is the solution to our problems, then that will always be case.

[tenderman100]

(11-30-2011 11:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

God, this thread reads like a fucking Rush Limbaugh rant. It gives me a headache arguing with people who already had their minds made up the day Obama was sworn into office.

God, some of the responses in this thread read like they come from a bunch of feminazi-empathetic-leftwing-betatroids. How can ANY of you think you are players -- self-actualizing thinking beings who don't fall for the bull shit --and still somehow believe in the standard left wing cant?

And you're fucking right I had my mind made up when he was sworn in, and my mind was absolutely right. Look at the fucker...look at who he REALLY is -- a left wing central planner ideologue beneficiary of the worst sort of affirmative action horseshit. This guy never accomplished anything in his life, except writing best selling books about his favorite subject -- himself. Plus, look at the harridan he's married to: look at that hard clenched jar and seething anger of this woman. In addition to all his other endless list of flaws, the guy is pussy-whipped.

(11-30-2011 11:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I voted for Obama but I'm not an Obama worshiper. I never expected him to be a messiah.

Well, good for you. Of course, you didn't see the crowd in Grant Park that night, I betcha, or the woman who thought "I don't have to worry abot paying my mortgage...."

(11-30-2011 11:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I'm not even a Democrat, I'm an independent, though I may switch to Democrat at some point. It's my staunch belief that if McCain were in office, the economy would be in no better position than it is now. I ask people to stop believing in Fox News talking points and just look for the facts. Obama is not a reckless spender as he is portrayed by the right:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...umber.html

The deficit is largely a result of years of tax cuts to the wealth(in his case inability to raise them due to Republican shenanigans) + unfunded wars + recession taking away tax revenue + bailouts. Since the libertarian ass kissers in this forum want taxes low for the rich, were the staunches supporters of the war, and also supported bailouts(McCain would have bailed out Wall street as well), what the fuck are you complaining about?

Sure, right.

Read this chart. Pal, it's not where we've been but where we are going. And our boy Barack Hussein is putting us on a disastrous trajectory.

(11-30-2011 11:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Maybe rather than one-sided criticism, you can explain how more fucking tax cuts for the wealthy are going to be good for the country when the wealthy are already wealthier than ever, when wages as a percentage of the GDP are the lowest they've been since WWII, while corporate profits are the highest. Maybe you can explain why it's a good idea to cut people off unemployment. Maybe you can explain to us 99% why cutting social spending is better way of balancing the budget than raising taxes on the 10% of people who hoard 90% of the fucking wealth. Maybe we can start there...

Hey, make you a deal. You stop gobbling down the class-warfare bullshit as if it were juicy steak and and I won't EVER mention Fox News.

Meanwhile, let's start with your flawed premise.

Guess what? Rich people create jobs. Government doesn't.

Also, read this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277...rew-stiles

Quote:

* Millionaires accounted for just 0.17 percent (236,883) of the more than 140 million tax returns filed in 2009, and reported income totaling $727 billion.
* The federal government will spend about $3.6 trillion this year (a rate of $300 billion per month), running an annual deficit of about $1.3 trillion. So, even if the IRS decided to confiscate every cent earned by millionaires in a given year, it would amount to less than half of the new debt we are taking on each year, and would barely be enough to fund the government for two months.
* According to Forbes, the 400 wealthiest individuals in the U.S. are worth a combined $1.37 trillion. Confiscating all their wealth (not just annual earnings) would buy us another 4.5 months.
* The top 1 percent of income earners (just a quarter of which are millionaires) earn just 20 percent of the country’s personal income, yet pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. For the top 10 percent of earners, those figures rise to 46 percent and 70 percent, respectively.

The notion that the wealthy need to pay their "fair share" is just ludicrous as a metric. They are already paying a lot. They are also among the most productive citizens we have. Let's take some more from them so the woman who went orgasmic over Obama doesn't have to "worry" about her mortgage.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

And stop with this "99% cutting social spending" bullshit (whatever that means). Stop with the false choice demagoguery. We have plenty of room to create a social safety net, but we have very serious long term fiscal issues with our entitlement programs. Do you know what the unfunded liability is for Medicare?

$37 trillion dollars. That's trillion, pal, not billion.

The US economy has an annual GDP of $14 trillion. So in order to fund that obligation we would have to suck out about 2.5 years of the ENTIRETY of our GDP to fund the ICU episodes of future seniors. You understand what that meas? No alcohol, no condoms, no NOTHING for two economic years.

Look, the Republicans are bad, but the Democrats are far far worse. The Republicans at least have a chance at righting the disastrous fiscal ship we are on. The Dimms? Not a chance. They are sleazy demagogues. It is a party that is intellectually bankrupt. Maybe that's why you're leaning that way.

[Lemmo]

Obama has bad intentions and bad ideas but he seems too spineless and ineffectual to be "the worst president." You also have to factor in the extent to which America had already degenerated by the time he was elected (as indicated by the 2008 credit crunch and the low quality of the electorate and the media that made his election possible). There simply wasn't as much of value left for him to destroy. I'd say FDR, LBJ and George W. were the worst presidents. All supported big government, an activist foreign policy and, at least in the case of the latter two, large scale immigration.

[hydrogonian]

Tenderman isn't after an argument. He wants people to support is views which are founded in misplaced emotion. He needs a fall guy. But, it has to be a fall guy whose persecution supports his worldview. What he doesn't realize is that everyone in power in the last thirty years, on both sides of the isle, is complicit in bringing about the situation that he's upset about. 100% willing and complicit.

After unnecessarily insulting you at the beginning an the end of the last rant, as well as making many unsupported statements ("Rich people create jobs. Government doesn't"), and using straw men as arguments (a single citizen with strange delusional expectations) to make an unrealistic point, I'd be done with him. But its your choice. You won't get anywhere in your argument, no matter how cogent and well supported your points are.

Tenderman, likewise, you won't gt anywhere with the people with whom you are arguing. You are entitled to your views. Someone else has a different view. Big deal. When names and insults start getting tossed around, the conversation is pretty much over, yeah?

Its hard to decide who "the worst" president has been. Why Becasue not one person here has the necessary context to decide. We just don't. Even guys that I hate could have been used as puppets or have been making decisions that were necessary to avoid collapse. Who knows. You don't. I don't. I have my suspicions as to who the contenders are for the worst president title, but in no way can these suspicions be verified in any meaningful way. Unless you are in a presidents head, then you just have no idea. Period.

[tenderman100]

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Tenderman isn't after an argument. He wants people to support is views which are founded in misplaced emotion.

I'm sorry...did I miss something here? I provided a whole series of facts and numbers to back up my assertions -- the size of our GDP, the actual net worth of those horrid millionaires, and how much they actually pay in taxes, and the projected debt levels that are going to follow on from the Obama approach to fiscal policy, based on both White House (!) and CBO numbers.

And MY arguments are found in misplaced EMOTION?

Look, pal, in the business I am in, if you don't have facts on straight, and your numbers right, and your approach to argument right . . YOU DON"T EAT.

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

He needs a fall guy. But, it has to be a fall guy whose persecution supports his worldview. What he doesn't realize is that everyone in power in the last thirty years, on both sides of the isle, is complicit in bringing about the situation that he's upset about. 100% willing and complicit.

I'm sorry...I missed that...now where did I say that only ONE side is complicit? Oh, that's right, you, with the complete absence of "misplaced emotion," would NEVER puts words in the mouth of your interlocutor, yes?

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

After unnecessarily insulting you at the beginning an the end of the last rant, as well as making many unsupported statements ("Rich people create jobs. Government doesn't"), and using straw men as arguments (a single citizen with strange delusional expectations) to make an unrealistic point, I'd be done with him. But its your choice. You won't get anywhere in your argument, no matter how cogent and well supported your points are.

Oh, all right...government creates SOME jobs. But the economic engine that REALLY drives job creation is the private sector, and it is the capital that wealthy people have that can fund businesses that create jobs.

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Tenderman, likewise, you won't gt anywhere with the people with whom you are arguing. You are entitled to your views. Someone else has a different view. Big deal. When names and insults start getting tossed around, the conversation is pretty much over, yeah?

Oh, puhleez. People need to grow some balls. You know what those are....those things that contain sperm. In my business, my clients and me do not suffer foolish ideas gladly because "everyone is entitled to their opinion." And, I hate to break it to you, some opinions are WAY better than others.

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Its hard to decide who "the worst" president has been. Why Becasue not one person here has the necessary context to decide. We just don't. Even guys that I hate could have been used as puppets or have been making decisions that were necessary to avoid collapse. Who knows. You don't. I don't. I have my suspicions as to who the contenders are for the worst president title, but in no way can these suspicions be verified in any meaningful way. Unless you are in a presidents head, then you just have no idea. Period.

See my original post. Obama is a lying, demogogic, narcissitic, hypocrite, one of the more leftist Presidents, and a central planner, with a ass-licking foreign policy, who gets a total pass from the the Media even as he has displayed his executive incompetence. But his golf game is improving -- and he's bound to work out that hitch in the swing when he spends 17 day in Hawaii over the holidays.

Those are arguments and claims based on FACT. Examples. Illustrations. Data.

I am sorry you can't see those things, assuming you know what they are.

[Pusscrook]

Lol. This thread cracks me up. I urge anyone that personally hates the President that much, to inquire about political asylum abroad , lest you unleash hell on yourself. I can't wait for the election.

[tenderman100]

(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Lol. This thread cracks me up. I urge anyone that personally hates the President that much, to inquire about political asylum abroad , lest you unleash hell on yourself. I can't wait for the election.

We live to entertain you.

Meanwhile, I am not going anywhere. I have money to make.

[Pusscrook]

(12-06-2011 09:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Lol. This thread cracks me up. I urge anyone that personally hates the President that much, to inquire about political asylum abroad , lest you unleash hell on yourself. I can't wait for the election.

We live to entertain you.

Meanwhile, I am not going anywhere. I have money to make.

You are my hero, so bring us fortune, old friend. I have connections overseas just incase you change your mind. Don't want you to burst a blood vessel in your skull, if he wins.

[tenderman100]

(12-06-2011 09:14 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 09:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Lol. This thread cracks me up. I urge anyone that personally hates the President that much, to inquire about political asylum abroad , lest you unleash hell on yourself. I can't wait for the election.

We live to entertain you.

Meanwhile, I am not going anywhere. I have money to make.

You are my hero, so bring us fortune, old friend. I have connections overseas just incase you change your mind. Don't want you to burst a blood vessel in your skull, if he wins.

IF he wins.

But even if he does, he won't be able to do anything, He will be emasculated by the voters, who are likely to vote in an even more divided government. just like he's been emasculated by that witch of a wife.

My blood vessels, by the way, are in excellent shape. I am going to give them a workout this Thursday when I fuck one of my married babes. She is much more pliant than Michele O.

[Pusscrook]

(12-06-2011 09:19 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 09:14 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 09:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(12-06-2011 08:11 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Lol. This thread cracks me up. I urge anyone that personally hates the President that much, to inquire about political asylum abroad , lest you unleash hell on yourself. I can't wait for the election.

We live to entertain you.

Meanwhile, I am not going anywhere. I have money to make.

You are my hero, so bring us fortune, old friend. I have connections overseas just incase you change your mind. Don't want you to burst a blood vessel in your skull, if he wins.

IF he wins.

But even if he does, he won't be able to do anything, He will be emasculated by the voters, who are likely to vote in an even more divided government. just like he's been emasculated by that witch of a wife.

My blood vessels, by the way, are in excellent shape. I am going to give them a workout this Thursday when I fuck one of my married babes. She is much more pliant than Michele O.

Do you like my new attitude? You sent me to the principal's office the other day, and I am on probation. Please don't type anything that might cause me to violate my probation. You know how easy it is for me to do that, and I am all too willing to violate the order. Have a wonderful time with that married whore you will fuck, and make sure you keep this a moral secret. Don't want people thinking you are wrecking families. Keep it here in the forum please, don't broadcast the shit everywhere ,Tender.

[mikeymike]

the only lesson to be learned in this thread is there is no bigger waste of time than arguing with a hardcore right winger, it's never a debate or discussion it's you're with me or you're an idiot.

[tenderman100]

(12-06-2011 09:25 PM)Pusscrook Wrote:  

Do you like my new attitude? You sent me to the principal's office the other day, and I am on probation. Please don't type anything that might cause me to violate my probation. You know how easy it is for me to do that, and I am all too willing to violate the order. Have a wonderful time with that married whore you will fuck, and make sure you keep this a moral secret. Don't want people thinking you are wrecking families. Keep it here in the forum please, don't broadcast the shit everywhere ,Tender.

Love love LOVE the new attitude.

By the way, by eating her pussy, I will keep her family together. She knows I can do it, and all she has to do is make a date. Then she can go back to her nice house, and her boring husband, and keep everything else just the way it's always been.

[tenderman100]

(12-06-2011 09:36 PM)mikeymike Wrote:  

the only lesson to be learned in this thread is there is no bigger waste of time than arguing with a hardcore right winger, it's never a debate or discussion it's you're with me or you're an idiot.

"Hardcore right winger." You talkin' about me? (As if I care).

Generally, though, those who generally have a libertarian/conservative/Burkean/Hayekian/Friedman/Small Government/CLASSICAL liberal turn of mind are ALWAYS going to be smarter than those who generally have a leftist/statist/Roussean/Galbraith/Large Government/New Dealist state of mind.

GENERALLY, of course.

[kosko]

(12-06-2011 05:19 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Tenderman isn't after an argument. He wants people to support is views which are founded in misplaced emotion. He needs a fall guy. But, it has to be a fall guy whose persecution supports his worldview. What he doesn't realize is that everyone in power in the last thirty years, on both sides of the isle, is complicit in bringing about the situation that he's upset about. 100% willing and complicit.

After unnecessarily insulting you at the beginning an the end of the last rant, as well as making many unsupported statements ("Rich people create jobs. Government doesn't"), and using straw men as arguments (a single citizen with strange delusional expectations) to make an unrealistic point, I'd be done with him. But its your choice. You won't get anywhere in your argument, no matter how cogent and well supported your points are.

Tenderman, likewise, you won't gt anywhere with the people with whom you are arguing. You are entitled to your views. Someone else has a different view. Big deal. When names and insults start getting tossed around, the conversation is pretty much over, yeah?

Its hard to decide who "the worst" president has been. Why Becasue not one person here has the necessary context to decide. We just don't. Even guys that I hate could have been used as puppets or have been making decisions that were necessary to avoid collapse. Who knows. You don't. I don't. I have my suspicions as to who the contenders are for the worst president title, but in no way can these suspicions be verified in any meaningful way. Unless you are in a presidents head, then you just have no idea. Period.

This is true. Almost all the policies from Reagan (even Nixon) on have been mirrored from one administration to the next. Clinton was sellout just as much as Bush I or II. Clinton threw away regulations so dot-com could surface and laid the seeds for Bush to ramp up the mortgage mess.

The USA Economy has been dead since the 70's only real growth has been through speculative/corrupt means of credit expansion. Each bubble bigger than the next. Each Administration was complicit as these bubbles we're the only way to ensure economic growth and keep power.

Obama isn't at fault. The system is. Arguments like these just distract citizens from the real issue that Washington D.C. is busted up. Each level, each side of the isle is systemically broken and is doing a disservice to the American people. It does not matter whom sits in the Oval Office, the results will still be the same.

[speakeasy]

(12-06-2011 09:36 PM)mikeymike Wrote:  

the only lesson to be learned in this thread is there is no bigger waste of time than arguing with a hardcore right winger, it's never a debate or discussion it's you're with me or you're an idiot.

Word. I'm tempted to dissect Tenderman's reply to me line by line. But it's not like it's going to change his mind and it would ultimately be a waste of time gathering links and data and presenting it.

Btw, tenderman, I used to be about as right-wing as you are. So you aren't making arguments I haven't already heard or espoused myself at one point in the past. I've just come to see libertarianism as economic suicide for the middle and working classes.