3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Try to respond using facts (yesterday). Or work on your logic (today). You're putting on quite a stupidity lesson lately. Read your statement again and maybe you can figure out why you look so foolish. Hint: You concluded something absurd based on Barry's personality. It's amazing that you think of yourself as a poll expert and have some insight into economics after posting the below drivel. So, you think that a president's personal traits won't have an affect on the way they govern or compromise? This in cannot have an affect on the economy?
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 So, you think that a president's personal traits won't have an affect on the way they govern or compromise? This in cannot have an affect on the economy? Of course not, forging relationships with those across the other side of the aisle and working towards bipartisan solutions don't lead to positive economic results /JA
Doc Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Woodward also says that Joe told Eric Cantor that he disagreed with Barry.
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Woodward also says that Joe told Eric Cantor that he disagreed with Barry. It's a scary world when Joe Biden starts sounding sane.
John Adams Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Ok, try to keep up meathead. Let me explain it to you like I do when talking to my three year old, maybe then you'll understand. Ready? You see hun, when two people get along, and they both work together, they sometimes can get things done. When they fight and call each other names and not talk to each other, sometimes things don't get done. It's really really really important that they get along, or at least try. It's good for everyone when they talk to each other. Wow, that's nice but not what you said. Avoid, evade. Here's the cause and effect statement you made. Again. Maybe I can simplify your own words for you since you don't understand them. You said "Obama is a dick and as a result, we have a bad economy." This sort of Kindergarten breakdown of your 2nd grade logic might help you understand your stupidity. But I doubt it. Obama on the other hand is seen from almost all accounts as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan, and as a result, we have this ****ty economy. Edited September 6, 2012 by John Adams
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 Here's what I said: It's not that Obama is just completely out of his depth when it comes to economic policies, it's that he had no interest or desire to forge relationships with those from the other side of the aisle. Reagan and Clinton were masters at this, and as a result, they got things done. Obama on the other hand is seen from almost all accounts as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan, and as a result, we have this ****ty economy and nothing gets done. Which is the main reason why he doesn't deserve reelection. It's called context, which is why it's necessary to speak to you as if you are a three year old, and even then you still have problems understanding what I was saying. You're embarrassing yourself meathead,
WorldTraveller Posted September 6, 2012 Posted September 6, 2012 I'm enjoying this. I'm gonna continue to pile on our verbally challenged friend from PA. It's not that Obama is just completely out of his depth when it comes to economic policies, it's that he had no interest or desire to forge relationships with those from the other side of the aisle. Reagan and Clinton were masters at this, and as a result, they got things done. Obama on the other hand is seen from almost all accounts as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan, and as a result, we have this ****ty economy and nothing gets done. Which is the main reason why he doesn't deserve reelection. You see, when I used the word "just", it implies that it's more than one problem, the first one listed is his economic policies. However, using the word "just" segways to the second issue. Which is "forging relationships". I make mention that "Reagan and Clinton were masters at this", and that "as a result they got things done". Are you beginning to understand where I was heading with this meathead? Then I say "Obama on the otherhand" The word "otherhand" is important. meaning, if we were to juxtapose Obama with Reagan/Clinton "as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan," compared to Reagans and Clintons ability to work with those across party lines, that "and as a result, we have this ****ty economy and nothing gets done." Did you get that meathead? Or do you need for me to continue to embarrass you? I can Just let me know
John Adams Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Obama on the other hand is seen from almost all accounts as egotistical, self-indulging and overtly partisan, and as a result, we have this ****ty economy. You blame the ****ty economy on Obama's personality...and I'm the meathead. Good one. I like that you keep trying to spin your stupidity. Edited September 7, 2012 by John Adams
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2012 Posted September 7, 2012 You blame the ****ty economy on Obama's personality...and I'm the meathead. Good one. I like that you keep trying to spin your stupidity. I've always viewed you as a prick, just not this dense of a prick.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Can anyone explain to me why the debt ceiling is appropriate to debate in the first place. Not trying to be snarky but let's get down the crux of it here. To sit here and put this on Obama we should first address what "it" is...and "it" is insane. Edited September 8, 2012 by TheNewBills
Doc Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Can anyone explain to me why the debt ceiling is appropriate to debate in the first place. Not trying to be snarky but let's get down the crux of it here. To sit here and put this on Obama we should first address what "it" is...and "it" is insane. Maybe, but Barry voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. In fact, here is what he said at the time: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Maybe, but Barry voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. In fact, here is what he said at the time: Historically both parties have cast votes to signal their disapproval of majority spending, and historically each time any one of them did they were rather retarded. It has been raised countless times in it's history usually as a matter of course and actually automatically for much of that time (just as it is in basically every advanced country)...b/c ya know "the validity of the US debt shall not be questioned" is in that document they're all pledged to uphold. So tell me again, why were did the Repubs one up even previous idiocy and play games with it when it actually could be stopped by them?
Doc Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Historically both parties have cast votes to signal their disapproval of majority spending, and historically each time any one of them did they were rather retarded. It has been raised countless times in it's history usually as a matter of course and actually automatically for much of that time (just as it is in basically every advanced country)...b/c ya know "the validity of the US debt shall not be questioned" is in that document they're all pledged to uphold. So tell me again, why were did the Repubs one up even previous idiocy and play games with it when it actually could be stopped by them? I don't know the history of each Repub Congresscritters and whether or not he or she voted for raising the debt ceiling when there was a Repub president What I do know is Barry was against raising the debt ceiling...before he was for it.
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 I don't know the history of each Repub Congresscritters and whether or not he or she voted for raising the debt ceiling when there was a Repub president What I do know is Barry was against raising the debt ceiling...before he was for it. It's retarded to use the debt ceiling for anything. It should just be automatic that is the ONLY sane way for things to exist. In any event, retarded as it may be to posture against spending when there is no real anxiety or threat of not actually passing it to make a point known...and to actually hold ransom the debt ceiling in a very serious way that is creating all kinds of anxiety...are two different brands of stupid. By any analysis...both retarded...and one clearly way way more retarded. There is no excuse..."Obama did it in '06" is no point at all to relieve the ransom that happened plain and simple. There is no excuse. It is straight retarded. Congress buyers car. Congress tells bank not to pay dealer. Congress retarded.
WorldTraveller Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Obama politicized the issue in 2006 as a senator and as president, he backed out of the deal simply because he was afraidd of his extremist leftist base. He's not fit to lead. Edited September 8, 2012 by WorldTraveller
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 Obama politicized the issue in 2006 as a senator and as president, he backed out of the deal simply because he was afraidd of his extremist leftist base. He's not fit to lead. Politicizing something makes you unfit to lead? Well damn...I think we have a huge problem in Washington in both parties lol In any event a very real ransom and political posturing are two different things...and a downgrade is all the evidence you need. When someone takes a hostage and demands a ransom and the hostage gets shot...we all know who's fault it is. This topic is stupid. Point the finger at some other event this example is pathetic.
WorldTraveller Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Nope, I will continue to point out that the debt debacle, which led to the downgrade of our AAA rating, for the first time in US history falls mainly on president obamas heels. He's the president, the leader and he blew it. Obama isn't fit to lead Edited September 8, 2012 by WorldTraveller
dayman Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 You are thus absolving the GOP from this by declaring "Obama bad"...in other words...you have just sanctioned ransom holding the debt limit the exact thing that was responsible for the downgrade and basically condoned the downgrade. It makes no sense. It's retarded when it's used for political purposes and it's disastrous when taken to the extreme to actually cause real anxiety in the markets. Take off your blinder brother
WorldTraveller Posted September 8, 2012 Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) I understand that you don't want to accept what truly happened, that's what happens to naive people such as yourself, I suggest you read the WAPO story that was posted on the debt debacle or for that matter the released excerpts for the Woodward book. Boehner brought him the deal, and Obama at the last minute changed the parameters, thus leading to the failure of the debt deal. If Clinton or Reagan were president, a deal would have been made, fact is Obama failed, and as a result we lost our AAA credit rating. Obama doesn't deserve re election. Edited September 8, 2012 by WorldTraveller
Recommended Posts