3rdnlng Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Another idiot heard from. The R's blamed Clinton for YEARS and some still bring it up in 2012. that is a FACT You guys blamed Obama days after he was elected for Christ’s sake!!!! that also is a FACT. you imbecile I told you that your statement (the one I bolded) was patently false because you took Bush completely out of context. Who's the imbecile here? Or were you just lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 So Paulson convincing the SEC to allow GS (and the other IBs) to increase their leverage from 12:1 to 33:1 was minor? Just took a quick look at GS' balance sheet. Total assets nearly tripled from 2003 to 2007, from $400 bill to $1.1 trillion, whereas equity doubled from $21 bil to $43 bil. That's a recipe for a bubble and crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I told you that your statement (the one I bolded) was patently false because you took Bush completely out of context. Who's the imbecile here? Or were you just lying? What more can one say with this quote "I wish they weren't called the 'Bush tax cuts'" Context or not it is NOT false. Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn’t been attached to them. In recent years, Democrats have resisted renewing the cuts, which they say favor the wealthy too much. WHY does the name on the tax cuts matter? How would we read this then The Obama Tax Cuts have a better chance of surviving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 What more can one say with this quote "I wish they weren't called the 'Bush tax cuts'" Context or not it is NOT false. Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn’t been attached to them. In recent years, Democrats have resisted renewing the cuts, which they say favor the wealthy too much. WHY does the name on the tax cuts matter? How would we read this then The Obama Tax Cuts have a better chance of surviving? You said "Even W wants to be removed from his tax cuts". That's not the same as saying he wished that they weren't called the "Bush" tax cuts. You made it sound as if he was disavowing them. You are at the least a disingenuous partisan weasel that makes schit up because you can't make a genuine case for your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 again with the name calling are you 10 years old? Again I ask WHY does it matter what name it goes by. What difference does it make if it’s called the Bush Tax Cut extension or the Obama tax cut? Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn’t been attached to them. ergo THE TAX CUTS are not working. Isn't this Politics, Polls, and Pundits Not Politics, Polls, and Pubescence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 again with the name calling are you 10 years old? Again I ask WHY does it matter what name it goes by. What difference does it make if it's called the Bush Tax Cut extension or the Obama tax cut? Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn't been attached to them. ergo THE TAX CUTS are not working. Isn't this Politics, Polls, and Pundits Not Politics, Polls, and Pubescence You forgot to log in to your Dave_In_Norfolk account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Another idiot heard from. The R's blamed Clinton for YEARS and some still bring it up in 2012. that is a FACT You guys blamed Obama days after he was elected for Christ’s sake!!!! that also is a FACT. you imbecile again with the name calling are you 10 years old? Again I ask WHY does it matter what name it goes by. What difference does it make if it’s called the Bush Tax Cut extension or the Obama tax cut? Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn’t been attached to them. ergo THE TAX CUTS are not working. Isn't this Politics, Polls, and Pundits Not Politics, Polls, and Pubescence That would make you a hypocrite.....or 9yrs old. As to the other bolded part..."ergo the tax cuts are not working' that is about the most flawed logic that has been presented on the board that I have ever read. The tax cuts would have a better chance of being renewed with a different name.............so that proves they are not working ? ? ? classic blindness. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn't been attached to them. ergo THE TAX CUTS are not working. Is that what you got out of what he said? Holy crap that's funny. Logic is not your strong suit I take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 again with the name calling are you 10 years old? Again I ask WHY does it matter what name it goes by. What difference does it make if it’s called the Bush Tax Cut extension or the Obama tax cut? Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn’t been attached to them. ergo THE TAX CUTS are not working. Isn't this Politics, Polls, and Pundits Not Politics, Polls, and Pubescence Obviously honesty and logic are not your forte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) Barry's not getting re-elected. Romney is going to rake him over the coals. If what he did to Ginrich was any indication... I am not predicting who will win in November, but do you really think Romney raked Gingrich over the coals? I didn't get that impression at all. In fact, it almost seemed to me that in the GOP primaries, what Romney did that was smart, for the most part, was keep his mouth shut, as much as he could. Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, etc just looked worse every time they opened their mouths, and Romney just kind of sat back and said "hey, I'm still here!" Again, I am not predicting an Obama victory, but the heat is going to be pretty high on Romney in the general election...he hasn't always excelled under those conditions. I know they usuals here will deny it, but Romney has a pretty strong record of contradicting himself...on pretty major issues, to many. And you don't have to go back decades to find the inconsistencies. "Raking over the coals" doesn't really appear to be Romneys strongest suit. But, we shall see...the fact that it took him so long to finish off Santorum doesn't speak all that well for him...if Gingrich had dropped out (like he should have if he wasn't such an egotistical ass), Santorum still might be giving Romney fits. Edited April 18, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 I am not predicting who will win in November, but do you really think Romney raked Gingrich over the coals? I didn't get that impression at all. In fact, it almost seemed to me that in the GOP primaries, what Romney did that was smart, for the most part, was keep his mouth shut, as much as he could. Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, etc just looked worse every time they opened their mouths, and Romney just kind of sat back and said "hey, I'm still here!" Again, I am not predicting an Obama victory, but the heat is going to be pretty high on Romney in the general election...he hasn't always excelled under those conditions. I know they usuals here will deny it, but Romney has a pretty strong record of contradicting himself...on pretty major issues, to many. And "raking over the coals" doesn't really appear to be his strongest suit. But, we shall see...the fact that it took him so long to finish off Santorum doesn't speak all that well for him...if Gingrich had dropped out (like he should have if he wasn't such an egotistical ass), Santorum still might be giving Romney fits. Buftex, can you name all of the "flip flops" Romney has made? I've got an idea of a couple but would like to see what a liberal considers a flip flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I am not predicting who will win in November, but do you really think Romney raked Gingrich over the coals? I didn't get that impression at all. In fact, it almost seemed to me that in the GOP primaries, what Romney did that was smart, for the most part, was keep his mouth shut, as much as he could. Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, etc just looked worse every time they opened their mouths, and Romney just kind of sat back and said "hey, I'm still here!" Again, I am not predicting an Obama victory, but the heat is going to be pretty high on Romney in the general election...he hasn't always excelled under those conditions. I know they usuals here will deny it, but Romney has a pretty strong record of contradicting himself...on pretty major issues, to many. And you don't have to go back decades to find the inconsistencies. "Raking over the coals" doesn't really appear to be Romneys strongest suit. But, we shall see...the fact that it took him so long to finish off Santorum doesn't speak all that well for him...if Gingrich had dropped out (like he should have if he wasn't such an egotistical ass), Santorum still might be giving Romney fits. Romney was able to get more interest after he ramped-up the negative attack ads against Gingrich and Santorum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Buftex, can you name all of the "flip flops" Romney has made? I've got an idea of a couple but would like to see what a liberal considers a flip flop. No, I can't name all the "flip-flops", but if you are really curious about what a liberal considers a "flip-flop" turn on MSNBC pretty much any night...if you have time for Rush, you can spare a little for the other side from time to time, no? I don't know if this would technically be considered a "flip-flop", but talking about working mothers, just this past January, his position seems to be more in line with what Hillary Rosen "said" than anything his wife had to say. But since we are talking about Mitt Romney, I will leave his wife's phoney non-sense out of it. Mitt Romney's view seems to be, in reality, that only rich women should be free to stay at home and take care of their children, while less fortunate mothers (or welfare mothers if you must) don't have any dignity if they don't work outside the home. His, and his wife's pho-outrage over the "mommy-gate" issue was as insincere and transparent as they could manage. Telling voters that he cares about the the issues that are important to the cliche "hard working moms and dads", but turning around and telling a private group of his biggest investors that he intends to cut the HUD program, student loan programs, integrate the Department of Education with other departments, to this liberal anyway, while promising no new taxes to his constituents shows, to this liberal anyway, somebody who is lying to somebody. He seems to have a long political career of doing that. Of course, Romney's cuts weren't meant for general public consumption, but only for the ears of the money men who will most likely make or break his campaign. So I suppose that makes them off limits? And to those (and I think you are one of them, forgive if you are not) can't see the correlation between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare", to me, you are living in a bubble. Of course, there is a difference...Romney never had the power to make "Romneycare" a federal law, so he did what he could. And it was, overall, pretty good for his state...but he can never admit that, without some spin. But he does "love mandates". Or, at least he did, before he unwittingly found himself the defacto Tea Party pin-up. You know what, honestly, something tells me, my estimation of Romney, by the time the dust settles in Novmeber,is going to be a bit like my feelings for John McCain. I do have respect for both of them, on some level, but the more they talk, the harder they campaign, the brighter their insincerity shines through. Romney was able to get more interest after he ramped-up the negative attack ads against Gingrich and Santorum. Did he really get that much more interest, or did the others just make people lose interest in them? I give the GOP electorate for seeing through ass-clowns like Rick Perry pretty quickly, but running against the other party is a bit different than running for the candidacy of your own party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I know they usuals here will deny it, but Romney has a pretty strong record of contradicting himself...on pretty major issues, to many. And you don't have to go back decades to find the inconsistencies. You'll actually find fewer "usuals" denying this than you think. But anyone truly paying attention to the battle ahead knows that -- strategically speaking -- the minute Obama tries to hit Romney in a debate for flip-flopping on ANYTHING is the moment Obama is gasping for whatever air he can gulp. A lot of praise was rightfully given to the Obama campaign for using new media to promote his bid in 2008. That same new media has managed to dig up digital audio and 4D hi-def video of virtually every Obama flip-flop from his sonogram to Gitmo...and he has a treasure chest of flip-flops that make Romney look steadfast in even his dumbest beliefs. It's just like the idiotic progressives who think Romney being a Mormon is an issue. I can't wait to see how many progressives swallow their own puke when they're reminded that their Mormon friend Harry Reid is three people removed from being president on this very day. Forget ideals. Forget promises. Forget even health care. There is nothing Obama can pin on Romney that Obama hasn't FUBAR'ed himself. The winner of this race is the one who screws up the least, and given Obama's inability to keep his ridiculous yap shut about anything and everything that crosses his path, I suspect he has a taller mountain to climb to re-election than most people think. Progressives don't need to worry about Romney. They need to worry about Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Will his Magic Underwear have to be inspected for security reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Will his Magic Underwear have to be inspected for security reasons? Perhaps Harry Reid can answer that question for you. Y'know...being a devout Mormon and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) You'll actually find fewer "usuals" denying this than you think. But anyone truly paying attention to the battle ahead knows that -- strategically speaking -- the minute Obama tries to hit Romney in a debate for flip-flopping on ANYTHING is the moment Obama is gasping for whatever air he can gulp. A lot of praise was rightfully given to the Obama campaign for using new media to promote his bid in 2008. That same new media has managed to dig up digital audio and 4D hi-def video of virtually every Obama flip-flop from his sonogram to Gitmo...and he has a treasure chest of flip-flops that make Romney look steadfast in even his dumbest beliefs. It's just like the idiotic progressives who think Romney being a Mormon is an issue. I can't wait to see how many progressives swallow their own puke when they're reminded that their Mormon friend Harry Reid is three people removed from being president on this very day. Forget ideals. Forget promises. Forget even health care. There is nothing Obama can pin on Romney that Obama hasn't FUBAR'ed himself. The winner of this race is the one who screws up the least, and given Obama's inability to keep his ridiculous yap shut about anything and everything that crosses his path, I suspect he has a taller mountain to climb to re-election than most people think. Progressives don't need to worry about Romney. They need to worry about Obama. We shall see...maybe we are both living in a bubble? I can't really argue with anything you are saying, because it is all conjecture. Flip-flopping, and failing are not necessarily the same thing. And believe me, I know Obama has had plenty of failures...I am not blind to that. And I won't deny that he has had some flip-flops. But Romney has flip-flopped over the years on, basically, every core belief that a politician can espouse an opinon on...and that is not an exaggeration. The only thing he has been consitstant on is his love of money, and how to make it. Maybe that is enough? I don't know. One thing I do find curious though, from what you said, was the thing about Mormons. I have not heard one (serious) Democrat, or "progressive" mention Romney's Mormon faith as an issue...in fact, the only person I heard bring it up, was fellow Republican/Mormon Orrin Hatch, just a week or two ago....saying "Obama might try to use Romney's religion against him", because, he implies, Obama will stoop to anything. This from the same party that has over and over again condescendingly said "Well, I will take the presidents' word that he is a Christian, but with a name like Barrakc Hussain Obama, you have to wonder...and wasn't his father a Muslim, etc etc". Things like that are why people like me find it so incredulous when people on your side rail on about how Obama is so "divisive"...like Obama invented the notion of "wedge" politics. Edited April 18, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 One thing I do find curious though, from what you said, was the thing about Mormons. I have not heard one (serious) Democrat, or "progressive" mention Romney's Mormon faith as an issue...in fact, the only person I heard bring it up, was fellow Republican/Mormon Orrin Hatch, just a week or two ago....saying "Obama might try to use Romney's religion against him", because, he implies, Obama will stoop to anything. This from the same party that has over and over again condescendingly said "Well, I will take the presidents' word that he is a Christian, but with a name like Barrakc Hussain Obama, you have to wonder...and wasn't his father a Muslim, etc etc". Things like that are why people like me find it so incredulous when people on your side rail on about how Obama is so "divisive"...like Obama invented the notion of "wedge" politics. The Mormon conversation has already started online by the Huffposts of the world, where it usually starts to get filtered out to blogs, social media, etc.. Whether it gets legs remains to be seen, but it should be immediately short-lived if anyone paying attention knows Harry Reid is a Mormon. This is a Huffpost search for "Romney, Mormon." And we all know HuffPost is uber-progressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 We shall see...maybe we are both living in a bubble? I can't really argue with anything you are saying, because it is all conjecture. Flip-flopping, and failing are not necessarily the same thing. And believe me, I know Obama has had plenty of failures...I am not blind to that. And I won't deny that he has had some flip-flops. But Romney has flip-flopped over the years on, basically, every core belief that a politician can espouse an opinon on...and that is not an exaggeration. The only thing he has been consitstant on is his love of money, and how to make it. Maybe that is enough? I don't know. One thing I do find curious though, from what you said, was the thing about Mormons. I have not heard one (serious) Democrat, or "progressive" mention Romney's Mormon faith as an issue...in fact, the only person I heard bring it up, was fellow Republican/Mormon Orrin Hatch, just a week or two ago....saying "Obama might try to use Romney's religion against him", because, he implies, Obama will stoop to anything. This from the same party that has over and over again condescendingly said "Well, I will take the presidents' word that he is a Christian, but with a name like Barrakc Hussain Obama, you have to wonder...and wasn't his father a Muslim, etc etc". Things like that are why people like me find it so incredulous when people on your side rail on about how Obama is so "divisive"...like Obama invented the notion of "wedge" politics. So would you rather have a President who flip flops like they all do...it's call playing politics or one that you (and most here) conisider a failure? I've made my choice. What's yours going to be?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Blaming Bush-any Bush- is a long Democrat tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts