Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What's with the hit & run bull **** by the two Demadrones? We should sick Crayonz on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What's with the hit & run bull **** by the two Demadrones? We should sick Crayonz on them. I think they'll be back. I hope they bring more than bumper stickers and HuffPo headlines (at least READ the articles, guys). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 If Debbie Wasserman Schultz says it or if its on a TV campaign ad, it MUST be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I think they'll be back. I hope they bring more than bumper stickers and HuffPo headlines (at least READ the articles, guys). I wouldn't hold out hope. Not sure about Dr. D, but I've gone a round with gugny before and there's not a lot of water in that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) No, not at all. But I am stating - directly - that the guy who's got executive and fiscal experience and success has a greater probability of being better suited to a job that requires executive and fiscal abilities. That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? This whole POTUS experience argument constantly acts like we're in 2008. Edited August 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 If Debbie Wasserman Schultz says it or if its on a TV campaign ad, it MUST be true. But it's not official until it hits the Russia Times Youtube channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? This whole POTUS experience argument constantly acts like we're in 2008. Based on his campaigning, do you really think so??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? And Derek Anderson has a lot more NFL experience than Andrew Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 And Derek Anderson has a lot more NFL experience than Andrew Luck. So Romney is the greatest Presidential prospect since Peyton Manning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 So Romney is the greatest Presidential prospect since Peyton Manning? He's got a lot of promise, we haven't seen him play in prime time but he looks like he could be good and might take us back to the playoffs. We already know the guy we got in sucks & can't lead us anywhere but down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) He's got a lot of promise, we haven't seen him play in prime time but he looks like he could be good and might take us back to the playoffs. We already know the guy we got in sucks & can't lead us anywhere but down. You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past? Edited August 7, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past? And there it is. You keep re-asking the same question expecting a different answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past? Romneycare circa 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What's with the hit & run bull **** by the two Demadrones? We should sick Crayonz on them. Had a chance to take off and get a headstart on Atlanta/Rain traffic. Back to the schit-show now. Allow me to digest these new posts and I'll be back in a few minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past? So far when I hear him speak he says the right things: lower corporate taxes, less social spending, and just as (if not more) importantly cutting through the useless regulations that are gumming up the works. Everyone talks about how Reagan lowered taxes, which was important, but Reagan oversaw the elimination of a lot of crippling regulations that were inhibiting growth. Regulations are a huge problem. Just the direct cost alone of regulatory compliance is equal to 10% of our GDP, and the indirect costs are exponentially higher. If you're a Clinton guy it's worth noting that regulation expanded much more slowly than under Bush & Obama. In short, hopefully Romney will get the government out of the way so people can get back to doing business as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What point did you make exactly? You just threw out blind statements with no reality behind it. The point I often make about full-time PPP posters being pathetic, psuedo-intellectual, internet bullies who don't know how to have a real discussion, and only attack all posts/posters they think may even hint towards opposing their views to protect their little circlejerk. Case in point: WorldTraveller. Dude is so desperate to prove he's smart, he even started with his username. "See guys, I've been around. I know things you dont". He has exactly 3 posts in this thread, and not one contribution to the discussion. Not one statement about the original content of the thread. Not one statement with any intelligent points that might make a good point. Only name calling and dismissing. And 2 of those 3 posts use the same lame "burn" attempt. Yet, he doesnt realize how obvious it is that he has nothing better going on in his life, that he comes to a hidden political section of a FOOTBALL message board to really steel his wit and wisdom. When in reality, all he is good at is condescension and being a smug prick. Congrats! Accusing me of being a DNC parrot is laughable, especially coming from a bunch of people who only regurgitate unchecked Fox News propaganda (on their best days). See how we can all just call names back and forth and it gets us ABSOLUTELY no where? At least Tom engaged and replied with something that can further the discussion, which I would love to get back, so here we go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) The point I often make about full-time PPP posters being pathetic, psuedo-intellectual, internet bullies who don't know how to have a real discussion, and only attack all posts/posters they think may even hint towards opposing their views to protect their little circlejerk. Case in point: WorldTraveller. Dude is so desperate to prove he's smart, he even started with his username. "See guys, I've been around. I know things you dont". He has exactly 3 posts in this thread, and not one contribution to the discussion. Not one statement about the original content of the thread. Not one statement with any intelligent points that might make a good point. Only name calling and dismissing. And 2 of those 3 posts use the same lame "burn" attempt. Yet, he doesnt realize how obvious it is that he has nothing better going on in his life, that he comes to a hidden political section of a FOOTBALL message board to really steel his wit and wisdom. When in reality, all he is good at is condescension and being a smug prick. Congrats! Accusing me of being a DNC parrot is laughable, especially coming from a bunch of people who only regurgitate unchecked Fox News propaganda (on their best days). See how we can all just call names back and forth and it gets us ABSOLUTELY no where? At least Tom engaged and replied with something that can further the discussion, which I would love to get back, so here we go... The reason Magox responded the way he did is because what you stated has been debated ad nauseum for the last 3-4 months. You parroted democratic talking points and most of them are uninformed. Not only that but you also used envy politics, "used daddy's money". I'd show as much disdain (and so would Magox) for someone who said Obama was born in Kenya. So yes, you come into the thread and spout garbage and are surprised when that's what you get in return. This isn't FOX or MSNBC, strop trying to sound like Angry Ed. Edited August 7, 2012 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 The best way I respond towards idiocy is through mockery. If you want to put your big boy pants on and offer substance, then I'm more than happy to oblige in-kind, if not, well..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 So far when I hear him speak he says the right things: lower corporate taxes, less social spending, and just as (if not more) importantly cutting through the useless regulations that are gumming up the works. Everyone talks about how Reagan lowered taxes, which was important, but Reagan oversaw the elimination of a lot of crippling regulations that were inhibiting growth. Regulations are a huge problem. Just the direct cost alone of regulatory compliance is equal to 10% of our GDP, and the indirect costs are exponentially higher. If you're a Clinton guy it's worth noting that regulation expanded much more slowly than under Bush & Obama. In short, hopefully Romney will get the government out of the way so people can get back to doing business as usual. Good post, Rob. You definitely make a good argument against what you call the "War on Business". But I dont think it is that simple. The problem is, corporations have no morals, no ethics, no code of conduct, no empathy, and zero accountability. The only goal is to increase profits, and whatever cost (non-monetarily speaking of course). Regulations are a necessity, not a hinderance. We saw what happened when Wall Street and banking were allowed to function without the proper regulations. Bankrupting their own customers in order to make the customer's money, theirs. I work in a service industry. Telecom to be exact. I work with a diverse range of customers, building the systems they need in order to function, and I have seen a LOT of growth in almost every industry over the past 2 years. Jobs are their, at least the need for more employees is there, but the problem now is that companies were forced to cut down to a skeleton staff of only their top workers back in 2008-2009. These people have been extremely overworked for the last couple of years, but keep it up under the threat of "A grinding job is better than NO job, so if you want to stay, shut up and get to work". So even though more business is coming in, they do not want to hire more people. Instead, they'd rather keep squeezing blood from their rocks, and pocket those profits for their executives. Executives who have done nothing except threaten their employees with unemployment. The best way I respond towards idiocy is through mockery. If you want to put your big boy pants on and offer substance, then I'm more than happy to oblige in-kind, if not, well..... And there is the second typical response when you losers are called out on your BS. "You didnt give me anything to respond to". Yes I did. Others took that point and discussed it in my adbsence. You contribute nothing, and continue to suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 The point I often make about full-time PPP posters being pathetic, psuedo-intellectual, internet bullies who don't know how to have a real discussion, and only attack all posts/posters they think may even hint towards opposing their views to protect their little circlejerk. Case in point: WorldTraveller. Dude is so desperate to prove he's smart, he even started with his username. "See guys, I've been around. I know things you dont". He has exactly 3 posts in this thread, and not one contribution to the discussion. Not one statement about the original content of the thread. Not one statement with any intelligent points that might make a good point. Only name calling and dismissing. And 2 of those 3 posts use the same lame "burn" attempt. Yet, he doesnt realize how obvious it is that he has nothing better going on in his life, that he comes to a hidden political section of a FOOTBALL message board to really steel his wit and wisdom. When in reality, all he is good at is condescension and being a smug prick. Congrats! Accusing me of being a DNC parrot is laughable, especially coming from a bunch of people who only regurgitate unchecked Fox News propaganda (on their best days). See how we can all just call names back and forth and it gets us ABSOLUTELY no where? At least Tom engaged and replied with something that can further the discussion, which I would love to get back, so here we go... Earlier in this thread it was suggested to you that you research the silver spoon accusations regarding Romney. Have you had the chance to do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts