punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Obama's not a commie or a Kenyian. He IS an economic illiterate though, as illustrated by his policies. Yep unlike Romney who lead the second slowest growing state in the nation for 4 years? Who didn't run again because he would have lost, and he wants all to pretend those years didn't happen. Edited July 24, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 He still loves Solyndra though. There execs attended one of his recent funfraisers. Apparently they wanna get their hands on more tax money to piss away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yep unlike Romney who lead the second slowest growing state in the nation for 4 years? Who didn't run again because he would have lost, and he wants all to pretend those years didn't happen. It was the second slowest because the unemployment rate was at 4.5% under Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 This is a simple matter. What Obama said was wrong, and he is not perfect. It should be a simple matter for those who are on the left or are fans of Obama to admit it when Obama screws up. It's not the end of the world to admit that your guy is not perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 He still loves Solyndra though. There execs attended one of his recent funfraisers. Apparently they wanna get their hands on more tax money to piss away. Hate to tell you no one cares about Solyndra. No one especially cares because Romney doesn't even release his fund raisers lists, or his bundlers list. All this type of argument ends up doing as we have seen is exposing that Obama is transparent about who is giving to his campaign while Romney is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 No, Obama's point is to give the bulk of credit for somebody's work to the government. He's the usual big government liberal. Somebody's individual hard work and good ideas are diminished according to him. As if well run successful businesses pop out if thin air due to the mere existence of a road. He's crapped on the private sector for four years now, which is one of the reasons it's in such poor shape. I know conservatives like you have a hard time understanding the idea of cooperation and mutually beneficial relationships, but try to get your head around them. It might help you understand other people's viewpoints a little bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 This is a simple matter. What Obama said was wrong, and he is not perfect. It should be a simple matter for those who are on the left or are fans of Obama to admit it when Obama screws up. It's not the end of the world to admit that your guy is not perfect. What he said was wrong. What he meant wasn't. Most people understand the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I know conservatives like you have a hard time understanding the idea of cooperation and mutually beneficial relationships, but try to get your head around them. It might help you understand other people's viewpoints a little bit better. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 It was the second slowest because the unemployment rate was at 4.5% under Romney. It sure was what was it before Romney again, you know when the state wasn't dead last in the nation growth? Oh it was 5%. So Romney didn't do anything for employment or growth as Mass governor. Sounds like he will make a great president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 What he said was wrong. What he meant wasn't. Most people understand the difference. What he meant was nonsensical. Using his logic, nobody is responsible for anything. We all know that the bulk of te credit of a successful business goes to those that operate it. Unless you're Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 It sure was what was it before Romney again, you know when the state wasn't dead last in the nation growth? Oh it was 5%. So Romney didn't do anything for employment or growth as Mass governor. Sounds like he will make a great president. He can't be any worse than the current economic illiterate in the white house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't know how about where it came from the last time the US went big in infrastructure and become the fastest growing and largest economic super power? From the people of the US and the future growth that is stimulate by well thought out large planning to make US business better and more competitive. I will gladly pay you Friday for a burger today. Counting on future generations to pay for the current project does not seem wise to me. If there is no money now, what makes you think there will be money later? There is no guarantee that the money will be there in the future. So this would put the US into more debt that the American people will never be able to pay off. Eventually these loan-sharks are going to come looking for the money. I will say bonds were sold to get the funds, but there are a lot of people who can barely afford the weekly necessities just to stay alive, let alone fluff money to invest in bonds that might mature in 10+ years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 What he meant was nonsensical. Using his logic, nobody is responsible for anything. We all know that the bulk of te credit of a successful business goes to those that operate it. Unless you're Obama. Yep I heard someone else say something about individual achievement once now who was it....? Oh yeah Romney. You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. Can you believe he said that no one is a success on their own and that no one should get credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) He can't be any worse than the current economic illiterate in the white house. If that is your argument then you really don't know how bad it can get. Heck the last months of Bush saw 800,000 jobs shed a month and you seem to say "It can't be worse then it is now". YES! YES IT CAN. In fact it was worse then right now not more then 3 years ago with a Romney type in the white house. So have fun making that point to the public. Edited July 24, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I will gladly pay you Friday for a burger today. Counting on future generations to pay for the current project does not seem wise to me. If there is no money now, what makes you think there will be money later? There is no guarantee that the money will be there in the future. So this would put the US into more debt that the American people will never be able to pay off. Eventually these loan-sharks are going to come looking for the money. I will say bonds were sold to get the funds, but there are a lot of people who can barely afford the weekly necessities just to stay alive, let alone fluff money to invest in bonds that might mature in 10+ years. The US took on 150% debt to GDP during and after the depression, the UK it was closer to 200-230%. Why did they do it because there would have been no future for anyone in those countries if they didn't get out of the mess they were in. I'll tell you the future doesn't care what the debt to GDP is if they can't get a job or feed their family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 What he meant was nonsensical. Using his logic, nobody is responsible for anything. We all know that the bulk of te credit of a successful business goes to those that operate it. Unless you're Obama. Canuckistani, on 24 July 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:What he said was wrong. What he meant wasn't. Most people understand the difference. Maybe you'll get in on second reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 If there is no money now, what makes you think there will be money later? Pretty well every business out there operates like that. They borrow because they think there will be money later. But your measure we would have almost no economic activity at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 What he meant was nonsensical. Using his logic, nobody is responsible for anything. We all know that the bulk of te credit of a successful business goes to those that operate it. Unless you're Obama. You're not this stupid. We live in a society. Nobody is doing anything in a vacuum. Without other their people and their contribution to society, you would be a reclusive hermit living in the middle of nowhere with no customers, no labour, no fire/police protection, nothing. It's really not that hard to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 You're not this stupid. We live in a society. Nobody is doing anything in a vacuum. Without other their people and their contribution to society, you would be a reclusive hermit living in the middle of nowhere with no customers, no labour, no fire/police protection, nothing. It's really not that hard to understand. I bet fish don't realize they live in water either. It's all about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 I bet fish don't realize they live in water either. It's all about them. This is the type of argument Republicans make all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's hilarious how focused on defending dogma some people can get. They become so concerned with being against something, rather than being for something that they end up living in an anarcho-capitalist fantasy world. Obama is so moderate and conservatives so fervent about opposing him that they end up rejecting the middle of the road (trying to claim he's a socialist), forcing them to embrace lunatic notions of fiscal anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's hilarious how focused on defending dogma some people can get. They become so concerned with being against something, rather than being for something that they end up living in an anarcho-capitalist fantasy world. Obama is so moderate and conservatives so fervent about opposing him that they end up rejecting the middle of the road (trying to claim he's a socialist), forcing them to embrace lunatic notions of fiscal anarchy. He's not a socialist, but he's certainly a big government liberal. These aren't gaffes of his, it's what he actually believes. When he says he wants to "spread the wealth around", or the the private sector "is doing fine", or his downplaying of individual success and emphasizing the government's role. It's all a part of who he is and what he believes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 These aren't gaffes of his, it's what he actually believes. Yes, he believes this and yes it was a gaffe. There are a lot of things he believes that he can't say in public. Every president probably has these. Bill Clinton asked them about the secret UFO experiments when he became president, but he didn't campaign on that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) to "spread the wealth around" Every president is for spreading the wealth around. The US has lots of income redistribution schemes. Some presidents may believe in it to a greater degree than others, but all know that if they want to stay in power, they'd better be spreading the wealth around. Much of the wealth is spread around on the wealthy, (agricultural subsidies, ethanol subsidies, etc) the middle class is the greatest beneficiary of income redistribution. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Edited July 24, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 24, 2012 Report Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) He's not a socialist, but he's certainly a big government liberal. These aren't gaffes of his, it's what he actually believes. When he says he wants to "spread the wealth around", or the the private sector "is doing fine", or his downplaying of individual success and emphasizing the government's role. It's all a part of who he is and what he believes. And when Mitt says he "likes firing people" or that "corporations are people" or that he "can't releases his tax returns because there is stuff in their that Dems will use against him". What does that say about him? See I can take quotes out of context that make Mittens seem like a terrible person for president as well. Then again the thing about Mitt and unlike Obama is everything he says is a lie and you wont know what you are going to get until he is in office. You may have a point because Obama doesn't lie every second of every day. Edited July 24, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.