TPS Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The stock market has increased 623 points in the past 3 days because of Obama!* * Note: this logic is based on similar logic by posters here blaming Obama for any decreases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 lol I dig that. FYI to those same crazy people.. look at the stock market after (your beloved) reagan got elected. I think it went down for like a year straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 lol I dig that. FYI to those same crazy people.. look at the stock market after (your beloved) reagan got elected. I think it went down for like a year straight. I love how Sheople like you (and your ilk on the flipside) can narrow it down to look what happened Obama/Clinton/Carter was president or when BushJr/BushSr/Reagan were presidents All about the cult of personality Baaaaahhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 The stock market has increased 623 points in the past 3 days because of Obama!* * Note: this logic is based on similar logic by posters here blaming Obama for any decreases. Well, except that presidential pessimism, expressed, can drive down the market...and the rally's been driven not by anything Obama's said but by BOA and Citi's optimistic reports, you still wouldn't have a point, because it really isn't that important, since Obama's job isn't maximizing the rate of return on the market indices, so who gives a sh--? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I love how Sheople like you (and your ilk on the flipside) can narrow it down to look what happened Obama/Clinton/Carter was president or when BushJr/BushSr/Reagan were presidents All about the cult of personality Baaaaahhh I didn't start any insane threads stating that Obama winning the democratic nomination was the cause of the drop in the dow. My *only* point is that we only should be waiting to see. Things turned out alright under ronald. My problem is there is three threads in this forum blaming stock market problems on Obama. People have posted over and over that he's the one "driving the train off the cliff". WTF? That just makes my head hurt. Those same people are the people who worship reagan. So I used their hero as an example that things take time!!! Give Obama time!!! At least a year, but more likely two years. I do not understand what you are inferring anyways. Just doesn't make any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I didn't start any insane threads stating that Obama winning the democratic nomination was the cause of the drop in the dow. My *only* point is that we only should be waiting to see. Things turned out alright under ronald. My problem is there is three threads in this forum blaming stock market problems on Obama. People have posted over and over that he's the one "driving the train off the cliff". WTF? That just makes my head hurt. Those same people are the people who worship reagan. So I used their hero as an example that things take time!!! Give Obama time!!! At least a year, but more likely two years. I do not understand what you are inferring anyways. Just doesn't make any sense. Things didn't "turn out alright under Ronald". And they're not going to "turn around" because of "Change", either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And they're not going to "turn around" because of "Change", either. Assuming that change is actually going to take place with this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Assuming that change is actually going to take place with this administration. Don't worry. NEXT time they put earmarks in a bill, he'll wag his finger even more sternly AND he'll furrow his brow. THAT will show them he means business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And speaking of earmarks, which state got the highest $$$ per capital? The average per capita is around $22. The highest state is a tad over $209. Anyone guessed it yet? You got it! That bastion of government-hating freedom fighters: ALASKA. You can download the spreadsheet yourself from Taxpayers for Common Sense. If you don't like the numbers, let them know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And speaking of earmarks, which state got the highest $$$ per capital? The average per capita is around $22. The highest state is a tad over $209. Anyone guessed it yet? You got it! That bastion of government-hating freedom fighters: ALASKA. You can download the spreadsheet yourself from Taxpayers for Common Sense. If you don't like the numbers, let them know I guess your point is the people of Alaska voted themselves all that money, right? Because that's how the process works? There is some delicious irony to you visiting the "Taxpayers for Common Sense" website. Go ahead and let your liberal politicians know that you don't think your state got enough money or that some other state got a disproportionate amount of money the country doesn't actually have. I'm sure they'll do their best to rectify the situation when the next "Stimulus" bill comes around and we go a little closer to the abyss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Don't worry. NEXT time they put earmarks in a bill, he'll wag his finger even more sternly AND he'll furrow his brow. THAT will show them he means business. Followed by a very firm "harrumph." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I guess your point is the people of Alaska voted themselves all that money, right? Because that's how the process works? There is some delicious irony to you visiting the "Taxpayers for Common Sense" website. Go ahead and let your liberal politicians know that you don't think your state got enough money or that some other state got a disproportionate amount of money the country doesn't actually have. I'm sure they'll do their best to rectify the situation when the next "Stimulus" bill comes around and we go a little closer to the abyss. Struck a nerve eh? Well actually you have one Dem representing you and the rest would be .... GOP. And there's an interesting list of your governor's requests. Shall I post those too? Did anyone, in fairness, mention that this is the budget that was prepared in 2008? Yeah, I wish they'd done it over. I wish a LOT of things could be done over. The modified it somewhat....not enough. The CW says if Obama countenances (look it up) another one like this, he's toast. Seal DNA? WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Did anyone, in fairness, mention that this is the budget that was prepared in 2008? Did anyone, in fairness, mention that Obama promised -- over and over and over and over, during debates, during campaigns, AFTER he was elected -- NO EARMARKS? Anyone who cares enough to follow this knows that Dems and Republicans alike have some extra meat on this bone. But pay attention to the man who promised "change." Pay attention to the man who promised "no earmarks." I mean, for the love of all that's holy, the sonofabitch beat the hell out of McCain with the earmarks issue. And what do we have? Change? No. Removal of earmarks? No. Presidential veto? Please... What do we have? C'mon...say it with me...you can do it... Broken promise. I wonder if all the people who voted for Obama knew he'd turn out to be nothing more than a mealy mouthed ass puppet of Facelift Pelosi. And now that he has shoved trillions of dollars of unnecessary spending down America's throat based on a crisis that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, what's the latest bit spilling from the teleprompted mouth of Pelosi's puppet? Hey, everyone...everything's not as bad as we thought it was!!!! I know you thought Bush was a moron, but Obama is making Bush look like a freakin' genius, and he's only fifty days in. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Did anyone, in fairness, mention that Obama promised -- over and over and over and over, during debates, during campaigns, AFTER he was elected -- NO EARMARKS? Anyone who cares enough to follow this knows that Dems and Republicans alike have some extra meat on this bone. But pay attention to the man who promised "change." Pay attention to the man who promised "no earmarks." I mean, for the love of all that's holy, the sonofabitch beat the hell out of McCain with the earmarks issue. And what do we have? Change? No. Removal of earmarks? No. Presidential veto? Please... What do we have? C'mon...say it with me...you can do it... Broken promise. I wonder if all the people who voted for Obama knew he'd turn out to be nothing more than a mealy mouthed ass puppet of Facelift Pelosi. And now that he has shoved trillions of dollars of unnecessary spending down America's throat based on a crisis that hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, what's the latest bit spilling from the teleprompted mouth of Pelosi's puppet? Hey, everyone...everything's not as bad as we thought it was!!!! I know you thought Bush was a moron, but Obama is making Bush look like a freakin' genius, and he's only fifty days in. Jesus. He never promised no earmarks btw, as far as I know. He promised to cut them in half. He promised that there wouldnt be earmarks in certain bills, like the stimulus bill. And he said he himself wouldnt put earmarks in. But he didnt ever (again, as far as I know and I just looked all over for it) promise no earmarks. He promised reform and to cut them in half. I even read numerous articles just now about how he broke his no earmark promise, and there are all kinds of quotes from him, except one when he says he will cut out all earmarks. They do usually include the quote where he says he will cut half of them. Like this one: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1...ise_broken.html Man, you have become an old bitter, bitter man, my friend, in a matter of months. I would lay good money down that you are yelling at kids to get off your lawn like stuckinsenile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Don't worry. NEXT time they put earmarks in a bill, he'll wag his finger even more sternly AND he'll furrow his brow. THAT will show them he means business. I still say you are not giving him enough time. Despite what you think, Obama is not superman and can only do so much at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Struck a nerve eh? Well actually you have one Dem representing you and the rest would be .... GOP. And there's an interesting list of your governor's requests. Shall I post those too? Did anyone, in fairness, mention that this is the budget that was prepared in 2008? Yeah, I wish they'd done it over. I wish a LOT of things could be done over. The modified it somewhat....not enough. The CW says if Obama countenances (look it up) another one like this, he's toast. Seal DNA? WTF? Go ahead. I didn't vote for any of them. You didn't strike a nerve, I simply get tired of liberals complaining about money being spent. It's what you friggin' people vote for and then you whine about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I still say you are not giving him enough time. Despite what you think, Obama is not superman and can only do so much at one time. Yeah, it would have been awfully tough for him to veto the bill with the contingency that he'd pass it immediately without the earmarks. That would be actual leadership and "Change We Need". Instead we get more of the same accompanied by the typical liberal apology that he just needs more time to grow some gnads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I wonder if all the people who voted for Obama knew he'd turn out to be nothing more than a mealy mouthed ass puppet of Facelift Pelosi. Best description of the new administration yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Yeah, it would have been awfully tough for him to veto the bill with the contingency that he'd pass it immediately without the earmarks. That would be actual leadership and "Change We Need". Instead we get more of the same accompanied by the typical liberal apology that he just needs more time to grow some gnads. I think the concept is that congress has better things to do that spend its time re-doing this bill. Its not horrible, and as far as I know none of the earmarks are outright evil. And the earmarks are like 2% of the total spending in the bill. Sometimes you just have to let things go because its not productive to the country to fight them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 At this time tere shouldn't be ANY earmarks on ANY bills passed by Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts