IDBillzFan Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Some of his ideas take too long to,work. New industries don't happen overnight. Most of his "industries" can barely survive the night, let alone happen over one. Have you looked...I mean really LOOKED...at his track record for spending money on his ideas. You could drop money from a helicopter in Compton and have a better track record. Because he's not...nor has he ever been...interested in new industries. He's interested in two things, looking green for his audience and giving green to his bundlers. Period. You sound reasonable. You sound sane. You're too far gone if you even remotely think what Obama has been doing is done with the plan of actually creating new industries. He wouldn't know how to start a lawn mower let alone start a new industry.
RLflutie7 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Most of his "industries" can barely survive the night, let alone happen over one. Have you looked...I mean really LOOKED...at his track record for spending money on his ideas. You could drop money from a helicopter in Compton and have a better track record. Because he's not...nor has he ever been...interested in new industries. He's interested in two things, looking green for his audience and giving green to his bundlers. Period. You sound reasonable. You sound sane. You're too far gone if you even remotely think what Obama has been doing is done with the plan of actually creating new industries. He wouldn't know how to start a lawn mower let alone start a new industry. I would tend to agree with creating new industries. it's out of his realm. Especially in new energy. But Romney said the same thing. He wanted to get us energy independent in 10 years. That's not going to happen, because our beloved multi-national oil companies are not going to let it happent. Nice way to run for the president, though. I think enough has been done with the president's track record for creating any kind of new jobs or industries. All presidents. Especially another beloved slob, Bill Clinton - who was one of the greatest job destroyers known to man.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 I would tend to agree with creating new industries. it's out of his realm. Especially in new energy. But Romney said the same thing. He wanted to get us energy independent in 10 years. That's not going to happen, because our beloved multi-national oil companies are not going to let it happent. Nice way to run for the president, though. I think enough has been done with the president's track record for creating any kind of new jobs or industries. All presidents. Especially another beloved slob, Bill Clinton - who was one of the greatest job destroyers known to man. Fun Fact: Oil companies work with one of the most reliable business models in the world, which consistantly pays them 7 cents on every dollar spent at the pump. The More You Know: Federal and State taxes account for an average of 45 cents on every dollar spent on that very same gas, accounting for nearly the same amount of the cost as extraction, production, and delivery (48%).
3rdnlng Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 I would tend to agree with creating new industries. it's out of his realm. Especially in new energy. But Romney said the same thing. He wanted to get us energy independent in 10 years. That's not going to happen, because our beloved multi-national oil companies are not going to let it happent. Nice way to run for the president, though. I think enough has been done with the president's track record for creating any kind of new jobs or industries. All presidents. Especially another beloved slob, Bill Clinton - who was one of the greatest job destroyers known to man. Do you understand that we have enough enegy reserves that are available to us that energy independence is attainable within a few years?
RLflutie7 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Do you understand that we have enough enegy reserves that are available to us that energy independence is attainable within a few years? No I don't. Explain this to me. You sound like T. Boone Pickens. He said the same thing. It didn't work out with wind power. What kind of energy are you talking about. Coal? I'm thinking it's not true. I'm thinking we should have listened to Jimmy Carter, who was ahead of his time by putting solar panels on the white house. Then RR comes in and removes them.
Rob's House Posted November 14, 2012 Author Posted November 14, 2012 How are you right? Things have gotten better. In my area, unemployment has dropped by half. It was 15%, now it's 7-8%. I think that's improvement. It's gotten better not worse. Food prices are up. Gas prices are coming down. The stock market went back up. By all accounts things are better. Much better. Jobs are not really better. But our beloved multi-nationals would rather choke themselves rather than create jobs. No one is making excuses for Obama. He's too slow and he hasn't done enough too help the economy. Some of his ideas take too long to,work. New industries don't happen overnight. This one line tells us everything we need to know about you. Let me guess, we'd all have it made if only the rich people weren't hoarding all the money? No I don't. Explain this to me. You sound like T. Boone Pickens. He said the same thing. It didn't work out with wind power. What kind of energy are you talking about. Coal? I'm thinking it's not true. I'm thinking we should have listened to Jimmy Carter, who was ahead of his time by putting solar panels on the white house. Then RR comes in and removes them. There are ways. You don't want to know about them.
Juror#8 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Really easy to build the minority population with executive order and no accountability. Any jackass can do it, as you saw last year. No kidding it screws the GOP. It also screws the country, but let's not get caught up in details, okay? There is only one truth you need to know about all of this: you better drop down and pray that Obama doesn't FUBAR this economy any worst than he has. (And yes, I know this is all someone else's fault because he reminds everyone every day that NOTHING is his fault.) But it's his economy now. The current pace of growth and employment is not going to make things better. It's simply not. And if this economy doesn't get going soon, the takers will come for him, too. And you don't want to be around when the takers get pissed. Ok, in fairness LA, you didn't address my point about Asian Americans. The point is an interesting one, too, because it is a verifiable fact that directly contradicts your thesis. You contend that there was an uptick in the African American and Hispanic vote because they comprise the largest percentage of folks getting "free stuff." Asian Americans are a minority group. There was a substantial uptick in the Asian American vote (60% increase). As well, there was a voting homogeneity amongst Asian Americans for Obama (73%). however.... They are the wealthiest and most educated demographic within this country and use "free stuff" the least statistically. Asian Americans represent 2.4% of the welfare recipient list - compared to 38.8% (percentage of welfare recipients who are white). The Asian American experience belies your thesis. Their experience in the 2012 election cycle has to be accounted for. It's logically suspect for you to say that African American and Hispanic minority groups increased their aggregate voting percentage in favor of Obama because they want free stuff, but the Asian American minority group, being largely affluent (more so than whites), had to have increased their aggregate voting percentage in favor of Obama for different reasons. This is especially so when I pointed out that Asians are a very disunified group in everything else. An Indian woman in Spokane has nothing in common with a Japanese man in Toledo. Thinking that one group does something for a bad reason but the other group does the same exact thing for a different reason doesn't implicate the group as much as it does the thinker. I want to keep this civil and not name call, but, try as I might, I can't reconcile your thesis without thinking that there is some nefariousness and bias in your thought process. Otherwise, literally, your distinctions make no sense. There are approximately 1,677,000 black folks on welfare. There are 40,550,000 black folks in this country. Only 4% of the aggregate black population in this country, then, are on welfare. 13% of the electorate were black. 16,100,000 black folks voted. Even if every black person who was on welfare voted, that would account for only 10% of the black voting total in 2012. What about everyone else who voted for Obama and who is not on welfare? What of those 14,000,000 people? Are they voting prospectively based on their expections that their temp services job as a janitor will end leaving them in need of welfare. Are all black/hispanic folks who voted for Obama at or near the welfare line? The idea that black folks and Hispanics would vote for Obama for the express purposes of welfare continuance - as if no other issues matter - is patently ridiculous. Though you didn't say those words exactly, what you did say was that the "uptick" was due to them wanting to retain "free stuff." It stands to reason, then, (considering you provided no basis for your contention) that since every one in that group is voting for the same candidate, with the same vision, articulating the same message (to include the subgroup who are just voting to perserve welfare), theoretically any one within that aggregate pool of similarly situated voters could be equally as likely to be voting with the same welfare preservation end objective in mind. I've pointed out the problem with that in the paragraph beginning with "There are 1,677,000..." above. At the end of the day, what you're saying doesn't comport with any exit polling. It doesn't stand on solid logical footing. It's not reconcilable with the experiences of people with whom I affiliate that voted for Obama. But you're so comfortable with that idea, yet have no basis of support for it. That's why I have to believe that you have an inherent bias that colors (no pun intended) your view of the African American and Hispanic civic experience in this country. You're just throwing out too many very negative assumptions not to. Edited November 14, 2012 by Juror#8
IDBillzFan Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 You're just throwing out too many very negative assumptions not to. You can cite all your exit polls and Obama-voting friends all you want. You can sit there and spew out numbers and specs and stats and I'll even be happy to admit being wrong, but I will bring you back to keeping in mind what is the true bottom line: Obama MUST turn things around beyond the dismal rate we've seen for the past four years. You think the takers (black, white, Asian, etc.) belong to the Democrats because of ideology? No. They belong to your party because they are unable to make it on their own without your handouts. We WILL reach a point of reckoning with debt, debit and handouts, and when that happens, you'll have bigger problems than 2016 will ever be for the GOP because these takers will not be quiet when the party is over.
VABills Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 You can cite all your exit polls and Obama-voting friends all you want. You can sit there and spew out numbers and specs and stats and I'll even be happy to admit being wrong, but I will bring you back to keeping in mind what is the true bottom line: Obama MUST turn things around beyond the dismal rate we've seen for the past four years. You think the takers (black, white, Asian, etc.) belong to the Democrats because of ideology? No. They belong to your party because they are unable to make it on their own without your handouts. We WILL reach a point of reckoning with debt, debit and handouts, and when that happens, you'll have bigger problems than 2016 will ever be for the GOP because these takers will not be quiet when the party is over. The problem with that will be nothing can be done at that point. We maybe completely screwed if the pot ever comees to a boil,
Juror#8 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) You can cite all your exit polls and Obama-voting friends all you want. You can sit there and spew out numbers and specs and stats and I'll even be happy to admit being wrong, but I will bring you back to keeping in mind what is the true bottom line: Obama MUST turn things around beyond the dismal rate we've seen for the past four years. You think the takers (black, white, Asian, etc.) belong to the Democrats because of ideology? No. They belong to your party because they are unable to make it on their own without your handouts. We WILL reach a point of reckoning with debt, debit and handouts, and when that happens, you'll have bigger problems than 2016 will ever be for the GOP because these takers will not be quiet when the party is over. I don't necessarily disagree with you on many of your points. Something as to be done. We need fiscal sensibility in this country. There needs to be a balance that weighs gratiuty against contribution and that arrangement has to be equally applicable to all. And I know that you throw in "your party" as a slight. It's not though. I'm a registered republican but most of all I'm a pragmatist. In order for their to be less dysfunction in this country, we need solutions to problems and ideas that transcend party affiliation. One party hegemonic control over a diverse minority electorate is not good for the union. Characterizing them as "takers" who are unrepentant, when really they are folks who just operate differently from you, is not going to make any alliances. You may not care about these things because you may have voted for Obama and desire that the GOP remain neutered for as long as possible, but I want to be happy to vote "R" in 2016 and would like to see a vast array of black, brown and other complected folks seeing the same vision for the GOP that I do. But people like you make it difficult. I see things differently from you so you call me a "democrat" though I've told you countless times that my party affiliation, my voting history, heck the majority of my political views, are decidely right of center. I don't dislike democrats, I just agree with them on less things than I agree with republicans on idelogically. But yet you still characterize me as a "democrat" or "progressive." So what I'm left with is that despite what I tell you, me or my diverse views on some matters scream "democrat" to you. In essense, your problem is with "diversity." What about "diversity" means incompatibility with you and "your" party? Is it the diversity of thought? Or the diversity of color? Edited November 14, 2012 by Juror#8
RLflutie7 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 This one line tells us everything we need to know about you. Let me guess, we'd all have it made if only the rich people weren't hoarding all the money? There are ways. You don't want to know about them. The rich guys are hoarding money. No two ways about it. You have to let the little guy make a buck, because if he can't make it, then you have the welfare state that GOPers complain so much about. You can't have it both ways. The rich guys have to make less money for this thing to function right. I was self employed for 10 years and I never thought this thing (low wages) was going to work. You can't make money when the average guy is broke and busted.
IDBillzFan Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 The rich guys are hoarding money. It's their money. They earned it. They can do whatever the hell they want with it, including hoard it. The minute you think they should give it out simply because they have more than you is the minute you need to accept you're living in the wrong country.
outsidethebox Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 It's their money. They earned it. They can do whatever the hell they want with it, including hoard it. The minute you think they should give it out simply because they have more than you is the minute you need to accept you're living in the wrong country. The rich can hoard their money all they want, just pay your fair share in taxes! I don't care if they burn the damn money. Don't come back with that weak ass bull **** that they are paying their fair share. You know damn well they don't!
IDBillzFan Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 The rich can hoard their money all they want, just pay your fair share in taxes! I don't care if they burn the damn money. Don't come back with that weak ass bull **** that they are paying their fair share. You know damn well they don't! Please define "fair share."
outsidethebox Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Please define "fair share." Don't play stupid. Maybe you'r not playing.
RLflutie7 Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 It's their money. They earned it. They can do whatever the hell they want with it, including hoard it. The minute you think they should give it out simply because they have more than you is the minute you need to accept you're living in the wrong country. I didn't say they didn't have a right to hoard it. I said it's counter-productive. An addiction to low wages is what got us in this mess. This constitution says the gov't's job is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It doesn't say protect multi-national corp. at all cost. PS: What did Ronald Regan hate more than anything (other than communism) ? Answer: Big Corporations. Regan was a champion of the small businessman, not large corporations.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 You're not wrong to take issue with corporations as they exist in their current form, but Jesus Christ you're making a horrible argument against them... And when I say "horrible" I mean in every aspect. You've chosen the worst possible argument to make, and you're arguing it poorly.
3rdnlng Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 I didn't say they didn't have a right to hoard it. I said it's counter-productive. An addiction to low wages is what got us in this mess. This constitution says the gov't's job is to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It doesn't say protect multi-national corp. at all cost. PS: What did Ronald Regan hate more than anything (other than communism) ? Answer: Big Corporations. Regan was a champion of the small businessman, not large corporations. Two things: Is the pie finite? Reagan.
IDBillzFan Posted November 15, 2012 Posted November 15, 2012 Don't play stupid. Maybe you'r not playing. Pretend I'm stupid. Define "fair share." Be specific.
Recommended Posts