pirana 0 #26 December 19, 2011 Silly people. Keep electing professional politicians and the one thing you can be very certain of is that there will NOT be any fundamental change. Ever notice how many, upon leaving office, fill us in on how broken D.C is, and how our country has basically been sold to lobbyists, contributors, special interest groups - whatever you want to call them. Campaign reform is another common topic for which they confess needs attention badly but which is never given any teeth. But how many of them actually do something while in office? It's a big joke. They keep everybody busy quibbling over moral issues while laughing all the way to the bank. They keep the public well supplied with social-issue fodder - while they raid our finances nearly without consequence. Doesn't matter whether you vote red or blue; if you do the jokes on you. Go ahead, vote in another slate of professional office holders and see how much things don't change - - again." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #27 December 19, 2011 From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 December 19, 2011 Quote From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc Obama only saved us from a 4th and 5th recession. Bush saved us from the first 2. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #29 December 19, 2011 More Americans have health care insurance, more people are free to serve in the military, fewer of those people will have to go to Iraq, there are fewer Osama bin Ladens (and his friends) in the world. Perfect presidency, not by a long shot, but at least I have to facepalm and blush over my President less often. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #30 December 19, 2011 Quote>That article is adorable, but how do you explain the buddies of mine who just left to go >to Iraq for 8 months? Same way one can explain two friends of mine who went to Iraq in 1987, I imagine. War is not the only reason one goes to Iraq (although fortunately it is no longer the reason.) Reality says otherwise. There are still soldiers in country, the fighting is not over, and the only change is a lower number of soldiers in country. However with all this media about the war being over those who are still serving in Iraq are going to see their sacrifices lessened because people will have assumed that we are no longer fighting. Trying to hide the truth for political gain, whether it be from Bush or Obama(I'm not making this a right v. left issue) is wrong. So imagine whatever you want, but some of us live in the world where the fight isn't over, and saying its no longer a war is insulting. Don't forget I was there long after the "combat operations" were over and we starting calling the operation OND, and I was still receiving indirect fire every day, and suffering traumatic brain injuries at the hands of IEDs. Working under a different name doesn't change the reality of the situation. Quote there are fewer Osama bin Ladens (and his friends) in the world This one drives me crazy. Does anybody really believe that our current president did anything more than anyone else to kill UBL? The CIA was doing the exact same thing after the president took over as they were before. Does anyone really think that the president walked into a briefing room with the head of the CIA and said, "lets make Osama our priority", and somebody replied with, "well now that you tell us to we will"? That man had nothing to do with that hit going of, all he did was approve the CONOP. For the most part all the president does is point at the country on the map and say he authorizes military operations there, the people who actually get their hands dirty do the rest. And just to set the record straight the location of UBL was known long before the president made it "his priority", but there is a pesky little thing called meeting trigger that hadn't been achieved yet.History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 December 19, 2011 Quote This one drives me crazy. Does anybody really believe that our current president did anything more than anyone else to kill UBL? The CIA was doing the exact same thing after the president took over as they were before. Does anyone really think that the president walked into a briefing room with the head of the CIA and said, "lets make Osama our priority", and somebody replied with, "well now that you tell us to we will"? That man had nothing to do with that hit going of, all he did was approve the CONOP. For the most part all the president does is point at the country on the map and say he authorizes military operations there, the people who actually get their hands dirty do the rest. In the end, results are what matter. One talked a good game for 7 whole years. The other delivered in just over 2. There are a lot of reasons, excuses, and rationalizations for this sort of discrepency, and they can even be true, but generally people are going to give credit to the latter one. Esp when the first one got distracted by a bigger war elsewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 December 19, 2011 QuoteQuote This one drives me crazy. Does anybody really believe that our current president did anything more than anyone else to kill UBL? The CIA was doing the exact same thing after the president took over as they were before. Does anyone really think that the president walked into a briefing room with the head of the CIA and said, "lets make Osama our priority", and somebody replied with, "well now that you tell us to we will"? That man had nothing to do with that hit going of, all he did was approve the CONOP. For the most part all the president does is point at the country on the map and say he authorizes military operations there, the people who actually get their hands dirty do the rest. In the end, results are what matter. One talked a good game for 7 whole years. The other delivered in just over 2. You just proved his point.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #33 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuote This one drives me crazy. Does anybody really believe that our current president did anything more than anyone else to kill UBL? The CIA was doing the exact same thing after the president took over as they were before. Does anyone really think that the president walked into a briefing room with the head of the CIA and said, "lets make Osama our priority", and somebody replied with, "well now that you tell us to we will"? That man had nothing to do with that hit going of, all he did was approve the CONOP. For the most part all the president does is point at the country on the map and say he authorizes military operations there, the people who actually get their hands dirty do the rest. In the end, results are what matter. One talked a good game for 7 whole years. The other delivered in just over 2. There are a lot of reasons, excuses, and rationalizations for this sort of discrepency, and they can even be true, but generally people are going to give credit to the latter one. Esp when the first one got distracted by a bigger war elsewhere. And the results were in no way caused by the occupant of the oval office. Just because the president was sidetracked does not mean the people on the ground were. Do you think that while the current president was engulfed with health-care debate I was sitting on my ass in Iraq playing video games? Nope, we were still going outside the wire and getting in the fight. Once again, the CIA is responsible for the downfall of UBL, not the president. I'm not trying to make this a Bush v. Obama stand-off, but it irks me to see a president(any president) get credit for something he did not contribute to apart from saying "yes".History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 December 20, 2011 fact is, he may have settled the election with that score, whether or not you think he deserves it. Let's use a different example. We landed on the moon in July of 1969, shortly into Nixon's first term. In this case, no one gives him credit for taking Kennedy's dream and LBJ's follow through. This was a step by step operation with visible incremental improvements. The parallels don't exist for bin laden. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #35 December 20, 2011 Quote And the results were in no way caused by the occupant of the oval office. Just because the president was sidetracked does not mean the people on the ground were. Do you think that while the current president was engulfed with health-care debate I was sitting on my ass in Iraq playing video games? Nope, we were still going outside the wire and getting in the fight. But Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. You and hundreds of thousands others fighting in Iraq is the definition of side tracked. It was also much more work for the CIA, and your lives on a day to day basis would outrank the Where's WaldoLaden game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #36 December 20, 2011 LOL. I love how all these topics somehow turn so black & white. In regards to foreign policy, George Bush did set up the overall structure that led to the capture of Osama and Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden (a failure would have far more repercussions). The overall strategy of using predators is a major success. Should give credits to both... Cheers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 December 20, 2011 Quote Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden *AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #38 December 20, 2011 QuoteMore Americans have health care insurance And most importantly, U.S Health care cost makes sense from a budget perspective. I remember so much non-sense about the health care bill was thrown around. "Its un-affordable. It just adds to the deficit blah blah". http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/healthcare.jpg/ Not only are there more people who has access to healthcare, but it is paid for. It is for year-by-year too. Sources: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12033 http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12033/12-23-SelectedHealthcarePublications.pdf Cheers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuote Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden *AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. this is the funny part. Obama can't have any credit for the success (or any other), but any failings are still fair game. Put otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #40 December 20, 2011 QuoteObama took a very ballsy decision Politicians should all be eunuchs...more trustworthy.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden *AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. this is the funny part. Obama can't have any credit for the success (or any other), but any failings are still fair game. He gets credit for making the right decision. When it's described as a 'ballsy move', it's fair to show the delay. QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #42 December 20, 2011 >>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden >*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #43 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #44 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? YOU can't....which is why I mentioned you proving GQ's point, upthread.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? YOU can't....which is why I mentioned you proving GQ's point, upthread. no, seriously. If we're going to score the two solely with regards to Bin Laden, how else could it possibly be? You don't score points for foul balls or passes tipped at the line of scrimmage. Are you trying to get a tie out of all of this? So far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. But you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #46 December 20, 2011 QuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #47 December 20, 2011 Ooooh, Oooooh....baseball! Quote Quote You don't score points for foul balls Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Ya...he was basically put in as pinch runner on third and then scored by tagging on a foul fly out - no skill needed...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. yet just yesterday you can see my postings defending his invasion. When have you ever defended an Obama decision? Quote QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Let's go with this. To make it fit the bill, Bush got hit by a pitch, though it really only grazed the jersey. He advanced on a pair of balks, and then had to be replaced because he broke a toenail trotting to third. Obama steals home and is credited with the run. Again, you've failed to put anything up...because you got NOTHING to work with in this situation. You hate it, you can't admit it, but you can't fathom an argument that isn't laugh out loud stupid to let Bush look good here. It's even worse than trying to defend his non service with the Air Reserves during the Vietnam War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #49 December 20, 2011 Quote From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #50 December 20, 2011 Quote>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden >*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser. > "What a loser"!!!! Is exactly the point. Obama has been a leader who has been absent except for those times he has return to the White House to do Laundry in preparation for his next vacation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #44 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? YOU can't....which is why I mentioned you proving GQ's point, upthread.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? YOU can't....which is why I mentioned you proving GQ's point, upthread. no, seriously. If we're going to score the two solely with regards to Bin Laden, how else could it possibly be? You don't score points for foul balls or passes tipped at the line of scrimmage. Are you trying to get a tie out of all of this? So far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. But you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #46 December 20, 2011 QuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #47 December 20, 2011 Ooooh, Oooooh....baseball! Quote Quote You don't score points for foul balls Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Ya...he was basically put in as pinch runner on third and then scored by tagging on a foul fly out - no skill needed...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. yet just yesterday you can see my postings defending his invasion. When have you ever defended an Obama decision? Quote QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Let's go with this. To make it fit the bill, Bush got hit by a pitch, though it really only grazed the jersey. He advanced on a pair of balks, and then had to be replaced because he broke a toenail trotting to third. Obama steals home and is credited with the run. Again, you've failed to put anything up...because you got NOTHING to work with in this situation. You hate it, you can't admit it, but you can't fathom an argument that isn't laugh out loud stupid to let Bush look good here. It's even worse than trying to defend his non service with the Air Reserves during the Vietnam War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #49 December 20, 2011 Quote From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #50 December 20, 2011 Quote>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden >*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser. > "What a loser"!!!! Is exactly the point. Obama has been a leader who has been absent except for those times he has return to the White House to do Laundry in preparation for his next vacation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #45 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote QuotePut otherwise- "Heads I win, tails you lose." "Heads Obama wins, tails Bush loses" has been your whole argument regarding Bin Laden. How else could we possibly score it? YOU can't....which is why I mentioned you proving GQ's point, upthread. no, seriously. If we're going to score the two solely with regards to Bin Laden, how else could it possibly be? You don't score points for foul balls or passes tipped at the line of scrimmage. Are you trying to get a tie out of all of this? So far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. But you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #46 December 20, 2011 QuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Coreece 190 #47 December 20, 2011 Ooooh, Oooooh....baseball! Quote Quote You don't score points for foul balls Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Ya...he was basically put in as pinch runner on third and then scored by tagging on a foul fly out - no skill needed...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #48 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. yet just yesterday you can see my postings defending his invasion. When have you ever defended an Obama decision? Quote QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Let's go with this. To make it fit the bill, Bush got hit by a pitch, though it really only grazed the jersey. He advanced on a pair of balks, and then had to be replaced because he broke a toenail trotting to third. Obama steals home and is credited with the run. Again, you've failed to put anything up...because you got NOTHING to work with in this situation. You hate it, you can't admit it, but you can't fathom an argument that isn't laugh out loud stupid to let Bush look good here. It's even worse than trying to defend his non service with the Air Reserves during the Vietnam War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #49 December 20, 2011 Quote From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Channman 2 #50 December 20, 2011 Quote>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden >*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser. > "What a loser"!!!! Is exactly the point. Obama has been a leader who has been absent except for those times he has return to the White House to do Laundry in preparation for his next vacation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #46 December 20, 2011 QuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #47 December 20, 2011 Ooooh, Oooooh....baseball! Quote Quote You don't score points for foul balls Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Ya...he was basically put in as pinch runner on third and then scored by tagging on a foul fly out - no skill needed...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 December 20, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo far it's clear you dislike a scoring that favors Obama, but your pure bias on the subject of anything Obama clouds this. Yours on the subject of anything Bush far surpasses anything you *think* I have. yet just yesterday you can see my postings defending his invasion. When have you ever defended an Obama decision? Quote QuoteBut you've yet to offer up an alternative narrative (and no, "more for Bush" isn't really an answer). Obama took over on third base and you think he hit a triple. Let's go with this. To make it fit the bill, Bush got hit by a pitch, though it really only grazed the jersey. He advanced on a pair of balks, and then had to be replaced because he broke a toenail trotting to third. Obama steals home and is credited with the run. Again, you've failed to put anything up...because you got NOTHING to work with in this situation. You hate it, you can't admit it, but you can't fathom an argument that isn't laugh out loud stupid to let Bush look good here. It's even worse than trying to defend his non service with the Air Reserves during the Vietnam War. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #49 December 20, 2011 Quote From an economic perspective, Mr. Obama has saved America from a 2nd Great Depression. (Bush-Paulson and Obama's TARP) along with Obama's stimulus package. Do learn the facts and understand the economic circumstances than blindly writing "the President spent so much money in such little time!!" hugs and cheers! Shc So this is what success looks like, heh? Comparing to the Great Depression is hyperbole; almost like playing the Hitler card in other threads. Nothing we have gone thru since then is even in the same league as far as the amount of wealth wiped out, number of unemployed, number of homeless, duration, etc. The one thing that may be worse is the length of recovery. There just aren't the easy pickins' there were following WWII. Anyone claiming with certainty to have stopped another Great Depression is full of it. No way to be certain we would have went there, no way to be certain if we were that what they did stopped it. It's like me claiming to have stopped a virus outbreak by using Zicam. Prove I didn't; and show me the facts that prove with certainty we were headed for something as bad as the Great Depression, and that with certainty prove Obama stopped it. Others (maybe you) have claimed the stimulus was way too small, far less than what was needed, not enough, etc. Now the claim is that it was enough to head off a Great Depression. Which was it?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #50 December 20, 2011 Quote>>Obama took a very ballsy decision to go ahead and get Bin Laden >*AFTER* he dithered for 16 hours...that's ballsy, all right. Exactly. It took him sixteen fucking hours to get Bin Laden! What a loser. > "What a loser"!!!! Is exactly the point. Obama has been a leader who has been absent except for those times he has return to the White House to do Laundry in preparation for his next vacation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
