mamoru: BillCo: Well, at least he is interested in one job, his own. But, I guess that anything that keeps him away from the oval office and farking up the country even more is a blessing. Maybe he'll go play some more golf today.

Worst. President. Evar.

Now watch this drive.

OK you do know that that quote was pre 9-11 right. I know MM made it look like it was said on the 12th but hey don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point.


That being said WTF is wrong with all of you?!?!?!

First of all, you do have to give some of the blame for our finacial situation to the POTUS. I know Bush was a hack but come on its been almost 3 years. At least admit he isn't a strong leader, an is in way over his head
.
Now for you on the other side of the spectrum.

CHILL THE FARK OUT!!

There is plenty of valid complaints about the POTUS but you all just go so high and right on so many stupid things.

Arugala?? Really? That is an issue? What Ms. Obama has for lunch isn't all that important either so PLEASE stick to the grown up issues and leave the petty BS for the kids in the room.

apeiron242: sprawl15: apeiron242: What if presidential terms were 5 years and they could not run for reelection?

Fewer/further apart elections. Presidents wouldn't spend their first term campaigning for a second.

Then they'd spend their first term kowtowing to whatever special interests donated enough to get them elected.

They already do that.

Make up your mind.

EWreckedSean: DarnoKonrad: The man wants to be reelected!? Who does he think he is? The president?

Going to not one but two different fund raisers in the middle of the market crashing seems like good leadership to you huh?

Should he stay and hold the market's hand to make it feel better?

dumbobruni: and if they get the presidency, deficit reduction will be sidelined in favor of a legislative cripple fight over abortion/gay marriage

Eh... maybe, but I doubt it. Those have been wedge issues forever at the federal level, mostly just used to rile up hicks to go vote against the democrats. I don't think that anybody at the federal level actually wants to have those things "reformed" because they'd lose that level to get people to the polls.

Although, I guess with the teabaggers in play, you never know.

EWreckedSean: stuff

karnal: All you are doing is yelling shut up

Yep. Because as far as I'm concerned, people like you two don't get to waste my time anymore. I'm not going to play your little game where you shout out obviously disprovable bullshiat and make me run around collecting all the data to prove it just so you can move the goalpost to some other obviously disprovable bit of bullshiat.

If you aren't going to argue within the bounds of reality, we aren't going to argue. There are people out there with conservative opinions who are much smarter and more honest than you, and I'd rather go ahead and wait for them rather than continue to justify your bullshiat.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm saying you're a lot dumber - or more dishonest - than a lot of the people I could have the same discussion with. You'll either frame your arguments within the bounds of reality, or you can point that blowhole on the front of your head at somebody else.

Jake Havechek: minarchist

That sounds made up.

Only because you don't know the first thing about political philosophies, which comes as a shock to nobody I hope by this point.

Minarchism (new window)

Splinshints: dumbobruni: and if they get the presidency, deficit reduction will be sidelined in favor of a legislative cripple fight over abortion/gay marriage

Eh... maybe, but I doubt it. Those have been wedge issues forever at the federal level, mostly just used to rile up hicks to go vote against the democrats. I don't think that anybody at the federal level actually wants to have those things "reformed" because they'd lose that level to get people to the polls.

Although, I guess with the teabaggers in play, you never know.

EWreckedSean: stuff

karnal: All you are doing is yelling shut up

Yep. Because as far as I'm concerned, people like you two don't get to waste my time anymore. I'm not going to play your little game where you shout out obviously disprovable bullshiat and make me run around collecting all the data to prove it just so you can move the goalpost to some other obviously disprovable bit of bullshiat.

If you aren't going to argue within the bounds of reality, we aren't going to argue. There are people out there with conservative opinions who are much smarter and more honest than you, and I'd rather go ahead and wait for them rather than continue to justify your bullshiat.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm saying you're a lot dumber - or more dishonest - than a lot of the people I could have the same discussion with. You'll either frame your arguments within the bounds of reality, or you can point that blowhole on the front of your head at somebody else.

You notice you are still making ad hominems instead of arguing the facts. Enjoy your tantrum child.

Jake Havechek:
Okay, liar.
Your whole life is a lie. You're trying to convince everyone including yourself you're the only true neutral independent thinker in the world, and that just isn't the case.

Splinshints:
Like I said: shut your farking mouths. Until you acknowledge the reality of how things were before 2008, you don't get to talk to the smart people about how things have been since then.

See the pattern? Dims just resort to shouting and name calling when their opinion is challenged.

Incansus: EWreckedSean: DarnoKonrad: The man wants to be reelected!? Who does he think he is? The president?

Going to not one but two different fund raisers in the middle of the market crashing seems like good leadership to you huh?

Should he stay and hold the market's hand to make it feel better?

Wow are you really arguing that there is nothing the president should be doing in the middle of the stock market crashing?

EWreckedSean: You notice you are still making ad hominems instead of arguing the facts. Enjoy your tantrum child.

I think it's largely pointless to try to engage him. I stipulated all his points, and he still told me to "shut my farking mouth." Eh, whatever.

Democrats and their minions are so shortsighted. They've put all this effort into spinning this event without realizing that the true political victor will be the party that resolves the problem and not the party that projects the blame for the problem.

Republicans have been pushing for spending cuts the past two years. While Democrats were in power they ignored this call and ridiculed those who asked for a responsible government. As a result they now appear to be the problem and not the solution.

We all know the government will not raise taxes during this double-dip recession. It's just ridiculous to think they will. That means the only solution to this problem will be cutting spending. (Something the Republicans have been advocating for years.)

The Republicans have aligned themselves to be the party that resolves the problem and that should scare every Democrat who is desperately trying to meme his or her party out of the muck it currently finds itself in...

EWreckedSean: LordJiro: EWreckedSean: DarnoKonrad: The man wants to be reelected!? Who does he think he is? The president?

Going to not one but two different fund raisers in the middle of the market crashing seems like good leadership to you huh?

What, pray tell, would you have Obama do? There's not much he can do, especially about economic matters, without Congress acting first.

blah blah blah...I would expect him to have people up at the white house figuring out what they can do to curb the downward plunge...herp derpity doo

And you have it on good authority he told all the folks at the White House to go home and call it a day?

karnal: Jake Havechek:
Okay, liar.
Your whole life is a lie. You're trying to convince everyone including yourself you're the only true neutral independent thinker in the world, and that just isn't the case.

Splinshints:
Like I said: shut your farking mouths. Until you acknowledge the reality of how things were before 2008, you don't get to talk to the smart people about how things have been since then.

See the pattern? Dims just resort to shouting and name calling when their opinion is challenged.

It's not all of them. I've found a few I enjoy sparring with. Dusk i pretty sharp, so is Rex. But my ignore list is getting pretty large for people like this.

EWreckedSean: Jake Havechek: minarchist

That sounds made up.

Only because you don't know the first thing about political philosophies, which comes as a shock to nobody I hope by this point.

Minarchism (new window)

Farking fairy tale is what it is. Move to Somalia if you want small government.

Hmmm....

...nine letter word...

...starts with..."S"...

...ends with..."CIALISM"...

...any help appreciated.

Splinshints

dumbobruni: and if they get the presidency, deficit reduction will be sidelined in favor of a legislative cripple fight over abortion/gay marriage

Eh... maybe, but I doubt it. Those have been wedge issues forever at the federal level, mostly just used to rile up hicks to go vote against the democrats. I don't think that anybody at the federal level actually wants to have those things "reformed" because they'd lose that level to get people to the polls.

Although, I guess with the teabaggers in play, you never know.

EWreckedSean: stuff

karnal: All you are doing is yelling shut up

Yep. Because as far as I'm concerned, people like you two don't get to waste my time anymore. I'm not going to play your little game where you shout out obviously disprovable bullshiat and make me run around collecting all the data to prove it just so you can move the goalpost to some other obviously disprovable bit of bullshiat.

If you aren't going to argue within the bounds of reality, we aren't going to argue. There are people out there with conservative opinions who are much smarter and more honest than you, and I'd rather go ahead and wait for them rather than continue to justify your bullshiat.

I'm not saying I'm smarter than you, I'm saying you're a lot dumber - or more dishonest - than a lot of the people I could have the same discussion with. You'll either frame your arguments within the bounds of reality, or you can point that blowhole on the front of your head at somebody else.


yes - you still are playing.

Incansus: EWreckedSean: LordJiro: EWreckedSean: DarnoKonrad: The man wants to be reelected!? Who does he think he is? The president?

Going to not one but two different fund raisers in the middle of the market crashing seems like good leadership to you huh?

What, pray tell, would you have Obama do? There's not much he can do, especially about economic matters, without Congress acting first.

blah blah blah...I would expect him to have people up at the white house figuring out what they can do to curb the downward plunge...herp derpity doo

And you have it on good authority he told all the folks at the White House to go home and call it a day?

I have it on good authority that our farking president left the white house in the middle of a huge economic crisis to go wine and dine donors at not one but 2 parties. That's some fine leadership Lou.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Is it strictly that one must agree with you

There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

1. The debt increased ~$6T under Bush
2. Medicare Part D cost $1T
3. Bush didn't put the two wars in his budgets
4. The Bush tax cuts, over 10 years, cost about $2.5T

These are all indisputable facts. There is no "maybe not the way you state". They happened. You either acknowledge that inarguable set of facts or you go away and shout at someone else. I'm tired of arguing with people who pretend that we can finesse those facts or just outright act like they never even happened so that we can suddenly blame everything on the black guy in the white house like the entire period of time between 2000 and 2008 never happened.

karnal: yes - you still are playing.

Let me rephrase that to be more specific: I'll waste my time mocking and berating you, but I'm not going to waste my time pretending that your argument may in some twisted way be valid when you're not even willing to acknowledge the most basic facts that underpin the topic.

EWreckedSean:

Wow are you really arguing that there is nothing the president should be doing in the middle of the stock market crashing?

The answer is no, there really isn't. Like during the BP debacle, you all expected him to wave a magic wnad and stop the gusher.

Fark Wall Street, they're part of the problem.

Jake Havechek: EWreckedSean: Jake Havechek: minarchist

That sounds made up.

Only because you don't know the first thing about political philosophies, which comes as a shock to nobody I hope by this point.

Minarchism (new window)

Farking fairy tale is what it is. Move to Somalia if you want small government.

I find it amusing that in the interest of small government minarchism removes everything but the most authoritarian parts of government.

The president raises money for his reelection by pretending he's for raising revenues while every piece of paper he signs is firmly against tax increases?

It sounds like he's trying to set up the next election to center itself around class warfare. "I know I didn't raise the taxes on the rich but I really wanted to."

common_sense_isnt_common: mamoru: BillCo: Well, at least he is interested in one job, his own. But, I guess that anything that keeps him away from the oval office and farking up the country even more is a blessing. Maybe he'll go play some more golf today.

Worst. President. Evar.

Now watch this drive.

OK you do know that that quote was pre 9-11 right. I know MM made it look like it was said on the 12th but hey don't let facts get in the way of a good talking point.


things.

According to Time it was 2002/a> (new window w/ vid)

Maybe financial expert John McCain can swoop into DC and do.......something.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students:
OK, all that happened (maybe not the way you state, but whatever). What exactly are we supposed to do about it? Here's something you seem to have forgotten: Bush isn't president anymore. Can't exactly vote him out of office, can we? Does it suck that Obama has to clean it up? Sure. But it's also his job. I hate to use the old cliche, but it fits: "he knew what he was getting into (or should have)." And we can't forget, he didn't exactly help things by adding another $2.5 trillion in debt. So here we are.

Debt and Economy are two separate things. You can be a country with zero debt, and be astoundingly poor. You can be a country with a large debt, and be astoundingly rich.

At this time, the government should be spending money, to stimulate the economy. When it WAS doing this, the economy was steadily improving. Now that it has stopped, so will the improvement.

Here's the thing: when the economy is doing well, you need to tax, and you need to cut. Taxes (like raising interest rates) provide a nice hedge against inflation. And cuts can be more easily borne by a working populace. This is exactly what Clinton did, and it's how he balanced the budget.

Contrast with W. When the economy was down, he cut taxes, and raised government spending...So far, so good. When the economy was up, he cut taxes and raised government spending. When he started a war, he didn't raise taxes (first time in history we've had an unfunded war). In short, cut and spend, in all weather.

That's why we're in the shiat: because we spent like drunken sailors when the economy was UP. When the recession hit, we HAD to raise government spending, because the goddamn interest rates were too farking low to lower! 8 years of shiat management.

If we could get Jake Havechek and Splinshints to shout in perfect harmony "The Teabaggers did it - The Teabaggers did it" over and over maybe, just maybe the harmonics of their ignorance will lead to their heads exploding.


/now that would be worth the price of admission

BroadbandGremlin: It sounds like he's trying to set up the next election to center itself around class warfare. "I know I didn't raise the taxes on the rich but I really wanted to."

ya, democrats are good at playing fake opposition to policies that are destroying the country.

BroadbandGremlin: Democrats and their minions are so shortsighted. They've put all this effort into spinning this event without realizing that the true political victor will be the party that resolves the problem and not the party that projects the blame for the problem.

Republicans have been pushing for spending cuts the past two years. While Democrats were in power they ignored this call and ridiculed those who asked for a responsible government. As a result they now appear to be the problem and not the solution.

We all know the government will not raise taxes during this double-dip recession. It's just ridiculous to think they will. That means the only solution to this problem will be cutting spending. (Something the Republicans have been advocating for years.)

The Republicans have aligned themselves to be the party that resolves the problem and that should scare every Democrat who is desperately trying to meme his or her party out of the muck it currently finds itself in...

why did the Repubiicans accept an austerity package smaller than the $4 trillion Gang of Six deal?

karnal: If we could get Jake Havechek and Splinshints to shout in perfect harmony "The Teabaggers did it - The Teabaggers did it" over and over maybe, just maybe the harmonics of their ignorance will lead to their heads exploding.


/now that would be worth the price of admission

It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

Splinshints: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Is it strictly that one must agree with you

There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

The sad thing is the first recession started in December 2007, several months after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch of government. (Pelosi got her gavel in January of 2007)

karnal: "The Teabaggers did it - The Teabaggers did it"

I agree with the republican apologists, it was just a coincidence that they got elected then held the nation hostage then the downgrade report cited political brinksmanship. yep... just.a.coincidence

BroadbandGremlin:
Republicans have been pushing for spending cuts the past two years.

Yes. Exactly.

Two years. Before that is a mythical time wrapped in the mist of history, a time when nobody can say for sure what might or might not have happened.

BroadbandGremlin: Splinshints: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Is it strictly that one must agree with you

There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

The sad thing is the first recession started in December 2007, several months after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch of government. (Pelosi got her gavel in January of 2007)

so the next recession would be the fault of the Republicans gaining control of the House?

got it.

Kibbler: BroadbandGremlin:
Republicans have been pushing for spending cuts the past two years.

Yes. Exactly.

Two years. Before that is a mythical time wrapped in the mist of history, a time when nobody can say for sure what might or might not have happened.

Nobody knew who they were or where they came from.

Jake Havechek: karnal: Jake Havechek

Buncha stupid idiots.

Farking asswipes. They cause the crisis with their farking political games and then they're angry about it?


I don't know - it sounds like the butthurt is coming from your camp. Here's somthing to sooth the pain.

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]

No need to thank me - just knowing your hurting less is thanks enough.

You cruising for ass or something? You some kind of homo? Why are you guys obsessed with asses and penises?

That's the best retort you could come up with?

Lame.

Splinshints: There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

1. The debt increased ~$6T under Bush
2. Medicare Part D cost $1T
3. Bush didn't put the two wars in his budgets
4. The Bush tax cuts, over 10 years, cost about $2.5T

1. agreed
2. agreed
3. not entirely true, but close enough
4. The cuts didn't COST anything. They reduced INCOME by 2.5trillion. Granted, since we absolutely refuse to reduce any kind of spending, that 2.5trillion has to come from somewhere, which adds to the debt (and I would be perfectly happy if the cuts went away).

So, is that good enough for you, or do you still require 100% adherence to your opinion?

Splinshints: 2. Medicare Part D cost $1T

False.

dumbobruni: BroadbandGremlin: Splinshints: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Is it strictly that one must agree with you

There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

The sad thing is the first recession started in December 2007, several months after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch of government. (Pelosi got her gavel in January of 2007)

so the next recession would be the fault of the Republicans gaining control of the House?

got it.

=-=-=-

Sad thing about a double-dip recession is its usually the fault of those who initiated it and then delayed its effects by invoking a trillion dollars in wasted stimulus spending...

BroadbandGremlin: dumbobruni: BroadbandGremlin: Splinshints: Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Is it strictly that one must agree with you

There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

The sad thing is the first recession started in December 2007, several months after the Democrats took control of the legislative branch of government. (Pelosi got her gavel in January of 2007)

so the next recession would be the fault of the Republicans gaining control of the House?

got it.

=-=-=-

Sad thing about a double-dip recession is its usually the fault of those who initiated it and then delayed its effects by invoking a trillion dollars in wasted stimulus spending...

the stimulus package was half tax cuts. are you saying that tax cuts are wasteful?

Headso

karnal: "The Teabaggers did it - The Teabaggers did it"

I agree with the republican apologists, it was just a coincidence that they got elected then held the nation hostage then the downgrade report cited political brinksmanship. yep... just.a.coincidence

I think the coincidence would be the progressive president who aligns himself with the Piven and Cloward strategy....collapse the system from within.

This is exactly what is needed to fundamentally change America.

EWreckedSean: Incansus: EWreckedSean: DarnoKonrad: The man wants to be reelected!? Who does he think he is? The president?

Going to not one but two different fund raisers in the middle of the market crashing seems like good leadership to you huh?

Should he stay and hold the market's hand to make it feel better?

Wow are you really arguing that there is nothing the president should be doing in the middle of the stock market crashing?

I'm certain he'll get back to capitulating to the Republicans in Congress just as soon as they get back from vacation.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students

Splinshints: There is no disagreement on the things I said, unless I've miscalculated, in which case the only disagreement is a math equation.

1. The debt increased ~$6T under Bush
2. Medicare Part D cost $1T
3. Bush didn't put the two wars in his budgets
4. The Bush tax cuts, over 10 years, cost about $2.5T

1. agreed
2. agreed
3. not entirely true, but close enough
4. The cuts didn't COST anything. They reduced INCOME by 2.5trillion. Granted, since we absolutely refuse to reduce any kind of spending, that 2.5trillion has to come from somewhere, which adds to the debt (and I would be perfectly happy if the cuts went away).

So, is that good enough for you, or do you still require 100% adherence to your opinion?

Well if he is true to form he will tell you to shut the fark up....and Jake will second it.

Splinshints:

3a. As as addendum to this, you don't get to claim that the republican Congress balanced the budget during that time. I was 32 at the time. I remember well the incredible butthurt from Congressional republicans who proclaimed often and loudly their opposition and that the whole things was just the "biggest tax increase in history".

.

wow. so your memory of some political statements made by some unnamed republicans overrides the reality of the votes? That is good to know. Next time instead of looking at what actually happened, I will ask you if you heard anything. You are a self-centered idiot.

ohh, ohh, let me try. I recently remember democrats saying some negative things about Obama. That means that the democrats don't support him and his agenda.