The right question is finally asked.....

Damocles said:
lol. I think you both are desperate to avoid speaking poorly of an "ally".. As I said I'm good with that. You, however, I refuse to comply with your insistence I think less of you.

;)
Click to expand...


So Shitpile got the best of you Damo.....and I missed the whole thing......
I'm gonna have to watch more closely....I've never seen he get the best of anyone in a debate.....but he does pile up more crap(shitpile) in a single post than
Huffington can in an entire article.....
I guess the left thinks that qualifies as debating.......:)

At least hes usually civil and stays on topic, unlike the others.....
 
Darla said:
By the majority of the bush tax cuts you are referring to the middle class cuts. I think you're wrong. If I am not mistaken polls have consistently shown that the majority are willing to go back to Clinton-era taxation in order to protect SS and Medicare.
Click to expand...

It is certainly possible that a majority would go back entirely. I have not seen a poll that suggests that though. That said, SS doesn't need it to survive. Though it does need to see an end to the SS tax break so foolishly put into place. Medicare is not going to be solved by the return to Clinton era rates. Not even close. We must address the rising cost structure within health care. No amount of shifting tax rates is going to change that. It is far too underfunded right now to be sustainable unless we get the costs under control and get the waste out of the system. Obama care is not going to do that.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And you've never played "purposefully obtuse"?

I know you'd get the same evasive responses from me if you responded to me with the same snarky taunts...

If you think his numbers are wrong then go find them and PROVE he's wrong instead of just resorting to the same old derogatory taunts...
Click to expand...

That is the point. Asking others to go find what it is you are talking about is ridiculous. HE already knows exactly where it is at. He knows what website and data set he is using.

Try googling it.... you get millions of hits. You honestly think people should have to sort through and keep coming here with 'is this the one you are talking about'?
 
Superfreak said:
That is the point. Asking others to go find what it is you are talking about is ridiculous. HE already knows exactly where it is at. He knows what website and data set he is using.

Try googling it.... you get millions of hits. You honestly think people should have to sort through and keep coming here with 'is this the one you are talking about'?
Click to expand...

And MY point is you shouldn't act all butthurt and start whining about posters being uncooperative when you talk done to someone in one breath and then demand they reveal their sources to you with your next.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And MY point is you shouldn't act all butthurt and start whining about posters being uncooperative when you talk done to someone in one breath and then demand they reveal their sources to you with your next.
Click to expand...

The only one 'butthurt' here is you. You are the one whining and crying about what is happening in the conversation between Dung and I. Dung is a big boy, he can handle it. If you choose to keep your panties in a bunch about it... well, that is your choice.
 
Superfreak said:
As for top thinking you are black... that is probably because he was on the board when you said you were (this was years ago). I thought for a long time you were as well because of it.

As for SS... it is stupid to cut benefits. There is no need to do so.
Click to expand...

I've seen her picture and she is as white as can be.
 
Darla said:
It's a good thing you raced along to tell him. Sf would have been wondering otherwise.

You have no idea just how stupid you look. You are a stupid, old, dumb, f*ck. But this post gave me a good laugh, so thanks for that gramps.
Click to expand...

And yet you found it necessary to respond to it.
Are you going to tilt your head back and expose your throat, when the terrorists come?
Now, that was a laugh.
 
Damocles said:
I agree, we'll just point out how they wouldn't compromise and therefore their favorite social program will be "cut"...

Reality: the cuts aren't going to happen.

And yeah, I remember Bush. He almost never held press conferences. Today we have a President that runs around the nation promoting his "plan" of "spend still more and it will fix it this time" constantly on TV pressing for what he wants, except when he thinks he can "use" it during an election year. If he thinks he can do that he sits on his hands hoping that the "compromise" won't happen so he can "use" it...

You're trying to rewrite history, even current history. Seriously, he just went on a trip where he was making a speech every frickin' day promoting his plans and telling people to push their Congress to act like he wants them to act. Telling people that republicans want dirty water (yeah, he literally used those words), dirty air... :rolleyes:

He spent two years doing nothing about jobs and suddenly has an epiphany that they're kind of important right in time for an election and you think we'll be unable to point that out?

It's like you think we'll be unable to constantly bring up what the man actually says in a commercial... We have plenty of footage. This President has never seen a camera he didn't try to smooch...
Click to expand...

Obama may be running around the nation but I'm sure he doesn't take up the same amount of TV time Bush did. Obama's entire speeches are not broadcast. It's not a continual "address the nation" type speeches. Of course, Bush, with all his war talk was more like a commercial for the weapons manufacturers.

As for, "Reality: the cuts aren't going to happen", I agree. What type of logic is used to advocate cuts to the poor when times are tough? It's like advocating closing hospitals when there's a major epidemic going on.

The Repubs can bring up any commercial they want. All Obama has to do is state the facts. Just like medical insurance companies trying to cut off people when they get sick the Repubs want to annul ObamaCare when more people have lost jobs along with their medical coverage. Just when the economy is tough and people need access to government programs the Repubs want to pull the rug out from under them.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is a great example of the complete nonsense coming from the left. You think Bush was constantly giving speeches and that Obama is 'not that type'???? That has to be the single dumbest thing this side of 1/3.

Obama absolutely requires the admiration of the masses. He most certainly does NOT want them focusing on what he actually DOES (more like DOESN'T DO).... He is non-stop campaigning. I would venture that he has had far more appearances/speeches/TV time than Bush at the same point in Bush's Presidency. Hell, I bet Obama is close to the total number of speeches in Bush's entire 8 years.

you see Obama as 'above the fray' despite the fact that all he does is run around the country giving speeches about how Republicans are to blame for everything?
Click to expand...

As I replied to Damocles Obama's speeches are not "address the nation" type speeches. They're local speeches and TV stations can cover pertinent parts, not broadcast the entire speech.
 
Superfreak said:
The above is a great example of the complete nonsense coming from the left. You think Bush was constantly giving speeches and that Obama is 'not that type'???? That has to be the single dumbest thing this side of 1/3.

Obama absolutely requires the admiration of the masses. He most certainly does NOT want them focusing on what he actually DOES (more like DOESN'T DO).... He is non-stop campaigning. I would venture that he has had far more appearances/speeches/TV time than Bush at the same point in Bush's Presidency. Hell, I bet Obama is close to the total number of speeches in Bush's entire 8 years.

you see Obama as 'above the fray' despite the fact that all he does is run around the country giving speeches about how Republicans are to blame for everything?
Click to expand...

As I noted to Damocles Obama's "speeches" are local. They're not the "address the nation" type speeches. TV stations are able to cover pertinent parts or nothing at all.
 
Damocles said:
So, you are saying that as current leader of his party and as the person who will sign or veto he should never participate in any form of government other than signing/vetoing bills and policing? His input is unnecessary, especially as a leader? That he was right out trying to pass guide and promote a Health Care bill that nobody wants? Is that what you are saying or are you just asking random questions that have no meaning to the discussion?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say the legislative and executive branches are not seperate?
 
Superfreak said:
Good Presidents do delegate. But they don't run away. Again, when the Budget debates got tough... did Clinton just sit on his hands? No, he did not.

When Tip's House was at an impasse with the Senate, did Reagan just sit on the sidelines? No, he brought Tip in and the two hammered out the differences.

You proclaim that we would criticize him no matter what. That is pathetic on your part. He was criticized the last time for inserting himself AFTER a deal had been reached. Inserting himself when the two parties are at an impasse is HIS FUCKING JOB. TO LEAD.
Click to expand...

And he did lead with ObamaCare. :) And if he gets a majority next November you'll see lots of leadership. More than you'll ever want to see.

What is the point of him getting involved in the talks when the Repubs entering the talks have stated they will not raise taxes. They won't cooperate so what's the use? It was the same thing with ObamaCare.

Look at all the nonsense Obama had to go through to get the debt ceiling raised. He even had weekend meetings at the White House. It's insane! He can put his time to better use talking directly with the people, in small groups. That way the people can hear it directly from him without the Repub spin and distortions.
 
apple0154 said:
Obama may be running around the nation but I'm sure he doesn't take up the same amount of TV time Bush did. Obama's entire speeches are not broadcast. It's not a continual "address the nation" type speeches. Of course, Bush, with all his war talk was more like a commercial for the weapons manufacturers.

As for, "Reality: the cuts aren't going to happen", I agree. What type of logic is used to advocate cuts to the poor when times are tough? It's like advocating closing hospitals when there's a major epidemic going on.

The Repubs can bring up any commercial they want. All Obama has to do is state the facts. Just like medical insurance companies trying to cut off people when they get sick the Repubs want to annul ObamaCare when more people have lost jobs along with their medical coverage. Just when the economy is tough and people need access to government programs the Repubs want to pull the rug out from under them.
Click to expand...

The facts will work against him, and are. There is a reason his numbers continue to drop, and it isn't because the facts are helping him. His plan failed, and all he offers is more of the same plan. Remember that the stimulus 1 was supposed to have us at 6% unemployment now? I do. And others will as well, it isn't hiding, we have tons of footage.

And again, Bush was less often on TV than any modern president that I have ever seen. He avoided making speeches, he wasn't very good at them. This one isn't like that, I'd bet he's seen more TV time than even Clinton did in his first four years.
 
Damocles said:
The facts will work against him, and are. There is a reason his numbers continue to drop, and it isn't because the facts are helping him. His plan failed, and all he offers is more of the same plan. Remember that the stimulus 1 was supposed to have us at 6% unemployment now? I do. And others will as well, it isn't hiding, we have tons of footage.

And again, Bush was less often on TV than any modern president that I have ever seen. He avoided making speeches, he wasn't very good at them. This one isn't like that, I'd bet he's seen more TV time than even Clinton did in his first four years.
Click to expand...

The stimulus was too small and to slowly applied. It is no that it didn't work, it didn't work well enough. Therefore further such actions would be desirable.
 
Return of Dune said:
The stimulus was too small and to slowly applied. It is no that it didn't work, it didn't work well enough. Therefore further such actions would be desirable.
Click to expand...

The bulk of both were for stop gap measures, little goes towards long term solutions. This bill will go toward an extension of the SS tax break, extension of unemployment bene's, teachers unions and other public unions. All of which will simply need MORE funding in 2013. Because NONE of them do ANYTHING to stimulate job growth. Anyone with even the tiniest of bits of common sense can see that there are no long term solutions in the bulk of that bill.
 
Superfreak said:
The bulk of both were for stop gap measures, little goes towards long term solutions. This bill will go toward an extension of the SS tax break, extension of unemployment bene's, teachers unions and other public unions. All of which will simply need MORE funding in 2013. Because NONE of them do ANYTHING to stimulate job growth. Anyone with even the tiniest of bits of common sense can see that there are no long term solutions in the bulk of that bill.
Click to expand...


We have short-term problems. That's why the proposed solutions are short-term solutions. Republicans don't want any solutions. They prefer a shitty economy. Christ, when's the last time the Republicans voted against a fucking tax cut.
 
Dungheap said:
We have short-term problems. That's why the proposed solutions are short-term solutions. Republicans don't want any solutions. They prefer a shitty economy. Christ, when's the last time the Republicans voted against a fucking tax cut.
Click to expand...

LMAO... we have LONG term problems you dolt. In early 2009, part of that stimulus HAD to go to short term stop gaps to calm the markets and to give us time to focus on the long term problem. Then our glorious leaders decided to go off and play with health care rather than focusing on the economy.

As for the tax cut, I assume you are referring to the extension of the SS tax cut. Tell us, what does that do other than maintain the status quo? It does nothing to stimulate job growth. At best it maintains. But in 2013 we would once again be in the exact same spot of having to spend more on the exact same thing to yet again push the problems into the future. Nothing quite like making the problems someone else's problems right? Just keep pushing it into the future until it blows up (hopefully on someone else's watch). Seems to be the exact same strategy being implemented in Europe. Every other week we bounce from 'problem solved' to 'oh shit, we still have a major problem' all because they keep trying the SAME fucking stupid ass short term fix and expecting it to magically become a long term solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top