Page 22 of 23 FirstFirst ... 1217181920212223 LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 450
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #421  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And the ability to behave and speak intelligently helps.
    Well, President Obama certainly has that ability. He doesn't always display it (such as his "the police acted stupidly" or "Who's *** to kick" comments), but that's to be expected in anyone who is in the spotlight. That being said--I think President Obama has a reasonable level of intelligence and has the ability to learn about various issues and speak about them with some adeptness. Unfortunately, none of that makes one a capable leader.

    Of course, who we should really be comparing is Palin to Biden. Biden is quite the gaff machine, and in my opinion is of limited intelligence. I can't imagine that candidate Obama would have picked him again, if he knew he'd benefit so much from the financial collapse falling into his campaign's rhetoric so well. I think he chose Biden as a desperate attempt to have some sort of "foreign relations" expertise on his side, at a point where McCain was rising a bit (perhaps the height of his campaign).

    Don't get me wrong--I think that VP Biden is a hoot and bear no animosity towards him, but I do not think he's very bright, but that's probably not at all unique amongst politicians.

    KAM
  2. #422  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    .

    Of course, who we should really be comparing is Palin to Biden. Biden is quite the gaff machine, and in my opinion is of limited intelligence. I can't imagine that candidate Obama would have picked him again, if he knew he'd benefit so much from the financial collapse falling into his campaign's rhetoric so well. I think he chose Biden as a desperate attempt to have some sort of "foreign relations" expertise on his side, at a point where McCain was rising a bit (perhaps the height of his campaign).

    Don't get me wrong--I think that VP Biden is a hoot and bear no animosity towards him, but I do not think he's very bright, but that's probably not at all unique amongst politicians.

    KAM
    I have always assumed Biden was picked because of his long history in the congress, with the thought that he could lobby legislation, and because of his "foreign relations" as you said, which I think was a smokescreen. One can't help but wonder what would have happened had Hilary been VP all this time. Wouldn't work personality wise as Obama is too controlled, so Hillary would outshine him, but I just wonder from the policy standpoint if she would have added or taken away.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #423  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Personally, I think it's just as wrong to say she's an ***** as it is to say she's Presidential material. Furthermore, whatever respect I still had for her after less than stellar public performances was lost when she didn't finish out her term. I have a dream that by 2011 there will be a Republican candidate I can feel good about supporting. Currently, the winds aren't blowing favorably for me.
    Rehashing candidates is in my view a bad idea--in most cases. I'm hoping the Republican party can put up a viable candidate in 2012, instead of a "Its your turn" candidate, as they did with Bob Dole in 1996. Of course, Clinton, being an expert politician saw the writing on the wall following the 1994 election, and ran to the center in many ways. Plus of course he benefited from a huge internet boom as well.

    While I think President Obama is rather arrogant, I don't think he is like Bill Clinton (who would do anything to be loved). Rather, he is an ideologue who has surrounded himself with people who are even more radical than he is. I don't think he has the capacity to "triangulate" because he's a true group-thinker/true believer. Additionally--it seems unlikely that in 2 years we are going to have a booming economy. Although, it is possible, our government isn't doing anything to foster this (quite the contrary), but even now, we have a large degree of economic liberty and some remnant of a free market, so we COULD theoretically have a boom despite government meddling, and burdens...but again, not likely.

    That spells bad news for the 2012 election, and that's before people start to consider that the promise of being loved by the world (based on the lie it was all Bush's fault) isn't happening, and the ideology of this administration is putting us at odds with the rest of the world that is finally realizing unrestrained spending/socialistic practices aren't viable, while we charge in that direction.

    Additionally, it will be difficult (although the "inherited" mantra shows no sign of abating) for Obama to ride the Blame game like he did so successfully in 2008. The same people who bought into a lot of that nonsense will turn on him--blaming him in the same way he was able to blame Republicans in the past. I guess his best hope is that the Republicans take over Congress, so he can say "see, they blocked us from Progress." I'm not sure what Obama would do without depending on blaming someone else, because "hope and change" as meaningless as it was won't likely cut it again. We've lived through that fraud (transparency, bipartisanship, etc)

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #424  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have always assumed Biden was picked because of his long history in the congress, with the thought that he could lobby legislation, and because of his "foreign relations" as you said, which I think was a smokescreen. One can't help but wonder what would have happened had Hilary been VP all this time. Wouldn't work personality wise as Obama is too controlled, so Hillary would outshine him, but I just wonder from the policy standpoint if she would have added or taken away.
    Well, I think Rahm is the point man on Lobbying.

    I'm not sure what would have happened with Hilary as VP, but I don't think she would have liked it, because effectively, being the Secretary of State is a more powerful position. I think effectively, in many cases, she is essentially the President in terms of foreign policy (moreso at the beginning). She's seemed to be relatively low profile lately, and I don't think that's an accident either.

    Technically, she can have as much policy input as if she were the VP (Because neither has any power outside of what the President allows), and I'm guessing she does have a lot of influence in terms of foreign policy, because I think President Obama has limited interest/experience in this arena compared to his Domestic interests.

    KAM
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #425  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The half-governor of Alaska? She may remain on a par until she actually is asked to respond to a question or take a stand or demonstrate some knowledge of anything.

    As an example.....Sarah Palin ***** - Keith Olbermann - nukes | Mediaite
    Every minute of that half-governorship represents one more minute of actual executive experience that Obama did not have when he was elected. One could argue that she still has more experience.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #426  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Personally, I think it's just as wrong to say she's an ***** as it is to say she's Presidential material. Furthermore, whatever respect I still had for her after less than stellar public performances was lost when she didn't finish out her term. I have a dream that by 2011 there will be a Republican candidate I can feel good about supporting. Currently, the winds aren't blowing favorably for me.
    Actually, I give her great credit for evaluating the situation, and doing what was best for her constituents - at personal loss. You don't think she knew she'd take a hit for leaving early? It was a gutsy move, the right move, and I think she was forced to make it.

    She's hardly a quitter.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. #427  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Actually, I give her great credit for evaluating the situation, and doing what was best for her constituents - at personal loss. You don't think she knew she'd take a hit for leaving early? It was a gutsy move, the right move, and I think she was forced to make it.

    She's hardly a quitter.

    Right. That is one of the most absurd statements you've made. Doing what was best for her constituents was to quit? Although you're probably right, because she is a moron who lacks any ability to govern. She knows no policy, she lacks any serious education (I figure she's pretty close to Green, the democratic senate nominee from SC), she was great as a weather girl and point guard, but even W has a better education than her, and at least attempted to articulate his positions instead of just spouting catch phrases and talking points. She represents the absolute worst in American politics, someone who can demonstrate the Peter Principle every day of her life. Mother Grizzly indeed. She would make W look like George Washington. She is nothing more than Katie Couric demonstrated her to be...an *****. She dramatically needs to go back and watch Russia carefully from her porch. It's the best place for her. And make no mistake...she is a quitter.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #428  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Right. That is one of the most absurd statements you've made. Doing what was best for her constituents was to quit? Although you're probably right, because she is a moron who lacks any ability to govern. She knows no policy, she lacks any serious education (I figure she's pretty close to Green, the democratic senate nominee from SC), she was great as a weather girl and point guard, but even W has a better education than her, and at least attempted to articulate his positions instead of just spouting catch phrases and talking points. She represents the absolute worst in American politics, someone who can demonstrate the Peter Principle every day of her life. Mother Grizzly indeed. She would make W look like George Washington. She is nothing more than Katie Couric demonstrated her to be...an *****. She dramatically needs to go back and watch Russia carefully from her porch. It's the best place for her. And make no mistake...she is a quitter.
    So, which is it? Is she just such a horrible politician (the worst according to you), so she did right by resigning as governor, or did she harm them by resigning? You've got to choose one.

    Again, I find it interesting and confusing that someone like Sarah Palin can get you all riled up by spouting catch phrases and talking points, given that you seem to support Mr. "Hope and Change" (which in case you hadn't noticed is a catch-phrase--an empty useless one in fact). Talking points...yeah, that's politics. If you took a moment to notice, the President adheres very closely to his talking points--which is why they ran such a successful campaign. Get him off message, and it isn't exactly brilliance that comes spilling out of his mouth.

    Obama IS the Democrat equivalent of Palin. The guy was essentially a no-accomplishment Senator, and before that a State Senator (who voted Present quite a lot), and who's biggest achievement in life is self promotion (which he is EXCELLENT at).

    We've put a spokesmodel into the Presidency as is, so its six of one half dozen of the other as I see it. Neither are paragons of accomplishment. They are 21st Century politicians. God help us.

    KAM
  9. #429  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, which is it? Is she just such a horrible politician (the worst according to you), so she did right by resigning as governor, or did she harm them by resigning? You've got to choose one.

    Again, I find it interesting and confusing that someone like Sarah Palin can get you all riled up by spouting catch phrases and talking points, given that you seem to support Mr. "Hope and Change" (which in case you hadn't noticed is a catch-phrase--an empty useless one in fact). Talking points...yeah, that's politics. If you took a moment to notice, the President adheres very closely to his talking points--which is why they ran such a successful campaign. Get him off message, and it isn't exactly brilliance that comes spilling out of his mouth.

    Obama IS the Democrat equivalent of Palin. The guy was essentially a no-accomplishment Senator, and before that a State Senator (who voted Present quite a lot), and who's biggest achievement in life is self promotion (which he is EXCELLENT at).

    We've put a spokesmodel into the Presidency as is, so its six of one half dozen of the other as I see it. Neither are paragons of accomplishment. They are 21st Century politicians. God help us.

    KAM
    Not quite. One went to four colleges in five years and was donated a degree from Idaho. After working as a weather girl, she served as the mayor of Bucksnot, AK, which naturally prepared her for the governor's office in that bizarre state (think Ted Stephens). The other went to Columbia and Harvard Law where he was president of the law review, and was elected to the US Senate. It appears that the quality and quantity of education makes no difference whatsoever to you, but it does to me. I would be much more tolerant of an intelligent right-wing idealogue (like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for example) than a platitude-spouting know-nothing anti-intellectual like Palin. Comparing her to Obama just demonstrates your priorities...and intelligence isn't one of them.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #430  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not quite. One went to four colleges in five years and was donated a degree from Idaho. After working as a weather girl, she served as the mayor of Bucksnot, AK, which naturally prepared her for the governor's office in that bizarre state (think Ted Stephens). The other went to Columbia and Harvard Law where he was president of the law review, and was elected to the US Senate. It appears that the quality and quantity of education makes no difference whatsoever to you, but it does to me. I would be much more tolerant of an intelligent right-wing idealogue (like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for example) than a platitude-spouting know-nothing anti-intellectual like Palin. Comparing her to Obama just demonstrates your priorities...and intelligence isn't one of them.
    I've known people in my life time with doctorates that I wouldn't trust to govern their desktop, much less a state. Palin had very high approvals in her state before the left wing media machine took her on. All that's been proven since she's hit the spotlight is that the media is a viscious and unfair as one would ever guess that they could be.

    But I understand where you're coming from, david. It's your belief that the rest of us should be ruled by those smarter and with high academic achievement. I personally like the people to be in the drivers seat, and academic achievement has nothing to do with ones cap/ability to govern.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #431  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Not quite. One went to four colleges in five years and was donated a degree from Idaho. After working as a weather girl, she served as the mayor of Bucksnot, AK, which naturally prepared her for the governor's office in that bizarre state (think Ted Stephens). The other went to Columbia and Harvard Law where he was president of the law review, and was elected to the US Senate. It appears that the quality and quantity of education makes no difference whatsoever to you, but it does to me. I would be much more tolerant of an intelligent right-wing idealogue (like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, for example) than a platitude-spouting know-nothing anti-intellectual like Palin. Comparing her to Obama just demonstrates your priorities...and intelligence isn't one of them.
    Well, you're right--I don't place much value in educational degrees as a measure of intelligence, because we have a lot of highly educated morons in this world. George Bush who you call and ***** (if not literally, that seems to be your general opinion), graduated from Yale with an MBA from Harvard.

    So, to review--Obama's brilliant because he has a degree from Harvard, while George Bush is a moron. It seems you are inconsistent in what a degree means in regards to intelligence.

    Academia is in large part a cesspool filled with people who couldn't make it in the real world, and create systems that make themselves feel and appear important, while draining working people of their hard earned money. That's another subject however.

    BTW--I'm a college graduate, so it isn't at all a question of sour grapes, so I'll save you the time there.

    I'll not defend Sarah Palin as any sort of brain trust, because she isn't, but if you actually read my post (and ones before it) I gave President Obama credit for being reasonably intelligent. I have zero reason to believe he is exceptionally intelligent however. Also--I wasn't attempting to compare the IQ of Palin and Obama. I was responding to the various accusations and insults you threw around, by pointing out that President Obama has little in terms of accomplishment, and in fact regularly uses talking points, and heavily relied on meaningless slogans--things you see fit to rail against on one hand, but happily accept on the other.

    You took some shots at Alaska as well, which I don't know that much about, but given that President Obama comes from Illinois--possibly the worst cesspool in politics, that is again pretty humorous. I know people (perhaps you) like to fantasize about President Obama as if he's some different kind of politician (buying exactly what the campaign sold), but he of course isn't. He's a typical Chicago thug politician--he's just got a really nice veneer.

    I'm really not sure, but recent events have made me believe that Obama really is an empty suit for the most part, and the spokesman for his gang of group-thinking ideologues, so I don't want to give him too much credit.

    I'm afraid he isn't much of a leader, and that should come as no surprise, given his background, and lack of achievement...excepting as I said in personal promotion.

    I greatly value intelligence, but I don't have the slavish devotion to government officials that some others seem to demonstrate, and realize it is a rare care when any politician is exceptional in that area.

    KAM
  12. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #432  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I've known people in my life time with doctorates that I wouldn't trust to govern their desktop, much less a state. Palin had very high approvals in her state before the left wing media machine took her on. All that's been proven since she's hit the spotlight is that the media is a viscious and unfair as one would ever guess that they could be.

    But I understand where you're coming from, david. It's your belief that the rest of us should be ruled by those smarter and with high academic achievement. I personally like the people to be in the drivers seat, and academic achievement has nothing to do with ones cap/ability to govern.
    Very, very true. Unfortunately, many people can't understand the difference between education and intelligence, which is probably why we're so screwed up.

    KAM
  13. #433  
    Let me just summarize a few things. First, I have never called W a moron. His lunacy came from his dogged determination to never be proven to have made a mistake, and his inability to differentiate what the country needed from what Cheney and Rove and the neocons wanted. They were never the same. And certainly not everyone with a higher degree makes a good leader. But when faced with the option of having a leader with an excellent educational background and having a leader with no discernable knowledge about anything (to quote John McCain's post-campaign description of her, and for some reason I would believe them more than either of you), I'll take the smart one every time. He has not turned out to have the dramatic in your face kind of leadership I hoped he would demonstrate, but he is a considerably better president than his predecessor, and given what he has accomplished, his place in history is already secure....and I suspect you actually know that, you just won't admit it. He has passed imperfect but landmark legislation that noone thought could be done. I'm hoping he takes on immigration reform, because I believe he has the cojones to do it...and not turn pull a Crazy Ivan like McCain, who is characteristic of the republican persona...no conviction that can't be changed when the wind blows. Whether its McCain, or Romney, or those other republicans that sponsored bills and then refused to support them because Obama did as well, the republican party has shown its true colors. Not only that, but don't think the country isn't aware....with a 23% rating by the public, in support of the republican ability to fix the economy. Obama will do just fine, because he has no specific opponent at this point. That's when it will get interesting. Right now, it's all about anger, and not choice.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #434  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Let me just summarize a few things. First, I have never called W a moron. His lunacy came from his dogged determination to never be proven to have made a mistake, and his inability to differentiate what the country needed from what Cheney and Rove and the neocons wanted. They were never the same. And certainly not everyone with a higher degree makes a good leader. But when faced with the option of having a leader with an excellent educational background and having a leader with no discernable knowledge about anything (to quote John McCain's post-campaign description of her, and for some reason I would believe them more than either of you), I'll take the smart one every time.
    That was based on a "unnamed source" after McCain's campaign unraveled. Ever hear of sour grapes? The blame game, perhaps?

    I believe my eyes and ears, david. And I promise you, I'm won't try to persuade you of anything or asking you to believe me in any way. I know that will never happen. Just voicing my uneducated 2 cents.
    He has not turned out to have the dramatic in your face kind of leadership I hoped he would demonstrate, but he is a considerably better president than his predecessor, and given what he has accomplished, his place in history is already secure....and I suspect you actually know that, you just won't admit it.
    Oh I admit it. The damage he's already done will be felt for generations. I can't wait to find out what else he has in store.

    See.... unlike Obama's followers, I wasn't wanting to fundamentally change the very foundation of this country. I'm all for improving on issues and failures, but this guy is literally restructuring our very foundation. He's destroying what was something that some other 'pretty smart' individuals had put together.
    He has passed imperfect but landmark legislation that noone thought could be done. I'm hoping he takes on immigration reform, because I believe he has the cojones to do it...and not turn pull a Crazy Ivan like McCain, who is characteristic of the republican persona...
    McCain is not, and never has, shown characteristics of the conservative republican persona. Oh, except when it gets close to an election.
    no conviction that can't be changed when the wind blows.
    At least we're in agreement here.
    Whether its McCain, or Romney, or those other republicans that sponsored bills and then refused to support them because Obama did as well, the republican party has shown its true colors.
    I agree that many in the Republican party needs to be voted out. It's definitely high time for some house cleaning. All of this doesn't change the fact that Obama's policies are destroying the economy, jobs, rights and freedoms, and security of this nation.
    Not only that, but don't think the country isn't aware....with a 23% rating by the public, in support of the republican ability to fix the economy. Obama will do just fine, because he has no specific opponent at this point. That's when it will get interesting. Right now, it's all about anger, and not choice.
    What you fail to realize is that those not supporting the republican's ability to fix the economy (I don't know where you got that figure, but I'll play along), does not necessarily translate to votes for democrats. In fact, all incumbants are at risk. You know this, because I know how smart you are.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. #435  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Oh I admit it. The damage he's already done will be felt for generations. I can't wait to find out what else he has in store.

    See.... unlike Obama's followers, I wasn't wanting to fundamentally change the very foundation of this country. I'm all for improving on issues and failures, but this guy is literally restructuring our very foundation. He's destroying what was something that some other 'pretty smart' individuals had put together.


    I agree that many in the Republican party needs to be voted out. It's definitely high time for some house cleaning. All of this doesn't change the fact that Obama's policies are destroying the economy, jobs, rights and freedoms, and security of this nation.

    What you fail to realize is that those not supporting the republican's ability to fix the economy (I don't know where you got that figure, but I'll play along), does not necessarily translate to votes for democrats. In fact, all incumbants are at risk. You know this, because I know how smart you are.
    PUSHBACK – There is pushback for Obama and his party. Dissatisfaction with the federal government, while still high, has eased slightly. The Democrats actually retain an advantage in trust over the Republicans to handle the economy, 42-34 percent, although a record 17 percent volunteer that they don't trust either party to fix the problem. And a mere 26 percent express confidence in the Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country's future, trailing the Democrats (32 percent) and Obama (43 percent, a new low) alike.
    Lack of confidence in the Republicans, plus their stubbornly low allegiance numbers since the Bush presidency went bad, indicate that they're not benefiting from affirmative support for their own plans, but rather from dissatisfaction with Obama and the Democratic-led Congress.
    That's a weaker hand to play, and it's one reason that high-level enthusiasm among intended Republican voters is essentially no better than it is among intended Democratic voters. Thirty percent of those who plan to vote for a Republican candidate say they're "very enthusiastic" about it, but so are 28 percent of those who plan to support a Democrat. Compare those to "very enthusiastic" support among Obama's voters in 2008 – 68 percent.
    Sorry...it was 26% not 23%, from the recent ABC poll that was so "harmful" to Obama. ABC News Poll: Confidence in President Obama Drops, GOP Congress Gains Support - ABC News And it was in making decisions to fix the problems of the country, not just the economy, although they trail there as well.

    I am amazed and disappointed at your perception that Obama is "changing the very foundation of the country". That is, unfortunately, laughable hyperbole. You are smarter than that. If anything, he has not done enough to change the parts that need to be changed. His health care bill has essentially provided a windfall for private insurers. His loans to corporations are being paid back. The government is not running anything. The tax rate is as low as any other recent president and considerably lower than most. His Wall Street Reform bill did not go far enough to restrict the gambling banks. All of these things would have been "better" in my opinion, if not for the obstructionist republicans. Please, by all means, give some examples of how this administration is "destroying the economy, jobs, rights and freedoms, and security of this nation." And while you're doing that, consider what effects the previous administration had on these same aspects of American life. "Restructuring our very foundation"? GMAFB.
    Last edited by davidra; 07/16/2010 at 05:00 PM.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #436  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Sorry...it was 26% not 23%, from the recent ABC poll that was so "harmful" to Obama. ABC News Poll: Confidence in President Obama Drops, GOP Congress Gains Support - ABC News

    I am amazed and disappointed at your perception that Obama is "changing the very foundation of the country". That is, unfortunately, laughable hyperbole. You are smarter than that. If anything, he has not done enough to change the parts that need to be changed. His health care bill has essentially provided a windfall for private insurers.
    Hrm.... I'd like more info on that please. And you're sure that was his intent? I must have missed something.
    His loans to corporations are being paid back.
    They should never have been made in the first place, which was my argument all along. And yes, I know Bush started it.
    The government is not running anything.
    Really? Perhaps you should ask the folks on Wall Street. And BP being forced to belly up 20B based on a meeting. That was extortion. I'm not saying that the money wasn't justified, but there's process for this in the court systems. You don't just go in and take without due process.
    The tax rate is as low as any other recent president and considerably lower than most. His Wall Street Reform bill did not go far enough to restrict the gambling banks.
    The gambling banks.... the ones that were set up by Barney Frank? Those banks? Talk about being smarter than that, the government set that whole catastrophy in motion. Remember "everyone should be able to afford their own home in America"? Ring a bell?
    All of these things would have been "better" in my opinion, if not for the obstructionist republicans.
    You mean the ones that have no control over the senate or the house or the white house? Those obstructionists? David, the obstructionism came only from within the Democratic party.... and they were just holding out for sweetheart deals. Please don't make me go fish up some glaring examples. That's too easy.
    Please, by all means, give some examples of how this administration is "destroying the economy, jobs, rights and freedoms, and security of this nation." And while you're doing that, consider what effects the previous administration had on these same aspects of American life. "Restructuring our very foundation"? GMAFB.
    Ok, I will when you show me that the government was set up to control manufacturing, financial markets, banking, and healthcare.

    This guy is doing everything and anything that's important, wrong.

    Oh wait. He's left Gitmo (so far), and he upped the ante in Afghanistan (9 months late, and broadcasting pull out dates is just bad practice, but I'll give him credit anyways).
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #437  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    They should never have been made in the first place, which was my argument all along. And yes, I know Bush started it.

    Really? Perhaps you should ask the folks on Wall Street. And BP being forced to belly up 20B based on a meeting. That was extortion. I'm not saying that the money wasn't justified, but there's process for this in the court systems. You don't just go in and take without due process.

    The gambling banks.... the ones that were set up by Barney Frank? Those banks? Talk about being smarter than that, the government set that whole catastrophy in motion. Remember "everyone should be able to afford their own home in America"? Ring a bell?


    Ok, I will when you show me that the government was set up to control manufacturing, financial markets, banking, and healthcare.
    With the one exception of the $20B fund for those damaged by BP, every single item you mentioned was in place prior to Obama taking office. So where is the "fundamental change" you are talking about that is his doing? Given that it has taken twenty years for Exxon to pay back those who were damaged in Alaska, that fund sounds like a really smart idea to me. Hardly changing the foundation of the country. Hyperbole, exaggeration, and just plain inaccuracy is what I see in your accusations.
  18. #438  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Hrm.... I'd like more info on that please. And you're sure that was his intent? I must have missed something.

    They should never have been made in the first place, which was my argument all along. And yes, I know Bush started it.

    Really? Perhaps you should ask the folks on Wall Street. And BP being forced to belly up 20B based on a meeting. That was extortion. I'm not saying that the money wasn't justified, but there's process for this in the court systems. You don't just go in and take without due process.

    The gambling banks.... the ones that were set up by Barney Frank? Those banks? Talk about being smarter than that, the government set that whole catastrophy in motion. Remember "everyone should be able to afford their own home in America"? Ring a bell?

    You mean the ones that have no control over the senate or the house or the white house? Those obstructionists? David, the obstructionism came only from within the Democratic party.... and they were just holding out for sweetheart deals. Please don't make me go fish up some glaring examples. That's too easy.

    Ok, I will when you show me that the government was set up to control manufacturing, financial markets, banking, and healthcare.

    This guy is doing everything and anything that's important, wrong.

    Oh wait. He's left Gitmo (so far), and he upped the ante in Afghanistan (9 months late, and broadcasting pull out dates is just bad practice, but I'll give him credit anyways).
    The government and banks never forced anyone to enter into mortgages they couldn't afford. Sometime people need to be responsible for their own choices.
  19. #439  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I've known people in my life time with doctorates that I wouldn't trust to govern their desktop...
    Funny, sitting here at my desk reading through this thread. If I look up and behind me I see my PhD hanging on the wall. If I turn back around and look down I see a disorganized swirl of half-finished work, a half-eaten granola bar, unread manuscrips, and of course a medium thick layer of dust covering things 6 inches away from my keyboard that haven't been touched in months.

    Micael, you are wise.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #440  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Funny, sitting here at my desk reading through this thread. If I look up and behind me I see my PhD hanging on the wall. If I turn back around and look down I see a disorganized swirl of half-finished work, a half-eaten granola bar, unread manuscrips, and of course a medium thick layer of dust covering things 6 inches away from my keyboard that haven't been touched in months.

    Micael, you are wise.
    Maybe, but uneducated.

    Does that mean you've decided not to run for office?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions