Forum


44 days in...
Thraxle wrote
at 11:18 AM, Wednesday March 4, 2009 EST
...and there is no sign that Mr. Obama is any different from the past democrats that sat in the oval office. The only exception is that he has 100% compliance within his party and a majority in congress that will pass anything Mr. Obama supports.

How hypocritical is it that Mr. Obama continues to remind the general public of the deficit he inherited, but then spends so recklessly that the possibility of having a balanced budget anytime within his term is utterly impossible.

How hypocritical is it that the libs called the recent spending bill that was passed a "stimulus package". How does $20 billion dollars towards food stamps stimulate the economy? What jobs will be created by increasing food stamp allowances? This is only one example of many within that spending bill, but I'll try to avoid making this post unneccisarily long.

One of you left wingers need to help me understand what our President is attempting to do. The view from the cheap seats here in right field makes the picture look exactly like I thought it would look before the election took place; the liberal democrats want a socialist republic in place of our cherished capitalistic society. Let's continue to drain the rich to pay for the poor. Let's continue to increase taxes on large corporations that have been laying off employees at an enormous pace. Let's increase benefits to the unemployed instead of finding ways to provide jobs for them.

I'm ranting a bit, but one thing is clear. Barack Obama scares the living shit out of me. JP, UGB, anybody, please help me feel better about the job he's doing.

And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating. They must have done the polling at a foreclosure seminar or a foodbank.

« First ‹ Previous Replies 41 - 50 of 458 Next › Last »
Cal Ripken wrote
at 10:43 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
*hand over face*
existential wrote
at 10:47 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
100 points to thraxle for accurately portraying the hows and whys of media bias. (note to everyone: find multiple and opposing sources for every issue)

100 points to vermont for a factual and enlightening view of the new deal. (for another great and recent example of failed government intervention [that is strikingly similar to what we're headed towards], google "japan lost decade")

minus 100 points from stormlord for a flawed premise. "if that opinion is true"?? what if MY opinion is true? then all of a sudden MY "rightwing" opinion becomes fact and is no longer MY conservative view but the non-ideological fact! you need to realize: opinion is opinion, whether it is professional or off the cuff. for every professional you can find backing the new new deal, i can find an equally qualified professional opposing the new new deal.
Vermont wrote
at 10:51 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
JP, if you are referring to this post (again):

"Ummm.... the new deal didn't do anything."

I would agree with you re that quote, and I already did. As I said, that quote is patently false. However, it doesn't mean that the New Deal, or ANY action in the same context, must necessary be positive as a whole. (Just because it did something, doesn't mean that something is good.)

However, the majority of economists would disagree with you as to whether or not it was a net gain in the long run. Clearly you don't hold that view, which is fine. However, don't put words in my mouth - I was not saying it did nothing. Any action does _something_, and as a result we can discuss the pros and cons of its components.

I'm certainly not ignoring the positives (I didn't list pros or cons at all,) but you seem to be ignoring the negatives. Not everything is black and white, and this is one case where I will agree with the consensus of analysis.

For example, there are many cases in quite recent times where people have argued whether or not the debt required is worth a particular action, regardless of whether or not the action itself would be a positive thing on its own merits. (Kennedy's tax cuts, Regan's tax cuts, Iraq, Bush's stimulus checks, Pelosi's stimulus bill, Obama's budget, etc.)

So yes, you can list the good you feel it did, but don't discount the bad it may have done. Re the New Deal, again, I'll side with the majority.
Vermont wrote
at 10:58 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
And thraxle, not to ignore your opening post.

"And someone explain to me how the fuck he has a 67% approval rating."

Many Presidents start off this high. Compare Bush's start, which was comparable or higher. The real test will be if it's still that high in a couple years and if the media treatment still remains almost completely favorable.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin
Cal Ripken wrote
at 11:42 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
Verm I wasn't saying you were wrong, or putting words in your mouth. I was taking your post as a suggestion at elaborating on why I thought the other guy's post was false. So again, I was more responding to him because of your call towards explanation and discussion.

Don't think you are incorrect in any light. Nor did I say that the New Deal was a complete success, or even did more good than harm (although I do believe this). As you implied, I also acknowledge that there a pros and cons to mostly everything and would hesitate to interpret my comment as something as black and white as only good/only bad.
StormLord wrote
at 11:43 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
Let's not get into a philosophical debate about truth.

I point out an economic report and get accused of being manipulated by media bias. Read the report and point out what is false and back it up with a logical arguement. That is how you have an economic debate. Though truthly I doubt anyone will read the report (I haven't) and would rather spout ignorant economic statements.
Vermont wrote
at 11:45 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
jp, we could almost have a reasonable discussion about this. What is the interwebs coming to?! :)
Cal Ripken wrote
at 11:48 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
heh, yeah I was just trying to clarify my statement against the previously quoted statement of "it didnt do in anything"

we were essentially saying the same thing.
Cal Ripken wrote
at 11:48 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
oh and the *hand over face* was directed at adonia, in case that's not clear. heh
AttentionWhore wrote
at 11:51 AM, Thursday March 5, 2009 EST
MASSIVE ATTENTION WHORE ALERT

Thraxle
is an opinionated Sonofabitch who is not able to debate.
FINALLY GET OVER IT THAT A DEMOCRAT WON.
TELL YOUR SISTER TO GIVE YOU A BLOW JOB MAYBE THAT WILL HELP YOU TO STFU.

AND ALL OTHERS STOP FEEDING THAT TROLL ALREADY!!!
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006 - 2025
GAMES
G GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
K KDice
Online Strategy
X XSketch
Online Pictionary