Guest Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) The recent numbers under Obama:http://media.philly.com/images/obamanumbers.jpg Edited January 13, 2016 by Guest link to image Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Republicans aren't debating the best carbon policy choices, they are trying to peddle the idea that warming isn't happening.No. This is BS that you believe because you rely on people who oppose Republicans to tell you what their climate change policies are. If you actually look at the positions of the Republican presidential candidates you will find that they (Cruz, Bush, Rubio) have very nuanced positions that demonstrate they have a better understanding of the science than Obama does. That does not mean that some Republicans don't pretend that the earth is not warming (e.g Trump) but Obama's rhetoric does not distinguish between the two and is intended to imply that all opposition to his policies is "denial". It is dishonest especially since Obama himself is clueless when it comes to the science. http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/27/fact-checking-the-u-s-presidential-candidates/ Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 Of course, Obama, the deceiver in chief, is peddling the same lies that CAGW nuts have been peddling for years. More specifically he wants to claim that if someone opposes his *policy choices* when it comes to climate change then one is "denying the science". It is an intellectually bankrupt argument that only scumbag AGW zealots take seriously. The science says that CO2 is warming the planet but what we do about that is purely a political decision based on personal values and priorities and no science says that one has to follow Obama's lead on that file. At least you have come as far as believing the science finally. What to do about it is probably not merely political though. Quote
Guest Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) If you actually look at the positions of the Republican presidential candidates you will find that they (Cruz, Bush, Rubio) have very nuanced positions that demonstrate they have a better understanding of the science than Obama does. ... http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/27/fact-checking-the-u-s-presidential-candidates/ I see, so in your opinion the stall, denial, the pause, God and the science just isn't clear approach are "nuanced" and demonstrate "better understanding". I'm not sure if you're joking, delusional or agenda driven. Anyway, enjoy your lonely, sinking island. Edited January 13, 2016 by Guest Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 At least you have come as far as believing the science finally.My opinion has not changed. The only thing that has changed that you have finally learned the difference between what the science says and what the best policy choice is. Quote
Guest Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 "We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that 'to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.' When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country." - Another great POTUS quote A question for Mr. Harper and Donald Trump: If a large segment of your base responds to racism, is it acceptable for an aspiring leader to encourage and pander to that hatred if I think it will lead to votes? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 My opinion has not changed. The only thing that has changed that you have finally learned the difference between what the science says and what the best policy choice is. You're thread drifting here again. Try to stay on topic or start a new thread. Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) "We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion.So Obama is now against affirmative action? That is news. A question for Mr. Harper and Donald Trump: If a large segment of your base responds to racism, is it acceptable for an aspiring leader to encourage and pander to that hatred if I think it will lead to votes?A question for Trudeau and Clinton: if a large segment of your base responds to racism (in terms of affirmative action, preferential treatment of natives, et. al.), is it acceptable for an aspiring leader to pander to hatreds if he/she thinks it will lead to votes? Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 13, 2016 Author Report Posted January 13, 2016 ...A question for Mr. Harper and Donald Trump: If a large segment of your base responds to racism, is it acceptable for an aspiring leader to encourage and pander to that hatred if I think it will lead to votes? Of course it is...happens each election cycle in Canada concerning those "damn Americans"! Pander...pander...pander. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 So Obama is now against affirmative action? That is news. A question for Trudeau and Clinton: if a large segment of your base responds to racism (in terms of affirmative action, preferential treatment of natives, et. al.), is it acceptable for an aspiring leader to pander to hatreds if he/she thinks it will lead to votes? If only the white folk could catch a break. Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 If only the white folk could catch a break.Racism is racism. If you have a problem with it you should have a problem with all manifestations of racism. You can just ignore the race baiting that Democrats constantly engage in and whinge about Trump but you are not standing up for any noble principle. You are just a partisan pushing a narrative. Quote
Guest Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Right, those damn racist socialists are the real problem. The Harpers and Trumps are just telling it like it is. I bet you're one of those 'there is no such thing as white or Christian privilege' type of guys. If only it was you on that lonely, sinking island. Unfortunately, it will be the poorest that can't relocate. We will help them, but will have to battle your ilk that will call charity a socialist wealth distribution scheme. Like Paul Ryan, whose guests for the SOTU address were those who want to privatize poverty assistance, because government handouts are bad. Funny thing is those guests receive roughly 75% of their funding from governments. Why give assistance directly to those who need it when we can just give it to wealthy men and let the benefits trickle down? You can never be too rich or too white, AmIright?! You are entertaining but a waste of time. Edited January 13, 2016 by Guest Quote
TimG Posted January 13, 2016 Report Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Right, those damn racist socialists are the real problem. The Harpers and Trumps are just telling it like it is.I get that you are a partisan out to smear an denigrate people who don't support your "team". All I want point out is that you are not standing up for any noble principle because your arguments are hypocritical. Edited January 13, 2016 by TimG Quote
Special Delivery Posted January 14, 2016 Report Posted January 14, 2016 Quite Boring IMO. I think Obama just wants to protect some semblance of a legacy and needs to blame others for his own failures to get shit done. Quote
sharkman Posted January 15, 2016 Report Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) The real legacy of the Obama admin is now coming to pass. Since he's finally pumping less borrowed money into the US economy, that economy wants to find a new equilibrium, downward of course. Since China has now starting flailing at the same time, it worsens the issue. I predict he'll reach for his go-to move and pump up the debt again within a few months, perhaps lower the interest rate too. The guy just doesn't get it. Edited January 15, 2016 by sharkman Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 16, 2016 Report Posted January 16, 2016 The real legacy of the Obama admin is now coming to pass. Since he's finally pumping less borrowed money into the US economy, that economy wants to find a new equilibrium, downward of course. The U.S. economy is doing just fine and it will continue to do fine. Obama's legacy will be that he rescued it from the dumpster Bush left it in. Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 16, 2016 Author Report Posted January 16, 2016 Actually, President Obama continued many of the Bush Admin policies and actions for the financial crisis. He also extended the Bush tax cuts. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted January 16, 2016 Report Posted January 16, 2016 It wasn't Bush's strategy to throw 70 plus billion of borrowed $ per month at the economy. Which is what Obama has been doing for at least 6 years. Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) And so the economy has grown. GDP growth has been between 3 and 4%, as opposed to the negative percentage growth he inherited in 2009. It would have likely been years in the red without that investment. The budget will balance itself. Edited January 17, 2016 by BubberMiley Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 And so the economy has grown. GDP growth has been between 3 and 4%, as opposed to the negative percentage growth he inherited in 2009. It would have likely been years in the red without that investment. The budget will balance itself. Those numbers are complete fantasy. Quote
Shady Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 The U.S. economy is doing just fine and it will continue to do fine. Obama's legacy will be that he rescued it from the dumpster Bush left it in. Oh yes. Record food stamp use. Record numbers on disability. 40 year low in labour participation. Yep, doing just fine! Lol! Quote
jacee Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Oh yes. Record food stamp use. Record numbers on disability. 40 year low in labour participation. Yep, doing just fine! Lol!It continues to amaze me that people catastrophize about info that is nothing more than the baby boomer demographic blip, an overabundance of people aged 45-65 who are more prone to disability:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-654-x/89-654-x2015001-eng.htm Prevalence rises with age Average age of onset in early 40s The average age at which persons with disabilities started to have difficulty associated with their main condition was 43. Men reported an earlier age of onset than did women: 41.5 years versus 44.5 years. You are not seriously blaming Obama for that (in the US) are you Shady? Up here, I suppose we should be blaming Harper! Lol Edited January 17, 2016 by jacee Quote
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 Who ever gets in to be the next POTUS will be blamed for all of the previous president's failures. We already see Trudeau for screwing up the country in only 3 months while ignoring all Harper did. It was the same here when Obama got into office, all the things Bush did were ignored. So what would be the reason to ignore the past to blame the present? Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 Those numbers are complete fantasy.I've seen this show before. I say something; you say it's not true; I provide a cite that says it's true; you disappear. http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
GostHacked Posted January 17, 2016 Report Posted January 17, 2016 I've seen this show before. I say something; you say it's not true; I provide a cite that says it's true; you disappear. You've noticed this too? I thought I was the only one! Quote
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.